U.S.-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

Sl!BCO:\DIIT'l'EE OX XATIVE ... 1...\IERIC...-L\ & IXSrLAR 

AFPAIRS 

OF THE 

COlVIlVIITTEE 0~ RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESEKTATfVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 3024 

TO PROVIDE A PROCESS LEADING TO FULL SELF-GOVERNMENT 

FOR PUERTO RICO 

24- 926 cc 

MARCH 23, 1996- SAN JUAN, PI 

Serial No. 104-87 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMEKT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Of'f'icc 

Supcrintenc.ienl o f Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Wash ington. DC 20402 

ISB N 0 -1 6-0535 13-1 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGL Y, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, J R., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J .D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, J R. , North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washingtcn 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR. , Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR. , New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

DAN IEL VAL KISH, Chief of Staff 

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE A. KENNEDY, Chief Clerk /Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN & INSULAR AFFAIRS 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

WALTER B. JONES, JR. , North 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 

TI~ GLIDDE~. Counsel 

T.E. MANASE MANSUR, Professional Staff 

CHRISTOPHER 8TEAR~S, Democratic Counsel 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held March 23, 1996 ..... ...... .... ....... ......... ........ ..... .... ... ............. . . Text of H.R. 3024 ........................ ............................................................ . Statements of Members: Abercrombie, Hon. Neil, a U.S. Representative from Hawaii .................... .. Burton, Hon. Dan, a U.S. Representative from Indiana ............................ .. Kennedy, Hon. Patrick, a U.S. Representative from Rhode Island ............ .. Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, a U.S. Delegate from Puerto Rico ............... .. Roth, Hon. Toby, a U.S. Representative from Wisconsin .... .............. . Underwood, Hon. Robert, a U.S. Delegate from Guam ................ ............... .. Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska ........ .. ....................... . Statements of witnesses: Ahoy, Roberto Bus6, Bar Association of Puerto Rico ............................ ... ..... . Prepared statement ............. ........ ....... .. ............ ....... .................... .... ......... . Acevedo, President Hector Luis, Popular Democratic Party .......... .. .......... .. . Prepared statement .. ......... ........... ..... .. ... ............. .... ................. ................ . Brown, Chairman Herbert W., III, Citizens Educational Foundation ........ . Prepared statement .... ............................ .. .............................. .. ................ . De Rosario, Pilar Barbosa (prepared statement) ........... .. ........ ... .. .............. . .. Fas-Alzamora, Antonia J ., Esq . ....... ...... .. .... .. ................. .. .... ........................ .. Prepared statement ......... .. ..... .. .................. ........ ...................... ..... ........... . Ferre, Luis A., founder and representative of the New Progressive Party 

of Puerto Rico ............................................................................................... . Garcia-Passalacqua, Juan M., Presidente, Analsis Incorporado ................ .. Prepared statement ............... ......................... .... ...................... ............... . Loubriel, Wilson M.(prepared statement) .. .................... ................................ . Martinez, President Ruben Berrios, Puerto Rican Independence Party .... .. Prepared statement ........... .. .. ........... .... .... ............ ...... .. .......... ... .. .. ........... . Martinez, Noel Colon (prepared statement) .. ............................................... .. Ortiz, Angel Israel Rivera (prepared statement) ............ .. ........ ... ....... .......... . Ramirez de Ferrer, Dr. Miriam J. (prepared statement) ........ .... ................ .. Rossell6, Governor Pedro, from Puerto Rico ................................. .. ....... .... .... . Vega-Romos, Luis, President, PROELA ....................................... .. .............. .. Prepared statement ......................... ... .... .... ............... ......... ...... ................ . Additional material supplied: Bush, President George: Memorandum on the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, dated Nov. 30, 1992 ............................................. .. .... ........................ .. De Rosario, Pilar Barbosa: Letter dated March 24, 1996, to Don Young ... . Ferre, Luis A.: Letter dated March 12, 1996, to Han. Don Young ............. .. Ford, President Gerald R.: Letter dated Jan. 14, 1977, to Speaker of 

the House ........................................ ..... .. .... ........... ........ ....... ... ... .. ................ . Joint Letter from 32 signers, dated March 4, 1996, to Hon. Elton Galle~ly ..... .... ... ........................................ ....... ............... ... .... .. .. ....... ........ .... .. Rossello, Pedro: Letter dated March 13, 1996, to Hon. Elton Gallegly ...... .. Torres, Zaida Hernandez: Letter dated March 1, 1996, to Hon. Elton 

Gallegly ............... .... .... .......... ........... .. .......... .. ................... ...... .. .................... . Valentin, Manuel Roman: Letter dated Jan. 23, 1996, to Han. Don Young 

Vidal, Ramon E. Dapena: Letter dated Feb. 9, 1996, to Hon. Don Young .. Young, Don: 

Letter dated Feb. 29, 1996, to Mr. Roberto Rexach-Benitez and Ms. 

Hernandez-Torres .. ................... ......................................................... . Letter dated March 4, 1996, to Colleague ............. .... ........... .................. . Communications submitted: 

Congressional Record excerpt dated March 6, 1996, Vol. 142 No. 29 .. ....... . 

mn 

Page 

1 

87 

12 

9 

15 

6 

12 

14 

1 

78 

172 

32 

111 

76 

143 

202 

74 

139 

54 

64 

105 

207 

48 

115 

225 

212 

192 

17 

66 

124 

173 

183 

233 

246 

236 

235 

231 

238 

223 

174 

179 

180 
IV 

Page 

Communications submitted-Continued 

Houston Chronicle dated March 24, 1996-Sovereignty or statehood to 

Puerto Rico by 2010 . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 249 

Implementing the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act .............. 182 

New Your Times dated March 24, 1996-Hearing Weighs New Plebiscite on Puerto Rico . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . 248 
U.S.-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT 

SATURDAY, MARCH 23, 1996 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE 

AMERICAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., at Government Reception Center, Old San Juan, Puerto Rico, the Honorable Don Young [Chairman] presiding. 

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

Mr. YoUNG. It is my intention to keep our hearing on schedule. 

This is the first hearing in Puerto Rico on the Legislation H.R 3024 

United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. 

I will make an opening statement, and then I will recognize Mr. 

Romero-Barcelo, as your delegate, and then alternate between each 

member of the committee. 

I would like to thank the members for being here for this hearing, this historical moment, and the audience, which I hope will 

participate in the feeding of information. 

When I became chairman I made the decision to bring the United States Government to the people, and have hearings in the 

areas in which the people are affected. 

It is an honor to be here today in this internationally renowned 

city of San Juan-in the gorgeous weather-regarding an issue 

that has gone unresolved for many centuries: providing a process 

leading to full self government of Puerto Rico. [Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Let me thank our distinguished witnesses for their 

willingness to appear before the subcommittee today and share 

their differing views-and I mention that differing views regarding 

legislation now pending in the Congress, and the subject of this 

hearing, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act of H.R. 

3024. 

We received a large number of requests to testify from many sectors of Puerto Rico. Although the amount of time available for today's hearing has limited the number who will present their testimonies orally, all other requesters have been notified by letter that 

they may submit their written statements for the official hearing 

file . 

(1) 
2 

All of the testimonies submitted will be reviewed and considered 

as the bill moves through the legislative process. All of your input 

is valued and appreciated. 

I also want to thank the Legislature of Puerto Rico, and I am addressing all members of all parties for their cooperation with this 

hearing. I understand that some may not be in favor of the pending 

legislation, but again, I thank you for your cooperation. 

It is indeed appropriate for the second hearing of the 104th Congress on the issue of Puerto Rico's status be held near the Capital. 

It is the Legislature of Puerto Rico who called upon the 104th Congress to respond to the results of the 1993 status plebiscite and to 

indicate the next steps in the process to resolve Puerto Rico's status. 

We are here today fundamentally because of a very special document-a very special document-the Constitution of the United 

States. 

The United States is a constitutional democracy, which means 

the government of the people, based on the provisions of the Constitution. 

The roles of the Presidents, the courts, and the Congress are defined by the Constitution. 

Congress is given the responsibility for territories. According to 

Article IV, "The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and 

make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or 

other property belonging to the United States." 

In the Congress, it is the Committee on Resources of the House 

that has jurisdiction for those territories. In other words, the buck 

stops here. I know from experience that territorial issues can be 

difficult to resolve. 

When the Legislature of Puerto Rico enacted Concurrent Resolution 62, asking the 104th Congress to respond to the results of the 

1993 status plebiscite, and to indicate the next steps necessary for 

Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue, I realized we should base 

a legislative proposal on the proven successes of this century. 

If you'll look at the display behind me, there have been 10 areas 

under the sovereignty or control of the United States during the 

20th century which have attained permanent self government. Five of these became separate sovereigns, as either independent 

or freely associated States; and the other five territories became 

States of the Union. 

Full self government has generally been developed in three 

stages involving an initial decision, a transition period, and an implementation act. 

In the case of the Philippines, which also came under United 

States sovereignty with Puerto Rico under the Treaty of Paris, 

there was an initial decision in 1916 by the United States-in the 

Philippines to seek separate sovereignty. 

In 1934, Congress enacted a 10-year transition plan for the Commonwealth of the Philippines, which culminated with an independence act in 1946, from 1916 to 1946. 

The latest areas under United States Administration to gain self 

government are the free associated States of the Marshall Islands, 

Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia. 
3 

Although Puerto Rico experienced increased self government during the first half of the 20th century, these critical stages of development of full self government have yet to occur. It is clear that in order for Puerto Rico to advance toward full 

self government in an orderly manner, legislation must provide for 

these three stages, beginning with an initial decision of choices defined by Congress and approved by the people of Puerto Rico. 

I want to stress that. Being from Alaska we went through the 

same thing. Defined by Congress and approved by the people of 

Puerto Rico. 

The United States Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 3024, uses all three historical stages to provide a careful and slow process leading to full self-government. 

Let me explain this three stage process of the United StatesPuerto Rico Political Status Act. First, it helps to envision the process leading to full self government as a road map, with Puerto Rico as the car. Although Puerto Rico made remarkable progress in local self government by mid-century, with the direct election of Governor and 

the authorization and conditional approval by Congress of a local 

constitution, there has been no other significant advances in self 

government. Clearly Puerto Rico has eclipsed all other territories in the level 

of self government at that time . Only Puerto Rico elected their governor and operated under a local constitution. However, since that time, the other territories have either become fully self governing, or have also reached a similar level of 

self government. For over 40 years, Puerto Rico has been poised at 

the junction of different paths toward self government. On April 18, 1952, President Harry Truman responded to a letter 

of Governor Munoz regarding the recent adoption of the Constitu- tion of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico by stating, "I think we 

have made great strides. The adoption of the constitution that personally gives Puerto Rico the status of a State in the Union is a 

wonderful step in the right direction." 

That was President Truman. The initial decision stage of the legislation permits Puerto Rico 

to decide which path to follow toward self government-either separate sovereignty leading to independence, or free association, or 

United States sovereignty leading to statehood. 

The vote would be conducted by Puerto Rico before the end of 

1998. The President then would send Congress a Transition Plan 

for full self government based upon the outcome of the referendum. After Congress passes the Transition Plan, Puerto Rico would 

have another vote. If the Transition Plan is not approved in the 

second Transition Stage Referendum, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico would remain at the fork in the road as an unincorporated territory. 

However, if the Transition Plan is approved, Puerto Rico moves 

forward along the path toward self government in a 10-year transition. 

The final implementation of stage begins at least two years before the end of the transition period with the President sending 

Congress a proposed Implementation Act. 
4 

After Congress passes the Implementation Act, the third vote is 

held in Puerto Rico. If the Implementation Act is not approved, 

Puerto Rico remains under the United States sovereignty. However, if the Act is approved, Puerto Rico arrives at the end 

of the path and attains full, permanent, full self government, either 

through separate sovereignty of independence, or free association, 

or through the United States Sovereignty and Statehood. 

During this century, the number of years it has taken for areas 

under United States control to achieve full self government has 

varied greatly. And I want to stress that. If you look at that, this 

century has taken a lot of different time for different areas. 

Cuba became independent in three years, and Oklahoma became 

a State after 104 years. 

Under the timeframes set forth in the legislation for the development of full self government, including a 10-year transition, Puerto 

Rico can reach full self government in the year 2010, or after 118 

years of United States government control. The longest time for 

any territory. 

The territorial clause will no longer apply when Puerto Rico becomes a separate sovereign or a State. 

I believe full self government will be in the best interests of both 

the United States and Puerto Rico, whether as a separate sovereign, or as a State of the the Union. 

The people of Puerto Rico have a right to be fully enfranchised--

not defranchised-enfranchised, either on their own as a separate 

sovereign, or within the United States political system as a State. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony after the other Congressmen make their presentations. I am open to suggestions. I want to 

stress that. I am open to suggestion. This is a hearing process. 

I am open to suggestion to improve the bill, as long as it remains 

consistent with the overall objective to provide a process leading to 

full self government for Puerto Rico. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statements of Hon. Don Young and Hon. Elton 

Gallegly follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG 

Today, the introduction of the "United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act" 

will, for the first time in nearly a century of U.S. administration, provide a CongreS·· sionally recognized frame work for the inhabitant of Puerto Rico to freely express 

their wishes regarding the options for full self-government. 

I want to acknowledge the insightful leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich in 

working with the Committee to formulate a process to advance the U.S.-Puerto Rico 

relationship towards a conclusive one of full self-government. 

A number of Members have been supportive and instrumental in the development 

of the legislation, including Elton Gallegly, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Na - tive American and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources, Ben Gilman, Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and Dan Burton, Chairman 

of the subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere who co-chaired with Mr. Gallegly 

the October 17, 1995 joint hearing on the 1993 Puerto Rico status plebiscite. Then' 

also has been substantial input from Members on the other side of the aisle. 

This matter of tremendous importance to the United States and the nearly 4 mil .. lion U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico can only be resolved by adhering to constitutionally 

and internationally based principles and standards for full self-government. 

While many may misconstrue this legislation to be designed to benefit one local 

Puerto Rico political party over another, it is in fact a serious bipartisan effort to 

enact into law a pragmatic process with the long-term objective of resolving the 
5 

Puerto Rico dilemma. The legislation divides the process into three manageable 

stages which follow historical precedent set by the Congress in providing for final 

political statuses of territories and trust territories during this century. 

After 400 years of colonial rule by Spain ended in 1898, it should not have taken 

another 100 years of American administration of the U.S. Congress to define the options for full and permanent self-government. 

The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act permits full self-government 

to be realized in Puerto Rico in definitive steps, with a smooth transition to what- ever form of full self-government the people choose: Independence, separate sov- ereignty in free association with the United States, or Statehood. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELTOI:'< GALLEGLY, A U.S. REPRESBNTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA; 

AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to act to provide a process for full 

self-government for Puerto Rico Political Status Act will permit the United States 

and Puerto Rico to cooperatively advance down the path of full self-government se- lected by the people of Puerto Rico. 

Congress is providing the structure for attaining full self-government in Puerto 

Rico-consistent with Constitutionally and internationally based standards and 

principles, with definite time frames for action. By the year 2010, Puerto Rico could 

be a separate sovereign and member of the United Nations, or a state of the Union. 

Let me note that it is not only Puerto Rico self-determination which is involved. 

The United States also has a right to self-determination. That is why both the United States and Puerto Rico are included in the title of this bill both the United States 

Congress and the people of Puerto Rico are required to take their respective step 

in approving each stage in the process prescribed in the bill in order attain full selfgovernment. · This is a monumental undertaking, but one deserving of the energy and time re- quired. The co-sponsorship of this bill by Speaker Gingrich is indicative of the importance of this matter to this body. The people of Puerto Rico deserve nothing less 

than a clearly defined process leading to a full self-government relationship with the 

United States-whether that be without or within the sovereignty of the United 

States. Either choice is acceptable as status alternatives of full political dignity. 

Mr. YOUNG. Now I recognize the former governor, RomeroBarcelo, a good friend of mine that serves on the committee. Governor? 

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

And, Mr. Chairman, first I would like to offer here a statement 

by ranking minority member, Congressman George Miller, who has 

asked me to submit this for the record as his statement. 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of the Hon. George Miller follows:] 

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

CALIFORNIA 

Today's hearing by the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs 

marks another important step towards a goal we all share: the determination of a permanent political status for Puerto Rico. 

The decision of status must be made by the voters of Puerto Rico-clearly, decisively and credibly. Past efforts, including the plebiscite of 1993, did not yield the 

clear results that are needed to permit the Congress of the United States to consider 

the status question. Any new plebiscite must result in a decisive statement by a majority of Puerto 

Rico voters. And to be credible, that vote must be free of any taint of pressure of 

bias. In my view, H.R. 3024 as introduced will not pass that test, and would not 

produce a result that would be viewed credibly by the United States Congress, and 

properly so. H.R. 3024 plays games with the piE.ibiscite process by prohibiting voters from 

choosing an option-Commonwealth-that is not only a legitimate and longstanding 

political faction among voters, but also is the option selected by a plurality in the 

1993 plebiscite. The Commonwealth option, like the other options placed before the voters, must 

be realistic and unbiased. These options should state the legal and factual ramifica-
6 

tions of each status choice. And Puerto Rico voters should be able to make their decision without being forced to choose from what they may regard as the lesser of 

two evils. If this legislation is amended to present a fair and credible Commonwealth option, or other options that reflect the views of a significant portion of the electorate .. I 

will be pleased to support its passage. Otherwise, we will offer amendments to ensure that the Congress does not prejudge the voters of Puerto Rico by limiting their 

choices unfairly. I note with satisfaction editorials in the San Juan Star & El Nuevo 

Dia just this week endorsing this position which I proposed earlier this month. 

We all seek a decisive result from the next plebiscite, and I recognize that some 

who favor H.R. 3024 in its present from believe the limitation of choices is the or..ly 

way to produce a clear winner. In my view, the end simply does not justify the 

means because the provisions of H.R. 3024 taint the electoral process and, by so 

doing, taint the outcome itself. 

I personally endorse no particular long term status for Puerto Rico. That is very much a decision for the people of Puerto Rico themselves without pressure from the 

Congress. I am hopeful this legislation can and will be amended as I have rE•commended so that we-and especially the people of Puerto Rico-can move forward 

to resolve finally this hundred year old question of status. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, THE 

RESIDENT COMMISSIONER FROM PUERTO RICO 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to 

welcome you, Mr. Young, as chairman of this Resource Committee, 

to Puerto Rico. And welcome, Mr. Burton, our chairman of the 

Western Hemisphere subcommittee, and my fellow CommittE•e 

Members and good friends, Congressman Neil Abercrombie, Patrick 

Kennedy, and Bob Underwood, and the distinguished gentleman 

from Wisconsin, Toby Roth. Welcome to Puerto Rico, the Shining 

Star of the Caribbean. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to publicly thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for your interest in matters related to Puerto Rico, 

and for your commitment to achieve full self government, and to 

put an end to the disenfranchisement of the 3.7 million American 

citizens that reside on the Island. 

Furthermore, I want to thank the three newest cosponsors of this 

bill, Congressman Wayne Gilchrist, Richard Pombo, and Michael 

Forbes. 

Both Mr. Gilchrist and Mr. Pombo are very distinguished Members of this Committee, and their addition brings the total of the 

Resources Committee cosponsors to fourteen. And 41 members are 

so far cosponsoring this bill. 

Mr. Chairman, when you introduced the United States-Puerto 

Rico Political Status Act a couple of weeks ago, few people on the 

Island took this effort seriously. 

Many saw this legislation as just another status bill with no possibility, a bill that was dead on arrival, a bill that would fade away 

like so many others in the past. 

Two weeks and 41 Congressional cosponsors later-including 

among them the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt 

Gingrich-we meet in the historical city of San Juan, the oldest 

city in the United States, to continue building upon a process that 

suddenly seems to be very serious, even to the most skeptical 

minds. · 

I believe that the presence of seven Members of Congress here 

today attests to the seriousness of this effort. 
7 

As we begin today's vital discussions, and hear from the very distinguished panelists representing the entire political spectrum of 

the Island, I believe that it is of the utmost importance that we put 

this event in the proper perspective. Puerto Rico became a possession in 1898. Nineteen years later, 

in 1917, U.S. citizenship was granted to all Puerto Ricans pursuant 

to the terms of the Jones Act. 

For nearly 80 years we have cherished and valued that citizenship with our hearts and our minds and have defended it with our 

blood. 

Nearly 200,000 Puerto Ricans have served in the United States 

in this century's major wars. Many paid the ultimate price for the 

cause of democracy, more so than in any other U.S. territory prior 

to their becoming a State, and in more than many States of the 

Union. 

The Commonwealthers, and even the independentistas, for they 

advocated for a combined Puerto Rico and U.S. citizenship in the 

1993 plebiscite independence definition, will have to agree with me 

that the U.S. citizenship is something that the vast majority of 

Puerto Ricans, over 95 percent, I would say, treasure deeply. 

However, the citizenship that we enjoy in Puerto Rico is less 

than equal to that of our fellow citizens in the 50 States. 

We are not empowered to give consent to the policies or decisions 

of the government under which we live, through proportional voting representation in Congress, or voting in National elections. 

Neither are our rights as citizens as secure as those of our fellow 

citizens in the States. Nor do U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico receive equal treatment under Federal policies and programs. 

The fact that Puerto Ricans do not pay Federal income taxes is 

often used by both the executive and the legislative branches of the 

Federal Government to justify this political and economic discrimination and unequal treatment. 

Mr. Chairman, ours is a colonial relationship that clearly contradicts the basic tenets and principles of democracy, one in which 

Puerto Rico's economic, social, and political affairs are, in large degree, controlled and influenced by a government over which we exercise no control, and in which we do not participate. 

Our Nation cannot continue to preach and, at times, attempt to 

enforce democracy throughout the world while at the same time it 

continues to disenfranchise and deny political participation and 

economic equality to 3. 7 million of its own citizens. 

Therefore, the real issue is how can we enable the U.S. citizens 

of Puerto Rico to achieve a first-class citizenship? 

The answer to this fundamental question was clearly expressed 

in the February 29, 1996 historic letter that Chairman Young, Ben 

Gilman, Elton Gallegly, and Dan Burton sent to the leadership of 

the Puerto Rico Legislature. 

If we are ever to resolve Puerto Rico's status dilemma, the 

choices to do so are clear: 

( 1) equality of benefits and burdens, rights and responsibilities, 

known to be attainable by the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico only 

through statehood. or, 
8 

(2) the establishment of a Puerto Rican citizenship through separation from the Federal union and commencement of a new era 

through a treaty based or bilateral pact relationship. 

Mr. Chairman, the masquerade is over. It is time for the pretending, the partisan mischief, and the dysfunctional political status process in Puerto Rico to end. 

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

about what the real choices are for Puerto Ricans. It is time to decide if we want to have full self government, and 

full empowerment, that will allow us to search for a brighter future, or if we would rather live hanging on to an outdated colonial 

relationship of the past. 

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

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

choices which they understand, and which are truly decolonizing so 

that we can reveal Puerto Rico's true desire through a legitimate 

act of self determination. 

The bipartisan initiative that we are considering today seeks to 

resolve, once and for all, the long standing Puerto Rico status dilemma by providing a Congressionally recognized process that 

would allow true Puerto Rican self determination for the first time 

since the U.S. acquired control over the territory of Puerto Rico 

nearly 100 years ago. 

I am both appalled and amazed by the fact that the Commonwealth party leadership has labeled this bill as undemocratic. They 

have compared you, Mr. Chairman, with Adolf Hitler. 

Well, the fact is that this criticism is coming from self proclaimed 

"leaders" who, while they preach democracy on one side, they 

would like to perpetuate a relationship that disenfranchises its own 

people, and denies them a vote, and equal participation in the decisionmaking process of their Nation. 

"Leaders" that would rather keep corporate welfare in billions of 

dollars worth of tax credits for U.S. companies operating in Puerto 

Rico then have our elderly, o11r persons with disabilities, and our 

children receive the same opportunities and treatment under Federal programs that their fellow citizens in the 50 States receive. "Leaders" that promised the "best of two worlds" but have not 

been able to deliver on a single one of those promises. 

"Leaders" that want all the benefits of U.S. citizenship but none 

of its responsibilities. 

"Leaders" that want some of the sovereignty that comes only 

with independence but expect to keep their U.S. citizenship also. 

If the Congressional intent here is to establish a process to resolve Puerto Rico's colonial dilemma permanently, then Commonwealth should not be included as an option, because Commonwealth means disenfranchisement. And that, Mr. Chairman, is the 

problem. 

As my good friend and colleague from New York, Congressman 

Jose Serrano, has said, "If you want to take the pulse of the people, 

see what they like, then Commonwealth should be included. However, if the intent is to start a truly decolonizing process, 

then this bill is the right approach." 

I do have to say that I look forward to Governor Pedro Rossello's 

testimony, particularly as it pertains to this subject. 
9 

Even though I believe that the Commonwealth formula is incon- sistent with the purposes of this bill, I am open to the idea of including it as one of the options, so long as it is defined by Congress, 

and is not a dishonest "wish list" prepared by those who want to 

have their cake and eat it too. 

When history demands upon a people, they must either rise to 

the occasion, or live with the consequence of their inaction. 

In this, the last decade of the 20th century, the United Nation's 

proclaimed decade of decolonization, history demands that the people of Puerto Rico take control of their own destiny. 

To ignore the situation of Puerto Rico-that is, to ignore our disenfranchisement-is to betray the spirit of our own democratic values. 

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

you for your interest, and your attention to this vitally important 

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

to further an expeditiously Congressional action on this subject. The 3.7 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico deserve no less. And, Mr. Chairman, just some final words. 

Some decades ago our nation decided in the south that a white 

majority could not disenfranchise an Mro-American minority. Here 

in Puerto Rico we have a political party, a political group that not 

only purports to maintain a minority disenfranchisement, but it 

purports to maintain all of the people of Puerto Rico 

disenfranchised, all of the citizens of the United States in Puerto 

Rico, 3,700,000. How can disenfranchisement be tolerated in a democracy? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman. A very eloquent presentation. [Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. At this time I'd like to recognize the Congressman, 

Dan Burton, the subcommitteet chairman of International Mfairs, 

Mr. Burton. 

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

REPRESENTATIVE FROM INDIANA 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor, Mr. Mayor, distinguished guests, it is great to be here 

to see this great outpouring of democratic action. I don't think I 

have ever been to a meeting that was so well attended, in the 

streets and every place else, and so we really appreciate your enthusiasm. his is a very timely event, something that has been a long time 

in coming, and I think that we are approaching the time when we 

are going to finally resolve the problems that we have been talking 

about regarding independence, statehood, or Commonwealth . 

. I would like to thank my colleague, Don Young, Chairman of the 

House Committee on Resources, for this opportunity to have this 

hearing on the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. As chairman of the Western Hemisphere subcommittee, I have 

the desire and the responsibility to examine the poli.tical preferences of the people of Puerto Rico. 
10 

After all, the U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, are governed 

by or under the authority of Congress, pursuant to the territory 

clause. 

Further, the future political status of the island has broad implications with respect to both National and international policy, and 

I believe, security as well. 

As you know, on December the 14th, 1994 the legislature of 

Puerto Rico adopted Concurrent Resolution 62 which sought Congressional guidance regarding the results of the 1993 plebiscite. 

Recently, Don Young, Ben Gilman, Elton Gallegly, and myself, 

the chairmen of the committees that deal with the status of Puerto 

Rico, responded in writing to Concurrent Resolution 62. 

I would like to, at this point, Mr. Chairman, insert this in the 

record, so that it will be made part of the record. 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. BURTON. The letter expresses clear, very clear Congressional 

intent with respect to Puerto Rico and its inhabitants, and any f:lture actions hereto would be within the framework of the policy expressed in that letter. 

Today, we are here to discuss H.R. 3024, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Essentially, the bill would provide a 

process of self determination and a path toward a permanent status for Puerto Rico. 

Under the bill, a plebiscite would be held not later than December 31st, 1998. And approval of a status option must be by a majority of the votes case. 

Voters will be presented with two status options in the bill: one, 

the path of separate Puerto Rico sovereignty leading to independence or free association. And, two, a path under United States sovereignty leading to statehood. 

In the 1993 plebiscite-and this is very important-the definition 

of the Commonwealth option received a plurality of the votes. 

However, as my colleagues and I have detailed in our letter to 

Concurrent Resolution 62, the Commonwealth definition in that 

plebiscite was both unworkable and unconstitutional. 

As drafted, that option would have established a bilateral paet 

where Puerto Rico would be granted veto power over all Federal 

and Congressional actions. 

Such a pact is highly unlikely, because Puerto Rico is currently 

an unincorporated territory subject to the authority of Congress 

under the territorial clause. 

If Puerto Rico was not a territory of the United States, then the 

Resources Committee and Congress would have no jurisdiction, and 

we would not be here today to discuss this important issue. 

Furthermore, the only viable status options that could be based 

on an unalterable bilateral pact are free association and independence. The results of the 1993 plebiscite clearly reflect that the people 

of Puerto Rico want a change in the island's current status. 

In this light, the status quo does not seem to be consistent with 

the wishes of the people. 

In addition, the current relationship between the United States 

and Puerto Rico is constantly changing. For example, in Fiscal 
11 

Year 1995, Puerto Rico received $12 billion in Federal transfer payments, including Section 936 tax credits. 

Given the current deficit reduction efforts in Congress, however, it is clear, very clear, that Section 936 will be significantly reduced 

or eliminated in the future. 

This uncertain climate will simply not provide Puerto Rico with 

the economic and social stability that it needs to prosper. 

Therefore, Congress needs to clarify the various options for a permanent status and self government. H.R. 3024 provides Puerto Rico with realistic and achievable sta- tus options. Many supporters of the Commonwealth have criticized 

the Young bill because the Commonwealth option will not be on the 

ballot in the form that it appeared in the 1993 plebiscite. 

This charge deserves to be addressed, and I understand that 

Chairman Young will consider this possible change. However, if 

this occurs, the correct definition of Commonwealth must be what 

is on the ballot, as defined by the Constitution of the United States 

and the Congress. 

In the event that the people of Puerto Rico do not exercise their 

right to self determination, Commonwealth will continue to exist 

until Congress unilaterally determines Puerto Rico's disposition 

and the status of its inhabitants. 

Regardless, under H.R. 3024, Commonwealth has a distinct advantage over independence, free association, or statehood. 

For any of these options to replace Commonwealth, the voters in 

Puerto Rico must approve the change three times by majority over 

a period of 10 years. 

On the other hand, a defeat in any one of these votes will keep 

the status quo in effect. Chairman Young specifically incorporated this in to the bill to ensure that Congress does not implement any new policies directly 

impacting Puerto Rico that are not supported by a majority of the 

island's residents. 

Nevertheless, let me be clear in stating that Commonwealth remains an option in the bill, a possible option in the bill, and that 

Congress has the authority, as I said, and the duty, to define what 

the options will be. As stated in my response to Concurrent Resolution 62, the 1993 

plebiscite Commonwealth definition was both unrealistic and unconstitutional. 

Therefore, it must be defined as an unincorporated territory subject to the jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States. It cannot be considered a permanent status. 

On a final note, I would like to emphasize that the continued uncertainty over Puerto Rico's political status does not serve the best 

interests of the mainland United States or Puerto Rico. 

As such, I encourage my colleagues to move forward on H.R. 

3024. I believe this bill provides an opportunity to work together 

with the people of Puerto Rico and forge a consensus relationship 

between them and the mainland. 

In this respect, and in the interest of mutual prosperity, I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 
12 

[Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman, the chairman, Mr. Burton. 

At this time I would like to recognize the Congressman Abercrombie from Hawaii, my sister State. Congressman, you're on. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM HAWAII 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Buenas dias, Puerto Rico. I bring you greetings from the 50th state of Hawaii, the rainbow 

State. Aloha, aloha, noeloha. I join with Mr. Young, our 49th state, and Hawaii, the 50th 

State. Hawaii, as you know, and the people of Hawaii are an island 

people. And so I feel a very close relationship with the people of 

Puerto Rico. 

I, too, was excited by the enthusiasm coming here today. I am 

here to listen. I feel an obligation and responsibility as a represent·· ative of urban Honolulu in the rainbow State, the last State to 

enter the Union, to pay respectful attention to the views being expressed today. 

I look forward to hearing from you. I look forward to the resolu-· tion of this issue. And I thank you once again with a mahalo 

nuiloha, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here with 

you in Puerto Rico today. Viva la gente! 

[Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii, and I also have 

great sympathy for the Interpreter. At this time I'd like to recognize the gentleman, Mr. Roth from 

Wisconsin. Mr. Roth. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOBY ROTH, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM WISCONSIN 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

being invited to be here today, and I compliment you, Mr. Chairman, for coming all this way to have this hearing. And I enjoy 

being with the members of this panel, all of them my friends. 

Mr. Chairman, Puerto Rico for me is a special place, and the 

Puerto Rican people are a special people. 

I came to this wonderful island sometime ago and was struck by 

how proud the Puerto Rican people are of their heritage. I attended school in the early sixties with young men and women 

from Puerto Rico at Marquette University in Milwaukee, and later 

on at the University of Wisconsin. I have found the Puerto Rican people to be a proud people, and 

they should be proud. Puerto Rico's culture is rich with history and 

language, and has impressive monuments that are unique to the 

people of Puerto Rico. 

From the island's historical figures, like Ponce de Leon, their 

first governor, to the history making battles fought at El Morro, Puerto Rico has a rich legacy that sets it apart from any other nation. 

Since 1917, that legacy has been intertwined with the United 

States. Puerto Rico and the United States formalized the Commonwealth relationship they have enjoyed since 1952. 
13 

For over four decades, both peoples have benefited from this association, and the mixing of cultures, languages, and heritage have 

made both countries richer and more diverse. 

Today, this special relationship continues to be an issue that excites the passions of the Puerto Rican people. It seems that, once every generation, the island reevaluates its 

political status and revisits the issue by putting its future in the 

hands of the Puerto Rican people. Such was the case in 1967, and 

again, just recently, in 1993. This is clearly not a matter to be taken lightly. Congress has a 

role to play in the resolution of this issue. 

But I believe that the proper role for that lies in respecting the 

wishes of the Puerto Rican people, and acting on the democratically 

expressed decision regarding their political status. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ROTH. I have always maintained a strict neutrality on this 

issue. I don't have a position on the political status question. My 

only interest is in being here today to ensure that the people of 

Puerto Rico have the freedom of choice when deciding their fate . [Applause.] 

Mr. ROTH. The relation between our two Nations, between the 

United States Congress and the Puerto Rican people, has always 

been one based on mutual respect and faith in the democratic principles of government. The only way to continue this democratic tradition is to present 

the people of Puerto Rico with all the options available to them and 

let them decide. 

It would seem to me that they expressed their views three years 

ago, when the Commonwealth option won a clear plurality of the 

votes. There are some people in Washington and in Puerto Rico who 

would like to overlook the results of that referendum, or at least 

cast doubts on their legitimacy. I believe that it would be a mistake. The 1993 plebiscite was a fair expression of the Puerto Rican 

people's will. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ROTH. It was called by the duly elected government in power, and it was held on the government's terms. I see no reason to effectively nullify the results of this referendum, and I think it the 

Congress's duty in this matter to respect, respect the expressed 

views of the Puerto Rican people. [Applause.] 

Mr. ROTH. Puerto Rico and its citizens may freely decide to revisit this issue. That is their right as a self governing nation. However, no other country or government or individuals or those governments should intervene or meddle in the local political matter. I believe the United States Congress shares my views that the 

people of Puerto Rico, and they alone, should decide the political 

status of their island. 

I respect the people of Puerto Rico. I feel that the people of Puerto Rico can decide their own fate . They don't need other people 

coming in here telling them what to do. Let the people of Puerto 

Rico decide. 
14 

[Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman. And may I remind the audience, you have now seen democracy at work. This is what this all 

about. This is a hearing process, and although Mr. Roth gave us 

a very emotional presentation, just keep in mind that Mr. Roth will 

not be with us next year. [Laughter and applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. But I have also again tried in my ability to do the 

thing that is correct, and that is to have a hearing process go forth, 

to listen to people constructively and try to solve this issue where 

Puerto Rico is going to be in the future. 

At this time I would like to recognize another gentleman who has 

the interests of Puerto Rico, and his own territory, Mr. Underwood 

from Guam, much further away even than Puerto Rico. Congress·· 

man Underwood, please. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT UNDERWOOD, A U.S. DELE-· 

GATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE NON-SELF GOVERNING 

TERRIROTY OF GUAM 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Buenas dias to the people of Puerto Rico. 

I represent, as many of you know, an area of the United States 

that is exactly on the opposite end of the world. Yet my own home 

island of Guam is linked to Puerto Rico in many ways. And in 

many ways historically. And these are ways in which I am constantly reminded, not only 

by the kind of ambiance that I feel here, but also the fact of histories being intertwined. 

Both Guam and Puerto Rico became part of the American framework through the Treaty of Paris and in the Spanish-American 

War, and as a result of the Spanish-American War we, the conflict 

really produced four island children: Cuba, and the Philippines, 

which have since been resolved. And the two remaining children 

are Puerto Rico and Guam. 

I certainly wouldn't want to characterize those children as problem children, but they certainly remain as challenges for the peoples involved, and certainly for the United States. I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing in Puerto Rico and for, I think, establishing a Federal responsibility toward the resolution of political status. 

I think one of the great defects perhaps in the process of discussing political status is the lack of a clear Federal policy in terms of 

that, and a clear Federal process. I am committed to the full resolution of political status issues, 

but I am committed to the full resolution only with the full exploration of political status options. I think any kind of political status resolution process which attempts to disguise, or perhaps eliminate options, is one that is not 

tolerable. 

I believe, and I am committed, to full consultation with the peoples involved, and respect for the process of self determination. And 

I believe, and I remain committed to the idea and the recognition 

that there are unique, historical developments for some peoples. 

And that whether it is under the U.S. flag, or separately from the 
15 

U.S. flag, or with the U.S. flag under some special conditions, I 

fully accept the fact that there may be some special conditions in 

recognition of unique historical circumstances. Some people may characterize that as having your cake and eat 

it too, but I prefer to think of it as getting your just desserts. 

It is an honor to be here, and it is also an honor to bear witness 

to the spirit and the intensity with which the various positions are 

articulated here in Puerto Rico. 

I only wish that every community that I come into contact with 

could be as spirited and as committed as you are. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Applause.] 

Mr. YoUNG. At this time I will recognize our most junior member 

on the committee, which I have great hope and aspiration for, if I 

can just get him away from George Miller a while we might make 

progress. I'd like to recognize Mr. Kennedy. Congressman Kennedy, 

you're on. 

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

REPRESENTATIVE FROM RHODE ISLAND 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Buenas dias. 

Last evening I had the opportunity to fly into Gov. Mufioz-Marin 

Airport, and it gave me a great deal of pride to know that my 

uncle, President Kennedy, was a great friend of Gov. Munoz Marin. 

In 1962 President Kennedy had a vision for Puerto Rico, so that 

Puerto Rico could develop itself, and its economy, and its way of 

life for all of its people. 

Today I am pleased to be joined with my colleagues in working 

toward the next logical step called for by President Kennedy, and 

that step, I believe, is H.R. 3024. 

H.R. 3024 is a step which ultimately belongs to the 3. 7 million 

people here in Puerto Rico. But, for the record, let me say that 

given the same choice, in the same set of circumstances, I would, 

without any reservation, choose for Puerto Rico to become the 51st 

State of the United States of America. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. As a territory of the United States, Puerto Rico 

has become the shining star of the Caribbean, and in large measure it has been because of its Commonwealth status. 

But unfortunately, as a territory, the scope of Puerto Rico's future, going forward, is limited under a Commonwealth status. 

The day of Puerto Rico--

[Applause.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. The day of Puerto Rico being able to quote/unquote have the best of both worlds, because of its Commonwealth 

status, are coming to an end. You only need to look at this Congress, and I know as active and 

as interested as anyone is, in the political processes going on in the 

United States Congress, that they understand what I mean when 

I say that we are going through changes right now in the United 

States of America, in the United States Congress. And it's important that Puerto Rico keep up with the dynamic changes that are 

taking place. 
16 

With the forthcoming budget reductions in the Congress, in its 

budget, there will be less money allocated for Puerto Rico in discretionary entitlement funds. And it is misleading to assume that the 

citizens of Puerto Rico will continue to prosper under Commonwealth status when their very coveted 936 tax and economic status, 

that has defined Puerto Rico and the United States relationship, is 

itself beginning to come under review and change. 

As a State, the wealth of opportunities available to Puerto Rico 

are boundless. In the United States Congress you'd have Representatives and Senators who could vote for you, who could fight 

for you, who could work for you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. And, Mr. Chairman, this is the essence of representative democracy. 

In my State of Rhode Island I am fighting very hard for my constituents, very hard for their health care, very hard for their education, and their ability to work and earn a living. 

I know that you want your representatives to have the same 

power to vote as I have in the United States Congress. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. Just for a moment, with respect to us telling the 

people of Puerto Rico what's in their best interests, let me just say, 

under the current territorial status, we in the Congress could pass 

English as an official language. And as a territory you'd have to 

comply with it, even though it may run contrary to your own wishes. 

And, to me, that is the affront to the people of Puerto Rico. That 

is where your self determination is being at the expense of. And when you look at the number of wars that the people of 

Puerto Rico have fought on behalf of the United States of America, 

and yet they weren't even able to vote for their commander-inchief, even though they were willing to lay down their lives for the 

people. [Applause.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. In conclusion, let me just say that I believe, once 

again, that the shining star of the Caribbean will make an even 

more bright shining star as the 51st State in the United States of 

America. [Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Again, may I express, this is democracy. If you notice, that there's two speakers at both ends, and then you have the 

middle. So I deeply appreciate the process which we go through. 

Now we'll get to the witnesses. And I could remind my good 

friends in the audience, those that have strong feelings on both 

sides, if you interrupt too often for the fine testimony that will 

occur, that means you possibly could take time from the testimony. 

So, when I wave this little gavel down, you don't have to pay attention to it, but I'd appreciate it if you would try to watch it real 

close. It helps things go along pretty good. 

I would like to at this time, and it gives me great honor, to introduce the Honorable Pedro Rossello, Governor of Puerto Rico. Governor? 

[Applause.] 
17 

Mr. YOUNG. Before the Go'!ernor gives his testimony I'd like to 

also recognize his lovely wife in the audience. Please stand. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. YoUNG. Governor, it's an honor to have you here, and you're 

on. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PEDRO ROSSELLO, 

GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO 

Governor ROSSELLO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I am Pedro Rossello, and I appear before this subcommittee as Governor of Puerto Rico. 

I extend a warm welcome to Chairman Don Young of the Committee on Resources, and the members of the Subcomittee on Native American and Insular Affairs, including the gentleman from 

Puerto Rico, Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero-Barcelo. 

I also want to welcome Chairman Dan Burton of the subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, and the other Members of Congress who, by their presence at this hearing, are demonstrating 

commendable interest in the vital issue of authentic and permanent self determination for the 3. 7 million of their fellow citizens. 

A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. But 

to reach his destination, a traveler must head in the right direction. 

In our quest for self determination we, the people of Puerto Rico, 

have taken thousands of steps, dating all the way back to the 19th 

century. Yet it could be argued, quite plausibly, that those thousands of steps have carried us closer to our destination by as little 

as a single mile. 

Literally, for generations, we have been exerting ourselves-earnestly and in good faith-only to discover again and again that our 

body politic has been going around in circles. 

We have possessed the will. What we have lacked is the way. 

Missing has been a compass, an instrument that will unfailingly 

keep us on course by pointing us always in the right direction. 

Now, at last, our constitutional partner in the self determination 

process, the United States Congress, is furnishing that necessary 

tool. 

H.R. 3024, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, is 

indeed a compass. It is a sturdy, reliable compass. We, the people 

of Puerto Rico, requested such an instrument. Chairman Young has 

provided it. 

What do I mean when I assert that we, the people, requested 

this compass? What I mean is this: 

In 1992, 85 percent of Puerto Rico's eligible voters went to the 

polls. 

By the largest margin in 20 years, those voters elected a slate 

of candidates who promised that upon taking office they would act 

immediately to consult the people of Puerto Rico on the subject of 

political status. 

In 1993 that promise was kept: 3.5 percent of Puerto Rico's eligible voters participated in a consultation process that was conducted 

with the full and unequivocal support of all three Puerto Rican political parties. 
18 

In 1994, the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico adopted a concurrent resolution which conveyed to the Congress of the United 

States a formal petition that Congress respond to the outcome of 

that 1993 consultation. 

In 1995, this Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, 

meeting jointly with the International Relations Subcommittee on 

the Western Hemisphere, conducted a hearing in Washington, DC, 

for the purpose of evaluating the Puerto Rico political status consultation of 1993. 

And in 1996, exactly 17 days ago, Chairman Young introduced 

H.R. 3024, a bill that responds clearly, fairly, comprehensively to 

the request for a compass that we, the people of Puerto Rico, have 

systematically articulated, one step at a time, over the past 4-

years. 

H.R. 3024 offers the people of Puerto Rico a responsible, dignified, eminently viable mechanism for emerging at last from the 

vicious circle of sound and fury signifying nothing, a vicious circle 

that has wasted, wastefully consumed far too much of our energy 

throughout the entire 98 years of United States sovereignty over 

our homeland. 

I am deeply grateful to Chairman Young, as well as to Speaker 

Newt Gingrich, and dozens of other cosponsors of this bill. 

The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act is truly a 

blueprint for constructive collaboration between the Federal Government and the people of Puerto Rico on the fundamental question of democratic self determination for Puerto Rico, consonant 

both with the United States Constitution and the principles of 

international law. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I must caution the subcommittee that patience and persistence will be required in abundance as 

we set about the arduous task of draining that bottomless quagmire of in definition. 

The entrenched local custom of mounting ideological obstacles to 

dispassionate policymaking has not evaporated with the introduction of H.R. 3024. 

Accordingly, this subcommittee will, both today and in the weeks 

ahead, be obliged to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous 

testimony. 

As you listen conscientiously to critics of this bill, it will be helpful to keep firmly in mind a few salient facts. 

The central theme of the criticism that has surfaced regarding 

H.R. 3024 is that allegedly it presumes to abolish the so called 

Commonwealth status under which Puerto Rico is currently governed. 

This, we are told, is anti-democratic, arbitrary, dictatorial, demeaning. 

As you well know, however, such criticism is predicated upon a 

premise that is utterly false. 

H.R. 3024 establishes a procedure for decolonization that entails 

three separate referenda spread over a period of at least 10 years. 

However, if any one of these three referenda produces an inconclusive outcome, with no form of full self government obtaining a 

majority support, then the whole process concludes, back where we 

started. 
19 

In that event, Puerto Rico's current political status, and Puerto 

Rico's current Commonwealth government structure, would continue to exist in their present form. 

This is the reality, as specifically expressed in the bill. It is a 

mechanism that is eminently fair. 

Nevertheless, it is my duty, as Governor of all Puerto Ricans, to 

ensure that the reality of fairness goes hand in hand with the perception of fairness. We must ensure that demagogic arguments can never cast a 

shadow over a process that is of such momentous importance for 

the people of Puerto Rico. 

For that reason I submit to you that the option of Commonwealth, Estado Libre Asociado, should be explicitly included on the 

ballot in the 1998 referendum that will commence this whole process. 

Such an approach will require that the initial decision stage, as 

we can see it here, will be modified or amended to increase the 

number of available options from two to three. 

Two of those options would start us on the pathway to the attainment of full self government, as that term is defined under international law. And a third option would allow for the retention of 

the current Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Estado Libre 

Asociado, as a locally self governing unincorporated territory under 

Congressional jurisdiction, in accordance with the Territorial 

Clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, 

Paragraph 2. 

I realize that the sponsors of H.R. 3024 have every intention of 

leaving all available options open to the Puerto Rican people, options that will lead to complete self government and decolonization, 

as well as even that option which would perpetuate the existing 

territorial status. 

To accomplish this, however, in a manner that simultaneously 

achieves both the reality of fairness and also the perception of fairness, Congress will be obliged to make absolutely clear to the people of Puerto Rico exactly what is meant by the status quo option 

of Commonwealth, or Estado Libre Asociado. 

[Applause.] 

Governor ROSSELLO. It is thus indispensable that Congress explicitly define that option. It is of the utmost importance to me, as Governor of Puerto Rico, 

that all Puerto Ricans feel totally confident, both in their hearts 

and in their minds, that this process endows them with ample opportunity to manifest their true preference and to deliver an unequivocal mandate. 

To me, it is imperative that this process not only be fair in its 

substance but that it likewise be universally perceived as fair. Therefore, I urge that you amend the bill so that, in its initial decision stage, up front, at the very outset, there be three options open 

to our voters. 

In addition to the options for full self government, either through 

a separate Puerto Rican sovereignty, via independence or free association, or by participating on an equal footing in the United States 

sovereignty, through statehood, I urge that you include a third option, and that this third option be the current Commonwealth of 
20 

Puerto Rico, or Estado Libre Asociado, as it is clearly defined in 

this bill, namely a locally self governing unincorporated territory 

under Congressional jurisdiction. By adopting this approach, Congress can ensure that our people 

will reject, as categorically false, and totally irresponsible, any attempt to portray this bill as a calculated maneuver aimed at taking 

away from the Puerto Rican people the system of government 

which has been in effect here since 1952. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge that the subcommittee take 

fully into account that the critics of H.R. 3024 are guilty of, at best, 

a flip flop, and, at worst, an act of hypocrisy when they criticize 

this bill's central purpose; that purpose is to remove our people 

from the colonial stigma imposed upon us by the Territorial Clause 

of the United States Constitution. 

Puerto Rican leaders of every partisan persuasion have for decades been demanding precisely that. Congressman Young's bill offers us precisely that on a silver platter. 

Where, then, we must ask, where is the beef? What is the problem? 

This bill is unambiguous, straightforward in its language, and 

presents the people of Puerto Rico with a golden opportunity to put 

up or to shut up. 

If we so desire, we can choose to cooperate with Congress on implementing a course of action which will, at last, empower us with 

permanent, dignified, internationally recognized, fully self governing political status. But that is only half of the equation. 

This bill simultaneously empowers us to remain as we are, to 

maintain the status quo, if that is the desire of the majority of ou:r 

people, and that is what they want. 

My petition to you is that you make this second half of the equation explicitly clear and that, when you define exactly what this 

status quo option entails, you do so in a manner that obliterates 

every trace of the abundant ambiguity that currently surrounds the 

true nature of the so called Estado Libre Asociado. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is fundamental that these 

points be kept in mind at all times as the subcommittee weighs the 

testimony of any witness who purports to object on principle to the 

course of action that this bill contemplates. 

In closing, there is one other substantive suggestion that I would 

like to offer for your consideration. As introduced, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act 

provides that the duration of its transition plan, leading to full self 

government for Puerto Rico, shall be a minimum of 10 years. 

Ten years, I respectfully submit, is an inordinately long period 

of time. 

Ten years ago there were two Germanys, and a Berlin Wall. 

South Africa was still under apartheid. The North American Free 

Trade Agreement was merely a promising idea. Almost nobody had 

ever heard of the Internet. 

A 10-year minimum, I believe, is more time than we need. In addition, extraneous events that no one can foresee, could too easily 

derail or delay the process if we let it drag on for that long. 
21 

So I respectfully recommend that the transition period be shortened. Instead of a minimum of 10 years, let the transition period 

be a maximum of 4 years. 

That should be entirely sufficient to achieve the historic mission 

that the Federal Government and the people of Puerto Rico will undertake together through this inspired legislation. Thank you very much for the privilege of the floor. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Governor. [Applause.) 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Governor. And I have a couple short 

questions or comments, and then we'll open it up to the other members of the Committee. And this is the way we're going to do it, and 

when we're finished you can sit in the audience and listen to the 

other testimony. Governor, I take with great seriousness your suggestion. I want 

to stress though that the concept of Article 4, Section 3, Paragraph 

2, that Congress will define Commonwealth. Yes. It will not be a 

wish list, or pie in tile sky, it will be a decision made by the Puerto 

Rican people. 

[Applause.) 

Mr. YOUNG. Including, including the status quo of the present 

Commonwealth. Make that perfectly understood. Secondly, the discussion about the minimum of 10-years, did I 

hear you right, was it a maximum of 10-years, or did you say a 

maximum of 4-years? I was just curious. 

Governor ROSSELLO. A maximum of 4-years. 

Mr. YOUNG. A maximum of 4·years. I have great faith that the 

Puerto Rican people could accomplish the goals. I'm not totally con- fident the Congress can accomplish those goals knowing how we 

operate. We will be taking that into consideration as we mark up this bill. 

And hopefully, as we continue to have input and testimony, we 

will-and I want to stress this, because it was asked the day I introduced this bill-in other words, this is just a step. I expect to 

pursue this with your Congressmen and with yourself and with 

other interested parties because the status quo is no longer acceptable to this chairman. Now I'll recognize the Congressman, Mr. Romero-Barcelo for any 

questions. 

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

Governor, I want to congratulate you on your testimony. And 

particularly in the generosity of your proposal which opens up the 

process to the participation of the Commonwealth as it is, the status quo, as we have indicated, that is precisely the problem. And 

yet you are willing to have that option open so that the people of 

Puerto Rico not only have a fair process, but remove any shadow 

of a process that is not impartial. 

But, Governor, I would like to ask you, for the record, was the 

proposal that you have for the Commonwealth to be included, was 

that-and you mentioned it briefly in your testimony and I would 

like you expound on it-the Commonwealth as it is, was that included in the 1993 plebiscite as an option? 

Governor ROSSELL6. The 1993 plebiscite option was an option 

that was defined by the Popular party. There were no restrictions 
22 

to that definition. And I must say, and I have said it before, and 

I will repeat it again, that in looking for a fair process, the 19!)3 

plebiscite allowed-and this was a bill that I submitted to our Legislature-allowed the political parties to define their own formulas, 

different to what happened in the 1967, when the party in power 

defined all the political formulas, all the options, even though they 

did not represent their aspirations. So, we were looking for fairness at that time. We allowed the political parties to define their own formulas. Unfortunately, we 

found that that led to another major vulnerability. 

The Commonwealth formula, as defined-and I have requested 

Congress to respond specifically to that formula-is really, from my 

perspective, something that is not consistent with the U.S. Constitution. And, therefore, it is not obtainable within the U.S. system. 

It would be attainable outside the territorial clause, if that is 

what the defenders of that formula want. But then it is clear that 

Congress defines what the conditions would be for Commonwealth 

outside. 

I think, as a matter of fact, that when you look at the options 

currently present in that project, free association is essentially the 

concept of Commonwealth outside the territorial clause, where you 

attain those conditions or those goals through a bilateral treaty between two equals, or two separate entities. And I think that option 

is also presented here. 

So, essentially, the 1993 definition, to me, is a nonviable definition, and is something that I wish l-it is not I who defined it, but 

that the Congress define whether it is a true option or not an option. I feel it's certainly not consistent with the U.S. Constitution. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Are you aware, Governor, that now the 

editorials that have been written regarding the fact that this might 

not be a fair process, because it doesn't include Commonwealth, 

and the statements that have been made by, over in Congress by 

the people who represent Commonwealth, have been directed to- ward the fact that the status quo is not being represented, that the 

status quo is being denied an opportunity for expression. 

When you gave the Popular party and the leadership the opportunity to include the status quo in the ballot in 1993, did they ask 

for the status quo be included in the ballot? 

Governor ROSSELLO. No, they didn't. They included a different 

option. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. The Coznmonwealth option with a wish 

list. 

Governor RosSELLO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. Thank you very much, Governor. 

Governor RosSELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. BuRTON. Governor, I think I'm next in the questioning. I'll 

just ask a couple of questions. 

In retrospect, do you think it would have been better to have had 

the Congress of the United States define Commonwealth status before it was put on the ballot in 1993? 

Governor RoSSELLO. Absolutely, I think, Mr. Chairman, we have 

to look at this as a process. In the 1989 to 1991 period Congress 
23 

did engage in an effort to try to define for Puerto Rico, and to legislate a process for self determination. It ended in nothing. 

We felt that Puerto Rico had to take the initiative. 

We knew that it was not the total answer, but there had to be 

a message to Congress that this is important to us, that we should 

not allow time to go on, that as we are going to celebrate 100 years 

under U.S. sovereignty, it is time that we make a decision. 

I was cognizant-and we were cognizant-that an important element was missing. But it was important in the face of that failed 

effort from Congress in 1989 to 91' to send a message that Puerto 

Rico had, indeed, not solved the status problem, and that we were 

grasping for the process, for the way to do it. And I think, I acknowledge that the best way-and that's why I so wholeheartedly 

endorse H.R. 3024, because it precisely does that. 

Congress assumes its responsibility under the territorial clause 

and provides for Puerto Rico, respecting its wishes, but defining 

those alternatives, so that the people of Puerto Rico can finally 

choose an ultimate status. 

Mr. BURTON. I did not mean my question as a criticism. 

Governor RosSELLO. No, no, I did not take it as so. 

Mr. BURTON. But had it been a little bit more clear, it might 

have eliminated a lot of this--

Governor RosSELLO. Yes. 

Mr. BURTON.-misunderstanding. 

Governor RossELL6. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BURTON. One other thing I think that, I hope that all of political parties will make clear to the people of Puerto Rico is what 

Mr. Kennedy said in his very eloquent opening remarks, and that 

is that, with our budget constraints in the United States Congress, 

there will be a reduction in discretionary spending, and the 936 

program, I can tell you, is going to be reduced, and possibly phased 

out over the next 6-7-years, which will have an impact on the economy of Puerto Rico, hopefully not in a negative sense, but it will 

have an impact. 

And that is one of the things that should be taken into consideration when you talk about statehood status, because if statehood 

status were to take place, there would be voting representation in 

both the U.S. House and the Senate. 

In the Senate, of course, there would be two votes from Puerto 

Rico, which would give equal status as to the other 50 States. And 

if there were economic problems created by the transition, from the 

funding levels we have right now to a lower level, then they could 

make a very strong case in the Congress for additional help, as Mr. 

Kennedy pointed out in the mentioning of his State of Rhode Island. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, could I just--

Mr. BURTON. I would be happy to yield to my colleague, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. It seems to me that the proponents of Commonwealth status assume, or presume, that there is a bilateral pact between Puerto Rico and the United States that is unalterable. In 

other words, that the United States cannot impose its view with 

Puerto Rico's consent. 
24 

Would you tell us about what the real experience has been? Because as I've seen it, just as a member of the United States Congress in my first term, we routinely change the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. 

The latest example is the proposed elimination of 936, which is 

one of the most fundamental elements of our relationship. And yet 

the people of Puerto Rico do not have a say in the United States 

Congress when it comes to these changes being made that directly 

affect their way of life here in Puerto Rico. Could you explain this a little further? 

Governor ROSSELLO. Yes, Congressman Kennedy. I think you are 

absolutely right. 

I think we can go all the way back to 1952 to examine that particular issue. 

The people of Puerto Rico adopted a constitution. It was sent to 

Congress. Congress eliminated a section of that constitution clearly 

establishing, clearly establishing its powers under the territorial 

clause. 

Since that first moment in the establishment of the Commonwealth, Congress has continually-this is, the 936 issue is one area 

which is currently demonstrative of that power of Congress over 

Puerto Rico or any territory. It is very clear. I do not see any space for interpretation, and, 

as a matter of fact, as a matter of practicality, it is true what 

you're saying. Almost every day, every year, Congress exerts its 

powers over Puerto Rico with no real input from the people of 

Puerto Rico. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Abercrombie. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Burton. Now, Governor, I'm finding all this very interesting, again from 

my position as someone who comes from the last State to be admitted to the union. We were originally a kingdom. Before that, the 

different islands that make up Hawaii were separate entities. Kamehameha the Great united the islands of Hawaii into a kingdom. We were subsequently then turned into a shotgun republic, if you 

will, with the overthrow of the queen. And subsequently to that became a territory, and now a State. 

So, you can see we have been through the entire panoply of political status. 

The reason that I go through that brief history, for those who 

may not be aware of it, is that in doing the reading in preparation 

for this hearing, I went over in great detail the status definitions 

of statehood, Commonwealth, and independence, as they appeared 

in the referendum. And I am troubled by the definitions that we 

have. 

Is it a correct statement on my part that these definitions were 

written by the parties themselves to mean what they wanted them 

to mean? Is that a correct statement? 

Governor ROSSELLO. That is a correct statement. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. OK, that's fair. I understand that. This is 

what you would have, each party would have liked to have the status be. 
25 

But I can tell you, and I would like your comment, I can tell you, as a former territory, that you do not define for the Congress of the 

United States what your status will be. The Congress defines it for 

you. 

Would you agree that what Congress defines today, Congress can 

redefine tomorrow? 

Governor ROSSELLO. Yes, sir. Under the territorial clause, or territories of the United States, yes, yes, I agree to that. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And so when you ask on page 4 of your testimony that Congress-and I'm quoting in context--

Governor RosSELLO. Yes. Mr. ABERCROMBIE.-! trust you'll agree-that Congress will be 

obliged to make absolutely clear to the people of Puerto Rico exactly what is meant by the status quo option of Commonwealth, 

Estado Libre Asociado. 

Governor ROSSELL6. Yes. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That also is a request, right? You cannot 

make such a demand. Governor RosSELL6. We request that in the search for fairness 

and a well informed decision, that instead of each political party 

or movement in Puerto Rico making an idealized laundry list, we 

are requesting, yes, and I would say, we are demanding that Congress assumes its responsibility, under the territorial clause, its 

power to dispose of the territories by defining explicitly what each 

option is all about. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Very good. So what you're suggesting then to 

Chairman Young is that should this bill be modified to include a 

Commonwealth option, that a definition be provided in that bill as 

to what is meant in terms of the consequences of the bill, should 

it be passed. Governor ROSSELLO. Absolutely correct. In the same sense that 

the bill does it for independence, for free association, and for statehood. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. But is it also understood that regardless of 

that, a future Congress could change that? 

Governor ROSSELL6. Well--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Not that necessarily-I'm not speaking about 

being capricious. But rather--

Governor ROSSELL6. Well, if we embark in this process, the same 

as Hawaii at one point had to embark on the process to be admitted to the union, I would suspect that once this process is started 

that the sense of Congress would be to continue it. 

And in that sense I would imagine that as Hawaii struggled to 

be recognized as an equal partner in the union, there could have 

been that possibility, that what the intention of Congress was could 

have been changed by another. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So your suggestion is that we make a good 

faith attempt to do that. 

The reason I bring that up is in reading the status definition of 

Commonwealth, as it appeared in the last referendum, I can say 

almost to a certainty that there is no way that such a definition 

will appear in the legislation that Mr. Young would formulate in 

its final version. 
26 

Not because he wishes to impose his own will or anything. But 

how can anyone say, for example, to reformulate Section 936 insuring the creation of more and better jobs? 

I mean, there's no way you're going to have the Congress of the 

United States do that at this time, in this legislation. 

So, would you agree that some of the conditions, if you will, while 

they may be interesting as proposals, are unlikely to appear in a 

definition of Commonwealth? 

Governor ROSSELLO. Absolutely. I think that definition in 1993 

is absolutely untenable. I agree with that. And that's precisely the 

value of what we are discussing here. 

The value is that Congress says precisely that. I mean, is it fair 

to tell the people of Puerto Rico that if they vote for this formula 

they would attain that? 

Now Congress has the ability to say, this is what we would be 

willing to work with and on, so that the people of Puerto Rico have 

an informed, a chance for an informed decision. 

So I agree totally with you in terms of that particular definition. 

I think it was a dishonest definition of what Commonwealth can 

be. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, I wouldn't-yes, I understand. My time 

is up, and I appreciate your response to my questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. Roth. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor, I very much respect your office and you as a person, 

but obviously this panel here is pretty well stacked in your favor. So I am obligated--

Governor ROSSELLO. Well, it's stacked in favor of the people of 

Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROTH. Yeah, I am--

[Applause.] 

Mr. ROTH. You appear like an honest and fair man to me. Let 

me ask you: if statehood had won the 93' plebiscite would you be 

here today telling us that the referendum was a mistake? 

Governor ROSSELLO. I am not saying that the referendum was a 

mistake. I just define, in the process for self determination, what 

that step was. It was a step to inform Congress that this was a 

vital issue for Puerto Rico. And as I explained to you, subsequent 

steps have gone to ask Congress to respond. I think this is a response to the referendum in 1993. 

Mr. RoTH. Yes, but in all honesty, your party was in charge. You 

were in charge, and you held the referendum, and your party lost 

the referendum. 

Governor ROSSELLO. No, I'm sorry. I think you are confused, Mr. 

Congressman. You are absolutely confused. 

This was not about political parties. Mr. ROTH. Well--

Governor ROSSELLO. You are absolutely confused. 

Mr. RoTH. Well, what percentage of the vote did your party get? 

Governor ROSSELLO. My party was not on the ballot, sir. 

Mr. ROTH. Well, what percentage of the vote did statehood get? 

Governor ROSSELLO. Forty-six percent. 
27 

Mr. ROTH. How much did Commonwealth get? 

Governor RossELLO. Forty-eight percent. Mr. ROTH. Well, then, it seems to me they won the election. 

Governor ROSSELLO. Alright, well, what we're saying is that you 

respond to that, you respond and you say, if you're willing--

Mr. ROTH. Right. Governor RossELLO.-to give the definition that Commonwealth 

had, under that plebiscite, that's what we're saying. 

Mr. ROTH. Right. 

Governor ROSSELLO. And I want you to answer that now. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ROTH. Well, let me ask you about your definition. Now, you 

were in charge. And, again, I want to be very deferential to you. 

I respect you. 

Governor ROSSELLO. I respect you. 

Mr. ROTH. I am saying, I am asking these questions in the greatest of respect. 

Governor ROSSELLO. I do too. 

Mr. ROTH. Was your definition the correct one? 

Governor ROSSELLO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROTH. Well, did you say that if you became a State you 

would have your own National anthem, your own Olympic committee? Did you say that? 

Governor ROSSELLO. Does Wisconsin have an anthem? 

Mr. ROTH. No, it does not. 

Governor ROSSELLO. I know Texas does. Mr. ROTH. When Puerto Rico comes in--

Governor ROSSELLO. I know Texas does. 

Mr. RoTH. I'm sorry, Governor, but when Puerto Rico comes in 

they have to come in like Indiana came in--

Governor RosSELLO. Wait a moment, sir. 

Mr. RoTH.-like Hawaii came in, like every other State comes in. 

[Applause.] 

Governor ROSSELLO. I, I--

Mr. ROTH. And-just let me finish here, Governor. 

Governor ROSSELLO. Alright. 

Mr. ROTH. I was respectful to you. 

Governor ROSSELLO. I am respectful to you. Mr. ROTH. And I will continue to be, but you have to give me a 

chance to respond to your charges. Governor RossELLO. It's your time, Congressman. Mr. RoTH. You said that the Commonwealth had their own definition. Well, you've misled the people with your definition. 

Governor RosSELLO. No, sir. 

Mr. ROTH. You said that you were going to have an Olympic committee. If Puerto Rico comes in you are not going to have an Olympic committee. That's not fair. 

Governor ROSSELL6. OK Can I respond to that now? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. 

Governor ROSSELLO. Alright. I don't think it is in the purview of 

this committee to define what private organizations do or don't do. 

The Olympic committee is a private organization. I do not think it 

is within the purview of this committee to define--

Mr. ROTH. Yeah, but that's not the point. 
28 

Governor ROSSELLO. Can I finish, sir? Can I finish? 

[Applause.) 

Mr. RoTH. Let him answer the question, let him answer the 

question. 

Governor ROSSELLO. I demand the same respect that you demanded before. So let me finish. 

It is not in the purview of this Committee to define religious affiliations or not. If Puerto Rico becomes a State, it is not in the jurisdiction to define what the Catholic church relation to the Vatican is. 

And so it is beyond the scope of what you can define for Puerto 

Rico. 

Mr. ROTH. Well, that is pretty far afield, but OK. Let me ask you 

this. 

Chairman Young, Mr. Burton, good friends of mine, we have a 

saying in the United States now up in the mainland, promises 

made, promises kept. Because after 40 years for the first time we 

took over. 

So, when we make a commitment, we always say we have got to 

live according to that commitment. 

Now, as I understand it, before the Plebiscite was held in 9:3', 

you said that you would favor an allocation of government funds 

to facilitate the implementation of the--

Governor ROSSELLO. Yes. 

Mr. RoTH.-plebiscite results. 

And I was just wondering how much money has been afforded, 

has been afforded to the people who won the plebiscite in 93'? 

Governor RossELLO. Mr. Roth, that particular provision in the 

bill that I submitted to the legislature was removed by your allies 

of the Popular Democratic party, yes, sir, that is correct. I can provide you--

[Applause.) 

Governor ROSSELLO. I can provide you with the original bill, and 

then you would have to ask that question, not of me--

Mr. ROTH. But--

Governor ROSSELLO.-but of the leaders of the Popular party. 

Mr. ROTH. But, Governor, they didn't make the commitment, you 

made the commitment. 

Governor RossELLO. I made the commitment in the same way 

that you make commitments, but they have to be approved by the 

Congress. I submitted the bill that had that. There was my commitment. 

I made a commitment that the people of Puerto Rico have a 

chance to express themselves in a plebiscite. I complied with that 

commitment. It is the other people that have not complied with 

their commitment. 

Mr. ROTH. Yeah, you know, I'm, I'm--

[Applause.] 

Mr. ROTH. I just have one follow up question, and that is, why 

was Commonwealth-! just believe-! don't care who wins an election, but I feel that it should be a fair election. When this bill was 

introduced Commonwealth was eliminated. The people would not 

be allowed to vote for Commonwealth. 
29 

Now all of a sudden, hey, we have got to bring Commonwealth 

to the fore , we have got to make it part of this bill. Why is that? 

Governor ROSSELLO. Well, do you want it to be or not? 

Mr. ROTH. Of course I do. But I want it to be a fair fight. Governor ROSSELLO. Well, then we don't have any argument, Mr. 

Roth; we have no argument. Mr. ROTH. I want it to be a fair fight. 

Governor ROSSELLO. That's right. 

Mr. YouNG. Gentlemen, time has expired-and may I suggest I 

think the Governor and myself have said very clearly we are seriously looking at the inclusion. The hearing process is the democratic process and I hate to use that term democratic. With all due 

respect to may friend, it is a democratic process and we have input; 

we are looking and we will solve the problem. 

Unkown. Let's put a small team together- -

Mr. YOUNG. Who has not asked any questions? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, can I just make a statement for clarification purposes? 

Mr. YouNG. Just a moment. Mr. Underwood, have you asked? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. No I haven't. 

Mr. YOUNG. But I will yield just for a brief rejoinder to my fellow 

islander. Mr. KENNEDY. I think the process, as they say, Mr. Chairman, 

equals what is the outcome. If you have a purely political process, 

you have a purely political outcome. I think it's Mr. Roth is confusing what could be compared as the nomination process for our primaries with the true election process for our president. 

When you have a plebiscite type of election, it was not a viable 

election because the outcome did not dictate what the people 

thought the outcome would dictate. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a 

clarification. Mr. YOUNG. We recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico for a 

short comment. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Roth, I think that perhaps we should 

have distributed the status definitions as they appeared in the bal- lot, and put in the record. Because when you mentioned that the 

statehood proposal included something about the Olympics, the 

statehood proposal on the ballot does not include anything about 

the Olympics. 

When we made those statements about what was included in the 

Commonwealth option, it is what was included in the ballot. Whatever was said in the campaign, campaigns always say a lot of 

things, but we're talking about what was included in the ballot 

that the people saw when they went to vote. 

There is nothing about the Olympics in the ballot, in the definition of statehood. 

Mr. ROTH. I understand that. I'm just going to suggest that's the 

path we have to look for in the future. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Could I reclaim my time? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, go ahead. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

24-926 - 96 - 2 
30 

Much has been made about the way the statuses were defined 

in the 93' election. If the status of Commonwealth were simply defined as status quo, and had it still prevailed by the same numbers, 

do you think we would be here today? 

Governor ROSSELLO. Yes. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, why, why? 

Governor ROSSELLO. Because we have to place before the people 

of Puerto Rico a real option of attaining full self government witl:. 

a commitment from Congress, who has the powers under the Con·· 

stitution, under the territorial clause. That has not happened. That 

has not happened. 

And so, ask yourself-nand I think maybe you have a very spe· 

cial understanding of this, from the perspective of Guam-ask 

yourself can we afford to keep this process going for 98 more years 

or 100 more years? 

I think the importance of this, if we grasp anything, is that this 

provides a guide well defined for Congress discharging its responsibilities for the people of Puerto Rico so that a decision is made. 

If those requirements are met, then we don't have to talk about 

this anymore. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK. Well, what I would assume then, based 

upon your reply, Governor, is that had the definition simply been 

for Commonwealth status quo, that would not resolve the issue in 

your mind. 

So the issue of how it is defined is really not pertinent to how 

you see the issue. 

Governor ROSSELLO. No, the issue of how it is defined by Congress is the central part. Because who has, who has the power? 

Can we have a plebiscite or a referendum tomorrow and automatically, under our authority, implement it? Do we have that power? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. No, absolutely not. Governor ROSSELLO. OK, fine. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I fully understand and appreciate the role of 

Congress in resolving the issue. I was heartened by your comments 

that you wanted to include Commonwealth as an option. But I'm 

still trying to figure out that if in fact Commonwealth were the option that were voted for, would that end the process in your mind? 

And basically a lot of attention has been given to the way it has 

been defined, as if somehow the people who were supporting Commonwealth were being devious, or perhaps over reaching in their 

definition of Commonwealth, and that led to its victory. 

Now, had Commonwealth simply been defined as what exists 

today, and that still prevailed, would, in your mind, would that end 

the process? 

And I think you've answered that it hasn't. 

Governor ROSSELLO. Right. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK. The other issue that I wanted to raise was 

the issue of language and culture, which-and the identity that 

comes from that-which is very important. And I think it's important to the Puerto Rican people. And it's something that I admire 

them for. Now, it doesn't necessarily have to be politicized. 

Governor RossELLO. Yes. 
31 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. But you well appreciate that that is an important consideration, and that if it is an important enough consideration in your mind to the Puerto Rican people, and I know it is important to some, and a matter of some consequence to Members of 

Congress, how would you proceed with that issue, and would you 

make it a part of any statehood admissions act? Or would you simply ignore it? 

Governor RossELLO. I aspire for Puerto Rico as a State nothing 

more, but certainly nothing less than any of the States of the 

union. The same that applies to Puerto Rico as a State, as it applies to Wisconsin as a State. The same powers that under the 

Constitution belong to the States or to its people, that have not 

been delegated to the Federal Government, those are the same 

powers that I aspire for Puerto Rico. No more. But certainly no 

less. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I would assume that under your response that 

the underlying assumption is that the State of Puerto Rico could 

include Spanish as an official language. Governor ROSSELL6. The State of Wisconsin has right now, as a 

matter of fact, 18-19 States have exercised the right to define their 

own official language. The State of Puerto Rico would have the 

same power, the same power of defining its State official languages. And we have done that; it is both English and Spanish. [Applause.] 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Underwood has yielded to 

me for 10 seconds. Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Governor, Governor--

Governor ROSSELLO. Yes. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. For your information the State of Hawaii has 

two official languages, English and Hawaiian. Governor ROSSELL6. There you go. There you go. [Applause.] 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. While I still have some time left, just briefly, 

even though I respect the fact that Hawaiian is an official language 

of Hawaii, it is in large measure symbolic. And I don't know whether-it's an issue that is of serious concern to me because I want 

to protect languages as well. 

And I'm just concerned that if someone makes it a part of the 

admissions act, in the other direction, not coming from Puerto Rico, 

but in the other direction. 

Governor ROSSELL6. Well, again, I must emphasize that Puerto 

Rico would come in as a State on an equal footing. And I must contrast that with what Congressman Kennedy said, that now, now 

under Commonwealth Congress has the power to say that Puerto 

Rico's language is English or French or Russian. It has the power 

now. And it would not have that power of Puerto Rico as a State 

and that is very clear. [Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman from Rhode Island, have you been 

recognized already? 
32 

I want to thank the Governor for being able to sit there through 

a long period of time. And for the audience I want you to understand, we are going to go through the hearing until we finish. Keep 

that in mind. We don't have any race. 

Governor, thanks, thank you very much for being with us. Governor RossELLO. Thank you. [Applause.) 

Mr. YoUNG. We now have the honor of calling the Honorable 

Hector Luis Acevedo, President of the Popular Democrat party. 

[Applause.) 

STATEMENT OF HECTOR LUIS ACEVEDO, PRESIDENT, 

POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Good morning, Mr. President. You have--

Mr. YoUNG. Just a moment, just a second, I will recognize you 

officially. Just a moment, I'm trying to get everybody quiet. 

OK, Hector, you're on. Go ahead. Mr. ACEVEDO. Thank you, Mr. President, and welcome to San 

Juan. As you have on your own initiative provided for a simultaneous translation, I am going to speak my, I am going to present 

my statement in the language of my people. I have submitted--

[Applause.) 

Mr. ACEVEDO. I have submitted the translation, so I will proceed 

if you may allow. 

Mr. YOUNG. Go ahead. One thing I don't quite understand, who 

is running these mics here. I'm having a hard time hearing you. 

Maybe back a way, just a little bit. Yeah, try that. Try that. Go 

ahead. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Hoy vengo a hablarles de nuestra naci6n, de la 

democracia que iguala a los debiles con los poderosos. El sentido especial de los seres humanos que nos hace entender que en esta vida 

ningun hombre es mas ni menos que otro. 

La lucha del pueblo puertorriquefio tan pronto toma consciencia 

de su ser colectivo ha sido de afirmar sus valores a traves de la 

acci6n politica. Laetica de mi pueblo no es de guerra civil, ni de 

confrontaciones, ni de sangre derramada, esetica de igualdad en la 

esperanza y en el respeto que cada ser humano se merece. 

Donde se juzgan las personas, no por el puesto que ostentan o 

las riquezas que acumulan, si no por su aportaci6n ante los retos 

de las vidas y las causas que defienden. En esa gesti6n historica, 

nuestro pueblo ha enmarcado su lucha centenaria en que se respete 

su identidad propia y el justo valor de sus votos. 

Bajo esas premisas de respeto propio, de compromiso con el 

bienestar de nuestro pueblo y del reconocimiento de que debemos 

liberarnos de la emboscada de las formas tradicionales en que se 

han guiado las relaciones entre Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos. 

Parte principalisima de esa relaci6n es el respeto a la libre 

determinacion del pueblo de Puerto Rico. Evidenciado por las 

acciones, por la palabra comprometida del Presidente Truman, 

Einsenhower y Kennedy. Porque no se puede decir que se esta a 

favor de la libertad y la libre determinacion y no estar dispuesto 

a respetar su ejercicio. 

Por eso es que este proyecto de ley no encuentra raz6n en la 

democracia puertorriquefia, ni en la americana. Porque es producto 
33 

de actuaciones a las espaldas de nuestro electorado. Y aquellos que 

no respetan la voluntad del pueblo de Puerto Rico segU.n fuera 

expresada libremente en las urnas, es producto de aquellos que 

solamente respetan la democracia cuando ganan. 

Y hoy aquellos que no pudieron convencer a nuestro pueblo 

despues de imponerle un plesbicito bajo sus propias reglas, le piden 

a ustedes que impongan soluciones que fueron derrotadas en 

nuestras urnas. Este proceso no se trata de formulas de estatus, se 

trata del respeto a la dignidad democratica de Puerto Rico y la 

dignidad democratica de los Estados Unidos. 

Aqui ya se contaron los votos . . . aqui ya se contaron los votos, 

ahora en la explicaci6n de los resultados se quiere alterar su 

voluntad. Esa actitud es ofensiva a nuestro pueblo. El voto 

constituye uno de los valores mas preciados del pueblo 

puertorriqueiio. Asi lo ha demostrado nuestra gente una y otra vez. 

Y por eso es que tenemos una de las mas altas tasas de 

participaci6n electoral del mundo. Ciertamente uno. . . mucho mas 

alta que la de los propios Estados Unidos. Aqui el promedio de 

votaci6n son ochenta y cinco porciento. En los Estados Unidos, 

cincuenta porciento, con suerte. Por eso nuestra democracia es 

vigorosa y merece el mayor respeto. Por esa raz6n es que exigimos respeto para el Estado Libre 

Asociado. Porque al hacerlo estamos exigiendo respeto para la 

voluntad democratica de los puertorriqueiios. El Estado Libre 

Asociado gan6 el plesbicito de 1967, gan6 el plesbicito de 1993. Los 

que perdieron vienen obligados a reconocer, a aceptar y a respetar 

esa decision de nuestro pueblo. 

Abusan del poder y ofenden la dignidad de los puertorriqueiios 

cuando por la fuerza del dinero y el poder politico pretenden lograr 

por medios ilegitimos lo que no pudieron alcanzar en nuestras 

urnas. Quienes hace otras semanas atras proclamaban la perdida 

de la ciudadania americana y amenazaban con ella para empujar 

su ideal politico por encima de la voluntad de nuestro pueblo, hoy 

despues de ver la reacci6n de nuestro pueblo indignado se retractan 

oportuniticamente mereciendo tambien nuestro repudio. 

Quienes han perdido una elecci6n frente al Estado Libre 

Asociado y tienen que recurrir a pedir otro plesbicito comounico 

recurso para derrotarlo, le faltan el respeto a este pais. Corresponde tambien al Congreso de los Estados Unidos respetar 

y trabajar constructivamente en dialogo con los que ganaron, no 

con los que perdieron para hacer efectivo ... (aplausos). 

No puede cumplirse con ese cometido si no se entiende que en 

virtud de la Ley 600 aprobada por el Congreso, Puerto Rico y los 

Estados Unidos efectuaron un convenio entre ambos pueblos. Si no 

se entiende que en el aiio 52' se aprob6 la Ley 4448 por este 

Congreso, dando virtud a la Constituci6n del Estado Libre Asociado 

de Puerto Rico y respetando la Constituci6n y el gobierno propio de 

nuestra gente. 

Si no se entiende que en el aiio 1953 fueron los Estados Unidos 

los que presentaron la Constituci6n del Estado Libre Asociado y el 

convenio concertado ante las Naciones Unidas para justificar la 

solicitud de que se eliminara a Puerto Rico de la lista de territorios 

coloniales, alli el Presidente de los Estados Unidos, Dwight David 

Einsenhower, cuya palabra y honorabilidad nosotros respetamos, y 
34 

su Embajador Henry Cabot Lodge informo que el convenio 

concertado entre el pueblo de los Estados Unidos y el pueblo de 

Puerto Rico era unilateralmente inviolable. 

Fue en virtud de esa representacion que las Naciones Unidas 

eliminaron a Puerto Rico de la lista de territorios coloniales. 

Reconociendo que Puerto Rico habia ejercido su derecho a la libre 

determinacion y habia alcanzado una forma legitima de gobierno 

propio. 

El proyecto objeto de esta vista declara que el Congreso tiene 

poderes plenarios sobre Puerto Rico. Que el establecimiento del 

Estado Libre Asociado no cambio en nada la relacion existente 

entre Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos. Que no existe acuerdo 

ninguno y que es constitucionalmente imposible lograrlo. 

Esas mismas exactas acusaciones fueron elevadas ante las 

Naciones Unidas en contra de los Estados Unidos por los 

principales enemigos de la democracia de aquel entonces, Cuba y 

la Union Sovietica. En todas las ocasiones los embajadores de los 

Estados Unidos ante ese foro, incluyendo al ex Presidente Bush, 

rechazaron con vehemencia esas alegaciones. 

Y reiteraron que desde el 3 de noviembre de 1953, contrario a lo 

que se dispone en este proyecto, Puerto Rico habia ejercido su libre 

determinacion y abandono la categoria de territorio colonial. 

U stedes estan de acuerdo ahora con la posicion oficial . . . no 

estan de acuerdo con la posicion oficial de los Estados Unidos. 

Entonces tienen que notificarle a las Naciones Unidas que 

cometieron un fraude monumental. 

No siendoesta la realidad, los fundamentos de este proyecto y la 

informacion que se ha traido ante ustedes, entonces representan un 

resultado profundamente colonial que es totalmente incorrecto. 

Este proyecto no le hace justicia al buen nombre de los Estados 

Unidos. Es mezquino en quererle restar voluntad a lo que el pueblo 

de Puerto Rico ha expresado libremente por casi medio siglo en 

apoyo al Estado Libre Asociado. 

Este proyecto presenta un gran pais, al cual admiramos y 

respetamos, titubeante en la busqueda de respuestas que son 

fundamentalmente faciles y le respeta la igualdad de los pueblos y 

su autodeterminacion. El Partido Popular Democratico rechaza este 

proyecto por anti democratico y en la eventualidad de que pudiera 

ser aprobado, no participarfa en un plesbicito amafiado como el que 

se trata de imponer a nuestro pueblo. 

No me pidan sugerir enmiendas a este proyecto, sus defectos no 

son salvables porque surgen de su intencion. Cuando alguien que 

dispara, importante no es la marca del revolver ni el calibre de la 

bala. Sepan ustedes Congresistas que este pueblo nuestro se lt~ 

respeta. Que nuestra dignidad no esta a la venta ni mucho menos 

esta dispuesto a . . . 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Aqui estamos todos, senores Congresistas, este 

pueblo nuestro siempre respetuoso de los demas mira con igualdad 

en el mismo nivel a los hombres en la astas de la libertad. Sepan 

ustedes sean6ores Congresistas que Puerto Rico ni se rinde, ni se 

vende. Muchas gracias. 

[Applause.] 
35 

[The prepared statement of Hector Luis Acevedo may be found 

at the end of hearing.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank you, Hector, for your testimony. Unfortunately I don't know whether it's your supporters or other supporters that are playing great music outside and I'm about ready to 

dance. 

I don't have any questions at this time. I'm going to ask in that 

respect, because he has another appointment, the gentleman from 

Hawaii to have the first round of questions. Mr. Abercrombie, 

please? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No, its not me, I think . . . Mr. YOUNG. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I take that back. You handed me the note. OK, Mr. Kennedy, would you do it, please? 

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

I really feel that we share the same goals. We both want self determination for the people. It's a democratic goal that I think both 

sides of this issue share. Both want the dignity that comes from 

self determination. 

Where we differ is the manner and process through which we 

achieve this goal. We believe that this goal can only truly be 

achieved when you are a co-equal of the United States of America, 

and that is through as a State. It is difficult to think that under the current territorial relationship that you now have under our Constitution, that your power 

of self determination is fully realized under this territorial relationship. 

So let me first pay you the respect that you are due because I 

respect what you're trying to do very much. And let me just say 

in conclusion that I have been so enormously impressed with the 

fact that there is such a thirst for democracy here in Puerto Rico. 

That the people of Puerto Rico feel strongly about the issues of self 

determination. 

And you make a very excellent point. 

I only wish that in more places in the United States of America 

people felt as strongly about the issues as the people of Puerto Rico 

feel, whether on one side or the other. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Muchas Gracias. Mr. KENNEDY. Let me just say, I think this is a healthy exchange 

here today, and I appreciate your positions, and I thank the Chairman for having this testimony because I think this is a very important issue to be discussed. Mr. ACEVEDO. Muchas Gracias por sus expresiones. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Y tambien muchas gracias pero no-necesita 

practicar mi espaii.ol para mejorar mi espaii.ol. Cuando voy a fijar 

toda la Puerto Rico, voy a aprender mas de la lengua. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Muchas gracias. Quisiera hacer unos comentarios 

al distinguido Congresista. En primer lugar, el Presidente Kennedy 

fue muy respetuoso . . . muy respetuoso de la voluntad del pueblo 

de Puerto Rico. Entendi6 que habfa un convenio y que habia que 

respetar ese convenio. Y sobre todo . . . asi lo expres6 en el 1961, el 25 de julio y el 24 

de julio de 1962. Porque entendia que ese convenio se basa en dos 
36 

fundamentos. Primero, en el respeto a la libre voluntad de nuestra 

gente. Porque no se puede decir que se cree en la determinaci6r.. y 

quererle imponer formulas contra la voluntad de nuestro pueblo. El 

Presidente Kennedy respet6 esa voluntad y yo lo invito a que siga 

esa tradici6n de la familia Kennedy. [Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Y en segundo lugar, yo quiero que me entienda 

porque entiendo profundamente que usted esta de buena fe 

tratando de entender al pueblo de Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico es un 

pueblo, un pueblo cuyo idioma en las escuelas es el espafiol. Y lo 

es por votaci6n unanime de nuestra Legislatura, se ensefia ·en 

espafiol por votaci6n unanime. 

Y es un pueblo que no es asimilable y que no quiere ser minoria 

de nadie pudiendo ser mayoria y defender su cultara en nuestra 

propia tierra. Como no quiere asimilarse, por eso han objetado esta 

vista. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Under your territorial status, we have the power 

to regulate your immigration. We have the power in the United 

States Congress, to tell you that it is going to be English only. And 

as a territory you have to adhere to that. [Applause.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. I would rather let you decide to have Spanish 

along with English, or whatever other language you'd like, but 

under the current territorial system, it is very difficult for you to 

do that. I would only respect that in this current Congress, and you 

only need to turn on C-Span to find out what's going on, that it 

is very important now that people hold on to their power because 

they need all the power they can get. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Eso es lo que estamos haciendo. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And that's why I'm for the position that I've 

taken. But I respect the way you've come about doing this. Mr. ACEVEDO. Lo que le quiero explicar es que en el Estado Libre 

Asociado, nosotros .. . parte del convenio es el respeto a la cultura 

de Puerto Rico. Esa fue la representaci6n que los Estados Unidos 

bajo presidentes dem6cratas y republicanos le han hecho al mundo. Nuestra cultura, nuestro idioma espafiol es propiedad del pueblo 

de Puerto Rico y no puede . . . no puede el Congreso de Estados 

Unidos quitarnos el idioma que nuestro pafs pag6 en la. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me just say, when President Kennedy was 

President, he respected that. Unfortunately, under Commonwealth 

status, that is not determined by the law it's determined by the 

person. 

And I respect the fact that President Kennedy respected that 

through his many actions, and his friendship with Mufioz-Marin. I 

thought that was very-Mufioz-Marin was a very good friend of 

President Kennedy's. But times are changing and . . . 

[Applause.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. Not the friendship from President Kennedy. But 

these are now constitutional challenges. It's not simply persons, 

people themselves, personalities. We are now talking about the fundamentals. 
37 

So, I agree with you. President Kennedy felt that way, and I admire what he stood for, and I hope to carry on his legacy. And, again, but I respect what you say, and I think this is the healthy 

debate that should take place in a democratic process. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. No hubo cambios para los principios y los valores, 

someternos--

[Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO.-de que los tiempos cambian pero los valores y los 

principios que animan el respeto entre los seres humanos se 

mantienen a traves del tiempo. Y esa es mi invitacion a ustedes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. The final point I want to make is that times 

change but we live under a law. And that's what we need to 

change, because we cannot depend on people, we must depend on 

the law. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Yo le invito a que lea la Ley 4448 y la Ley 600, 

son leyes hoy, el estado vigente del Derecho. Y la Resolucion 748, 

que es la ley internacional hoy. Y esa es la ley que yo invito a que 

se respete, la ley vigente. Mr. KENNEDY. And, unfortunately, the Congress, through it's 

many changes to the laws of our bilateral relationship, has not respected that bilateral contract under Commonwealth status. And 

that is the point, but--

[Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Si alguien no lo respeta, pues hay que ir a los 

tribunales que son los que determinan--

[Applause and booing.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. First of all, Mr. Mayor, you are a consummate politician. And I have to give you credit for that. But I must say that 

some of the remarks that you have made recently are quite inflammatory and I don't think it serves you well. 

For instance, when you likened Congressman Young and his legislation to Hitler's move back in the thirties, I think you do yourself a disservice. And I don't think it serves your cause well. 

In addition to that, the last part of your opening remarks are 

quite inflammatory, I think, because it says, "Please be aware, 

Members of Congress, that the people of Puerto Rico must be respected." 

That's why we're here. We're here because we respect the people 

of Puerto Rico and we want to do the right thing. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. BURTON. You say "Our dignity is not for sale, nor is it willing 

to be humiliated." We are not here in any way to try to humiliate 

the people of Puerto Rico. We want to do what's right for Puerto 

Rico, and that's why this hearing is being held. 

In the last sentence you say, "Please be aware, Members of Congress, that Puerto Rico shall never be bought and shall never surrender." That sounds like a declaration of war. We are not here to 

declare war, we are here to work things out. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. BURTON. Now, let me say, Mr. Mayor, that in your advertisement, which is in the paper today, you talk about the memorandum by the Government of the United States to the U.N. And in 

that it says very clearly, "Congress has agreed that Puerto Rico 
38 

shall have, under the Constitution, freedom from control or interference by the Congress in respect of internal government and administration, subject only to compliance with applicable provisions 

of the Federal Constitution, the Puerto Rican Federal Relations 

Act, and the acts of Congress authorizing and approving the Constitution as may be interpreted by judicial decision. Those laws which directed or authorized interference with matters of local government by the Federal Government have been repealed." 

So then we look into the law. And in the case of Harris- v. 

Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 in 1980, and in the case of Puerto Rico v. Branstedt on June 23, 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled-the 

U.S. Supreme Court, which is in your advertisement-the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Puerto Rico never ceased to be a territory 

under U.S. sovereignty, and that Congress could treat Puerto Rico 

differently from the States of the Union provided there is a reasonable basis to do so. 

Then we'll go back to the testimony, back in March of 1950. of 

then Governor Munoz when he said, "This project does not change 

the fundamental condition of Puerto Rico of non-incorporation, and 

only permits Puerto Rico to develop its own self government." 

Testifying at a subsequent hearing in the committee the same 

year, then Resident Commissioner, Antonio Fernos-Insern said, "The project will not alter the sovereign powers of Congress over 

Puerto Rico under the Treaty of Paris." 

Now, in a newspaper column you said, talking about my views 

of Puerto Rico, and bilateral pact, you said, "Well, Congressrr..an 

Burton must read the laws of the United States. It is in 48 U.S. 

Code Annotated." 

So let me go on and read what that says. I have the annotated 

law here. "Fully recognizing the principle of government by consent, Section 731(b) and 731(e) of this title are now adopted in the nature 

of a compact so the people of Puerto Rico may organize a government pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption." 

But then you go into what the Congress said this meant. And if 

you look on page 48/731(b) it says, "It is important that the nature 

and general scope of S. 3336 be made absolutely clear. The bill 

under consideration would not change Puerto Rico's fundamental 

political, social, and economic relationship to the United States." 

It further says, "-and other matters of purely local concern over 

which you have control." 

But it is very, very clear that we do not cede constitutional authority to Puerto Rico on a bilateral basis. That's just not done. 

Now, I had another question. I had a question to ask you here. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. May I comment on that, on your remarks, sir? 

Mr. BURTON. Now you said, I think, that because of this admonition, or remarks we made to the United Nations, that we were 

ceding control or authority to Puerto Rico, at least on a bilateral 

basis. Let me get my question. One second. 

If the U.S. went back to the United Nations, and informed that 

body that it turns out that Puerto Rico has not become fully self 
39 

governing as we had hoped and expected in 1952, what do you 

think the United Nations would do if we ceded that to them? 

Would you think that they would give you the options of either 

statehood or independence? They certainly couldn't give you Commonwealth status. They would have to give you one or the other, 

would they not? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. No, no, no. 

Mr. BURTON. How could the United Nations overrule the Constitution of the United States? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. No, si es que lo que sucede ... lo que sucede es 

que la Ley 600 . . . y si usted lee la Ley 4448, que fue la que 

aprob6 la Constituci6n de Puerto Rico en el afio 52', se refiere por 

nombre y apellido a la palabra, "Commonwealth". Esa no me la 

invente yo, esa fue la aprobaci6n del Congreso. 

Y las palabras antes las Naciones Unidas no son palabras que 

me invente yo, fueron las palabras del Presidente Eisenhower, del 

Secretario. . . del Embajador Cabot Lodge y de la representaci6n 

de los Estados Unidos ante las Naciones Unidas. Y si ahora alguien aqui opina lo contrario, estaria diciendo que 

se cometi6 un fraude monumental por los propios Estados Unidos, 

donde la palabra, la honorabilidad y el--

[Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Asi que las Naciones Unidas no tienen nada que 

disponer porque ya dispusieron. 

Si solamente quiero hacer un comentario si me permite el 

distinguido amigo, en cuyo distrito vivi un tiempo, en Indiana. Yo 

considero que el proyecto que usted. . . y por razones que yo no 

quiero catalogar, atenta contra el basico respeto a los votos en 

Puerto Rico. Contra lo que nosotros entendemos que son los 

fundamentos de los principios americanos, que es el respeto a la 

urna electoral. 

Por eso nos ofendi6 en lo masintimo de nuestro ser que personas 

que nos respetamos con su profunda vocaci6n democratica, 

quisieran invalidar e impugnar la voluntad expresada por nuestro 

pueblo. Es una voluntad que corresponde a la aprobaci6n por 

unanimidad en mayo de 1990 del Proyecto De Lugo y del proyecto 

firmado tambien por el Representante Young que disponia para la 

celebraci6n de un plesbicito en Puerto Rico y recoge las formulas 

del Estado Libre Asociado, la Estadidad y la Independencia. 

Y ese proyecto disponia casi junto a las palabras que se 

incluyeron en el 93', los mismos conceptos basicos del Estado Libre 

Asociado. Bajo esa confianza, bajo esa palabra continuada del 50' 

del Congreso de los Estados Unidos, del 52', del 53' de su gobierno 

ante las Naciones Unidas, de la palabra de ustedes en el 90', fue 

que nosotros fuimos al plesbicito en el 1993. 

Y ese respeto a la urna electoral, a la democracia es lo que yo 

vengo a pedir aqui. Yo no quiero ofender a nadie que no ofenda al 

pueblo de Puerto Rico. Pero quien no respete el valor de igualdad 

ante los seres humanos, entonces necesita ser confrontado con sus 

propios hechos de su propia historia. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. BURTON. Let me conclude because I see my time has expired. 

But I would like to read this real briefly. 
40 

The U.S. told the U.N. in 1953, very clearly, the U.S. Constitution would still apply, and judicial rulings would apply, and the authority of Commonwealth was limited to local affairs. That is very 

clear. The Young bill is based on the Supreme Court ruling saying that 

Puerto Rico is still under the territorial clause, and we are trying 

to complete the decolonization process. 

And I go back to citing what was said in 1953, the case Harris 

v. Rosario, U.S. Supreme Court, on June 23, 1987-and this is the 

law-ruled that Puerto Rico never ceased to be a territory under 

U.S. sovereignty and that Congress could treat Puerto Rico differently from other states of the Union provided there is a rea.sonable basis to do so. Finally, the letter which we sent down, requested by your leg slature, clearly defines what Commonwealth status is. And if the 

Young bill is passed, that definition should be the definition 1:hat 

is on the ballot, so the people of Puerto Rico clearly understand 

what Commonwealth status really means, instead of what your definition is. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO. La designacion de . .. (,me permite contestar?' La 

definicion que nosotros pusimos en la papeleta es la misma 

definicion que Estados Unidos presento ante las Naciones Unidas, la que ustedes aprobaron en el 50', la que ustedes aprobaron en el 

52', la que la Comision de Estatus referendo en el 65'. Y todos y 

cada uno .. . todos y cada uno de los desarrollos propuestos tiene 

un precedente exacto en acciones previas del Congreso. 

Y si usted busca la Resolucion de mayo de 1990, aprobada por 

unanimidad por todos los que estan aqui, con excepcion del que no 

estaba alli, especificamente se refiere a los mismos conceptos que 

pusimos en la papeleta. Y esos conceptos refrendados, no por un plesbicito que noso1:ros 

propusimos, si no que nos impusieron y que entonces a solicitud de 

los que lo propusieron fuimos al mismo, ahora merece ese respeto 

de implementarse de buena fe y de manera constructiva los 

resultados de la urna electoral de Puerto Rico. Ese es el reclamo 

del respeto de nuestro pueblo. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Abercrombie. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mayor Acevedo, aloha. Thank you for having 

us here in Puerto Rico. Mr. Mayor, I'm interested in the question-I'm interested in expressing to you a question that comes from your testimony, that occurred to me in the course of reading your testimony and listening. 

One of the points you make-you say, "Here in Puerto Rico the 

votes were already counted. In explaining those results some wish 

to now rewrite history, and alter the will of the people. That behavior constitutes an offense to the Puerto Rican people." 

I won't dispute that that is your view. But the very fact that we 

are having a hearing and having a bill, to which you have to respond, and which causes you pain and difficulty, indicates to me 

that this Commonwealth status is always subject to reinterpretation by the Congress. 
41 

So while I comprehend and fully understand and respect your 

point of view, is it not the case that you may be facing this situation over and over and over again if the Congress chooses to redefine Commonwealth? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. En la polftica, distinguido Congresista, no hay victorias finales. Y lo que a nosotros nos ofende es que aqui hubo un 

plesbicito y que aqui este proyecto es producto de la negociaci6n, 

no por los que ganaron el plesbicito, sino es producto de la 

iniciativa y de la negociaci6n con los que perdieron el plesbicito. Y 

esa es una falta de respeto a la dignidad de la dignidad de los 

puertorriquefi.os. 

A nosotros nos impusieron ese plesbicito. En el 1989 a 1991, se 

estableci6 un procedimiento de dialogo con las tres formulas en 

Puerto Rico. De hecho, si usted revisa en el 90' se aprob6 una 

resoluci6n por unanimidad por la Camara acogiendo las mismas 

definiciones sustancialmente que nosotros propusimos en la 

papeleta. Y que ahora luego que ganamos, vengan a excluirse las 

propias definiciones resulta en algo que no sigue la tradicion 

democnitica de ese Congreso. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes, that's my point, Mr. Mayor. Are you not 

making then a case for independence for Puerto Rico? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. No, yo no ... Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Because if you were independent, then this 

wouldn't, couldn't occur over and over again. It would seem to me 

an argument could be made both against Commonwealth and 

statehood, and then you would seem to be making an argument for 

independence with the last statement. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. No mire, yo represento aquf la voluntad de mi 

pueblo. Y afirmar su identidad puertorriquefi.a en una relaci6n especial de mucha afirmacion puertorriquefi.a y de mucho respeto y 

responsabilidad ala ciudadania de los Estados Unidos. 

La ciudadanfa, como alguien dijo aquf, hemos defendido desde mi 

padre y mi tfos en el uniforme hasta este servidor. Y que yo cumplo 

mi responsabilidades con esa ciudadania al maximo. Pero mi 

responsabilidad con esa ciudadanfa no puede conllevar la disolucion 

y la asimilaci6n de mi pueblo y la falta de respeto a su democracia, 

de eso es que se trata. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Mayor, Chairman Young has indicated 

that he is not unwilling, but looking with great interest at the idea 

of modifying this bill to include the concept of Commonwealth. But 

he, at the same time, has said that he believes that an accurate 

definition of Commonwealth should be included. 

Are yot:. opposed to the bill if the Commonwealth concept was 

added to it with a definition which would incorporate some of the 

points that you just mentioned? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Yo le explico al distinguido Congresista que aqui 

un hubo plesbicito. El Congreso . . . ustedes expresaron en el 

1990 . . . la Camara por unanimidad los parametros de las 

diferentes formulas. Y que si uno revisa lo que este proyecto trae, 

este es un proyecto de imposici6n para la estadidad. Para que 

aquellos que quieran . . . que tengan alglin temor a la 

independencia, tengan que votar por la estadidad. Si ustedes quisieran . . . 
42 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Mayor, por favor . Mr. ACEVEDO .... y respetar el plesbicito, podemos dialogar 

sobre eso, lo cual no ha sucedido al dia de hoy. Las puertas est~ n 

abiertas para dialogar sobre el resultado del plesbicito. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, may I take it--

[Applause.] 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I'm asking that. . . I'm asking the question 

in good faith. May I take it that your answer is that if Commonwealth was added to the bill, with a definition that incorporated 

some of the ideas you were speaking about, that you would be willing to at least look at that, should Chairman Young put it forward? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Lo que yo he expresado es que estoy dispuesto al 

dialogo sobre la implementacion y el respeto a la voluntad 

expresada por nuestro pueblo, cosa que no ha sucedido. Aqui este 

proyecto desde sus primeros capitulos a terminar, van en una 

diatriva contra el Estado Libre Asociado, contra los compromisos 

contraidos de los Estados Unidos, yo no veo que se ha enmendado. 

Y si queremos empezar un proceso de buena fe, de dialogo y de 

respeto, las puertas estan abiertas. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Let me finish. . . let me finish by saying 

then that this is a legislative process, as the Chairman indicated, 

and legislation is all subject to modification. And I've known Mr. 

Young for a number years, both in the majority and now in the minority, and I've never found him to be anything less than totally 

fair. 

So I can assure you that he will take into consideration, as a result of this hearing, every point of view that has been put forward . Mr. YOUNG. I thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Wisconsin, have you asked questions already? The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mayor, I must say that I'm impressed with your courage. 

You are quite a fighter. You've been taking a lot of hits here, and 

you seem to give it back as well as you receive. And I respect that 

in a man. I want to say this, I feel that people are going to be treated fairly, because I know the Chairman of this Committee. I know Don 

Young, he is a neighbor of mine, and I've been serving with him 

for eighteen years, and he is a man of high integrity and that's why 

I feel you are going to have a fair hearing. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ROTH. Let me you ask you a brief question. In the last election Commonwealth won the election. You got more votes than anyone else. 

Was your party consulted about the wording of the context of 

this legislation? The reason I ask that is because when the mayor, 

I mean, when the Governor sat in you chair, Mr. Mayor, he said 

that he was involved in the drafting, or he came up to Capitol Hill 

and wanted to change some of the legislation, and so on. 

Now you won the election. I would like to ask you, were you involved in writing of this legislation? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. No hemos sido consultados, ni hemos participado 

en forma alguna en la redaccion, ni en la implementacion de este 
43 

proyecto. Por el contrario, aqui han participado y han venido a 

redactar este proyecto los que perdieron en el plesbicito. 

Esto uno . . . es, Senor Congresista, como si nosotros fuerarnos 

ahora a negociar con los que perdieron en su distritos respectivos, 

en el estado suyo. Como si los que perdieron fueran a negociar con 

los que ganaron. Y eso es lo que ha sucedido con este proyecto. Y 

por eso desde sus inicios hernos tenido que cornpartirlo 

geneticarnen te. 

Mr. ROTH. Let me ask you this, because like the other members 

of this panel, or like most of them, I am, you know, just corning 

in from the outside. I do not know all the nuances here. 

Do you feel that the current governing arrangement between the 

United States and Puerto Rico is not consistent with the wishes of 

the Puerto Rican people, or the concept of Puerto Rican self government? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Yo entiendo que el Estado Libre Asociado es 

producto de la voluntad cornpartida entre el gobierno de los 

Estados Unidos y el pueblo de Puerto Rico. Y que el fundarnento 

de esa voluntad lo es la dernocracia y la voluntad libre ejecutada 

en ese rnornento. Y yo por ello entiendo que rnientras hay un 

fundarnento de dernocracia, ese es el fundarnento basico de una 

relacion legitirna entre cornuno. Mr. ROTH. Well, let me ask you this question. Like I said to the 

Governor, I respect him very much, and I am just looking for a fair 

and honest answer. 

I respect you very much, Mr. Mayor. You strike me as a man of 

high integrity, and you certainly are a man that-you are really 

composed. I mean, I don't think you've got a nerve in your body. 

Let me ask you this. It seems to me that after the 93' election 

the people who lost were upset with losing, and now they want to 

nullify the election, and they are looking for ways to do it. Is that 

a fair analysis? Am I wrong? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Esta estrictarriente correcto. Los que ganaron aqui 

las elecciones del 92' en su perfecto derecho han reclarnado respeto 

para su rnandato electoral. Ese rnisrno respeto en la dernocracia lo 

tienen que tener cuando pierden como perdieron el plesbicito. Aquf ese respeto se requiere para el triunfo del Estado Libre 

Asociado. El rnisrno respeto que cuando se pierden o se ganan unas 

elecciones. No se puede creer en la dernocracia solarnente cuando 

se gana. [Applause.] 

Mr. ROTH. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you yielding this time, and I appreciate the mayor for giving me those answers. Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. The gentleman from Guam, Mr. Underwood. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I assume that, based on your testimony, that you accept Commonwealth as a form of self determination, as being truly an expression of self determination. 

Up on the wall here there is a series of territories, such territories in which it was described that these were, that they were 

under U.S. tutelage, as it were, and eventually achieved a self determination. 
44 

And one of those is Palau. And in the case of Palau they had 6-- 7 elections before it was finally accepted. And in that process, or 

rather, you know, it wasn't best 4 out of 7, it was, people kept hold - ing elections until they got the decision they wanted, and then they 

stopped holding elections. 

And my question to you is, if you accept Commonwealth as a. 

form of self determination, wouldn't it be logical that you would not 

have any more elections? 

Or under what conditions do you think that there should con· tinue to be plebiscites in the case of Puerto Rico? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. No, el pueblo de Puerto Rico .. . el Estado Libre 

Asociado no es un estatus que encadena la voluntad del pueblo de 

Puerto Rico. Es un estatus tan permanente como lo quiera nuestra 

gente porque se va a hacer en su libre determinacion. 

Y por eso hemos participado en un plesbicito en el 1967 y el 

1993. Lo que no podemos tener, distinguido amigo, es plesbicitos 

aquf continuamente que dividan la familia puertorriqueiia. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Ya el pueblo decidio . . . el pueblo decidio, ya 

nosotros necesitamos a todos los puertorriqueiios trabajando unidos 

por nuestro pueblo. Y no manteniendo continuas divisiones en 

nuestra gente. El futuro del pueblo de Puerto Rico siempre esta abierto a 

consultas democraticas porque el Estado Libre Asociado no cierra 

puertas a ninguna forma polftica. Pero requiere del pleno ejercicio 

de la voluntad cuando tambien se decide a favor del Estado Libre 

Asociado. [Applause.] 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Then clearly under your definition and explanation of Commonwealth, it is conceivable to be continually involved in this process of confrontation. There was one point, and 

maybe it was the translator who interpreted this remark, but there 

was one point in which you said-and I'm trying to rememberthat it was a free expression of the Puerto Rican people, and it was 

their determination, and that that is what is being respected in 

this process. It seems ... am I misstating it? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. e,En cual proceso? In which process? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. The process of political status, the process of 

determining the political status. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. 0 sea, el pueblo de Puerto Rico se ha manifestado 

con libertad en la expresion de sus plesbicitos, de sus referendums. 

Y eso es el ejercicio de nuestra libre determinacion que merece 

respeto. Cuando vimos este proyecto que definitivamente denegaba . . . 

denegaba la historia del desarrollo de esta relacion e imponfa una 

vision sobre nuestro pueblo dirigiendo el resultado antes de 

consultarnos, era algo que no respondfa ni a la democracia, ni a la 

mejor tradicion americana, ni a la libre determinacion de nuestro 

pueblo. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK Aside from the issues that pertain to this 

particular bill, you said that the Commonwealth decision is the free 

determination of the Puerto Rican people. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Sf senor. 
45 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yet, in the explanation of Commonwealth 

clearly we are talking about something that is either mutual or bilateral in tone. And I would submit that there is some disjuncture, 

or some disconnect between saying that it is the free determination, when it is not possible to make that determination entirely on 

your own, because after all it is a bilateral or a joint arrangement, 

is it not? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. No, pero lo que sucede es lo siguiente, por 

determinacion de nuestro pueblo, nosotros queremos una union 

permanente con los Estados Unidos que nos permita mantener 

nuestra identidad, que nos permita una cultura de trabajo en Puerto Rico. 

Y eso requiere un compromiso con los Estados Unidos, un 

convenio como el que se nos ofreci6 en el 50', que fue aceptado 

directamente por nuestra gente en las urnas. El Congreso no 

legisl6 e impuso la Constituci6n de Puerto Rico. El Congreso le 

permiti6 a Puerto Rico votar si querfa forjar su propia constituci6n. 

Y luego, con las urnas de Puerto Rico aprobo eso. 

Ese respeto a la democracia, a la forma constitucional de Puerto 

Rico, a establecer dos esferas de soberanfa, la Federal y la de Puerto Rico en asuntos locales es lo que avalo nuestro pueblo en las 

urnas y aprobo el Congreso. 

Y ese acuerdo es lo que legftima la relaci6n de Puerto Rico y el 

ejercicio de su libre determinacion. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you to the gentleman from Guam. The Governor, the delegate, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, is recognized. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor, it's 

a pleasure to have you here and I think it's a wonderful opportunity that we have to discuss--

Mr. YOUNG. Point of order . . . 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. It's a wonderful opportunity we have here 

to discuss publicly an issue which is very dear to our hearts, and 

very important to Puerto Rico. And I think this is the stuff that 

democracy is made out of. 

Mr. Mayor, I just want to make sure for the record, you are here 

not as Mayor but as the President of the Popular party, am I correct? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Sf senor. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And the Popular party is a party that established, thought up the concept of Commonwealth as we know it 

in Puerto Rico, and has defended it, and defends the concept, the 

status of Commonwealth, is that correct? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Correct. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And you are the spokesman for that, and 

the Commonwealth people here today also, am I correct? 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Es correcto. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And, Mayor, as a spokesman for the Commonwealth supporters-and I know that you have been vacillating 

and refusing to answer this question, I'm going to try to make it 

as simple as possible, and not for my sake, not for my sake please, 

but for the sake of the people of Puerto Rico, I wish you that you 

would answer. The question is going to be very simple. You would 

answer with a yes or no because I think it can be. 
46 

If the proposal that has been made by the Governor, that Commonwealth be included in the ballot, and if the Commonwealth as 

it is, is included in the ballot, would you participate in the referendum then? Yes or no. 

If you want to go on a political speech again, go ahead, we you 

cannot stop you, but I wish, for the sake of the people of Puerto 

Rico, that you would answer yes or no. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Yo entiendo que usted cada vez que yo contesto y 

no le gusta la contestaci6n, dice que es un discurso politico y esa 

es su prerrogativa. 

Pero lo que yo voy a decir es lo siguiente-

[Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO.- si usted tiene una diferencia con el Sr. 

Gobernador de su partido, ustedes la pueden dilucidar. Nosotros 

queremos que se respete la voluntad del pueblo de Puerto Rico. Y 

en esa voluntad del pueblo de Puerto Rico, usted particip6 del 

plesbicito y lo perdi6. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Y no tiene mandata ninguno para ir al Congreso 

a tratar de diluir o impedir el ejercicio de esa voluntad, que es el 

Estado Libre Asociado. 

Y en segundo lugar, definir el Estado Libre Asociado bajo las 

premisas de ese proyecto no es una forma respetable para nosotros. 

Nosotros queremos que se implementen los resultados del plesbicito 

del 1993. Y a base de eso es que deben comenzar los procesos de 

conversaciones. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. In other words, your answer is no. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Yo nunca lo autorice a usted a traducirme a mi. Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Mayor, sometimes I feel like we're going around in circles. The fact is, the fact is, Mr. Mayor, the state legislature down 

here, the Legislature of Puerto Rico asked the Congress for a definitive answer on what Commonwealth status meant. We went through the legal process, not one, not two, but four 

Committee Chairmen . . . four chairmen, and we had our legal 

staffs go through all of the documents concerning that plebiscite, and the definition of Commonwealth status. 

We sent a very definitive letter to the Legislature explaining 

what Commonwealth status is, and it did not coincide with what 

you put on the ballot. And so what was on the ballot in 1993 was a bogus Commonwealth argument. And until you put the correct language on the 

ballot the people of Puerto Rico will not be voting on what truly 

is Commonwealth status, according to the United States Constitution and the Congress of the United States. That is the problem. [Applause.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO. . . . eso fue lo que ustedes pidieron . [Applause.] 

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman 

yield? Before the Mayor answers I would like to ask the Chairman 

if the gentleman would yield for just a short question? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I'm running out of time, but I will. 
47 

Mr. ROTH. Well, I thank you for yielding. The question I have of 

Mr. Burton is this: when did the Congress of the United States 

vote on that definition? 

Mr. YOUNG. Gentlemen, gentlemen, please. You and I and Mr. 

Burton can discuss this issue between ourselves. We have a witness before us right now who has been answering questions by Mr. 

Romero. 

Mr. ROTH. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just had a question of you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. You can have a question of the witness, please. Or 

make a statement, if you want. Mr. ROTH. Mr. Mayor, the question I would have, my dear friend 

and colleague, Mr. Burton, said that Congress gave you the definition. The question I ask-I know you are involved in this- ! am a 

member of Congress, and I never remember voting on that. I don't 

know that Congress ever expressed in a vote-I know some committee chairmen may have said something-but I never remember 

the Congress voting on that. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Let me reclaim my time, please. I just 

want to ask one question before my time is over. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. May I answer, may I answer the question of Mr. 

Burton? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Excuse me. Let me, let me ask a question 

before my time is over. 

Let me just ask my question, let me ask my question before my 

time is up. 

I just want to say, to ask you: you were very concerned about the 

voting that constitutes one of the most precious values of our people, and that's correct. 

And you're concern about the fact that you are not being, you 

say, you're not being given an opportunity to vote. 

Now, if you're so concerned about not being given an opportunity 

to vote, Mr. Mayor, please explain. Are you not concerned about the 

fact that you and your party have been denied, and pretend to deny 

to the people of Puerto Rico, all of the 3,700,000 citizens, not just 

the minority but all of us, the right to vote, and the right to be represented in the Nation that we are citizens of? Doesn't that concern 

you, Mr. Mayor? 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. You can answer. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Tengo que contestar las dos preguntas. La del Sr. 

Burton para decir que todo lo que puso en esa papeleta es la 

expresi6n aprobada por el Congreso en el 1950, 52' y la posicion 

oficial de los Estados Unidos en el 1953 ante las Naciones Unidas. 

Y que no ha habido ninguna expresi6n del Congreso, aparte de 

una carta de algunos miembros del Congreso lo cual tienen su derecho, revocando . . . revocando la expresi6n y la ley vigente en el dfa 

de hoy. 

Y en cuanto a la preocupaci6n del compaiiero y distinguido 

miembro, Comisionado Residente, lo que quiero expresar es lo 

siguiente, no se puede hablar de democracia si no se estan 

dispuestos a respetar los resultados. La estadidad perdi6 el 

plesbicito--

[Applause.] 
48 

Mr. ACEVEDO.-no se hablar de democracia y no se respetan los 

resultados aversos cuando aun pierde las elecci6nes. Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, thank you for being here as 

a witness. 

Mr. ACEVEDO. Thank you. Mr. YOUNG. The next witness. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Will the remaining audience please take their seats. Now we have the Honorable Ruben Berrios-Martinez, President of 

the Puerto Rico Independence party. 

Welcome. Thank you for being before us today, and thank you for 

coming to see me in Washington, D.C. You're on. And let's keep it 

quiet, please, in the back, until we hear this witness. 

STATEMENT OF RUBEN BERRIOS MARTINEZ, PRESIDENT, 

PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY 

Mr. BERRIOS MARTINEZ. Senores Congresistas, despues de 

escuchar a los Presidentes del Partido Nuevo Progresista y del 

Partido Popular, me imagino que ustedes deben estar pensando que 

las perspectivas de que se logre un proyecto que cuente con un 

apoyo amplio en el pais son bastantes limitadas. Pero muchas veces 

el desafio produce las respuestas. Traigo ante ustedes una propuesta dirigida a lograr el mas 

amplio apoyo posible sin que nadie tenga que rendir sus principios 

fundamentales. Este proyecto bajo consideracifi.n aunque tiene 

graves deficiencias que deben corregirse, tambien tiene grandes 

meritos. y constituye un paso importante en el proceso de 

descolonizacion de Puerto Rico. El proyecto reinvindica la posicion hist6rica del independentismo. Reconoce la existencia del cononialismo y propone que nuestro 

pueblo pueda escoger entre alternativas desconolizadoras. Por eso el proyecto perderia su gran medida si como propene el 

Gobernador incluyera como alternativa una opci6n como la del 

estatus actual que el propio proyecto impugna como territorial y 

por ende, colonial. Ya no seria entonces un proyecto descolonizador. (.Desde cuando existe en la democracia un derecho adquirido a 

opt ar por el colonialismo, una institucion de servidumbre, que al 

igual el "apartheid" y la esclavitud ha sido proscrita del mundo 

civilizado? 

Por su parte, el liderato del Partido Popular considera, como ya 

ha expresado aquf el Alcalde Acevedo, que el proyecto es uno de 

imposici6n unilateral y antidemocratica y una trampa electoral. Es 

necesario por lo tanto, una propuesta que acople los legitimos 

intereses de los diversos sectores. Que mantenga el caracter 

desconolizador del proyecto y que garantice un proceso democratico 

y bilateral. 

Para lograr esos objetivos, propongo que el proyecto se enmiende, primero para establecer un procedimiento que garantice que sea el 

pueblo puertorriquefi.o quien democnlticamente autorice el proceso 

de descolonizaci6n. Y segundo, para asegurar que las alternativas 

descolonizadoras se definan de forma justa y balanceada. Para que el pueblo autorice democd.ticamente el proceso de 

descolonizaci6n, propongo el siguiente mecanisme. Que el proyecto, luego de ser aprobado por el Congreso y firmado por el Presidente, 
49 

no entre en vigor hasta que el pueblo puertorriqueiio le de su 

consentimiento mediante un referendum, Ley Young, si o no. A 

celebrarse en Puerto Rico con posterioridad a las elecciones del 

1996. 

Si lo que queremos es democratizar este proceso, esto no se logra 

trayendo una alternativa colonial como sugiere el Gobernador. Si 

no sometiendo la Ley Young despues de aprobada par el Congreso 

y el Presidente a la ratificaci6n del pueblo como condici6n previa 

para que entre en vigor. Ademas mi propuesta deslinda el proceso de estatus de las 

elecciones generales pues el referendum se celebraria con 

posterioridad a las elecciones. Finalmente, se facilitaria la aprobaci6n del proyecto en el 

Congreso de los Estados Unidos, pues los enemigos de la 

descolonizaci6n no podran argumentar que el mismo es anti 

democratico. Si lo anterior fuera poco, Seiio,·es Congresistas, todos, 

ustedes y nosotros, nos evitamos la verglienza de que el coloniaje 

se ofrezca como alternativa a los puertorriqueiios. Debo aiiadir que el metodo que propongo tiene precedentes. Un 

procedimiento similar fue utilizado par el Congreso aquf en Puerto 

Rico para la aprobaci6n de la Ley 600 en el 1950. En aquella 

ocasi6n se utiliz6 para consolidar el colonialismo excluyendo las 

formulas descolonizadoras. 

En esta ocasi6n se utilizaria para promover la descolonizaci6n. En aquella ocasi6n se desvirtu6 el consentimiento utilizandolo para 

colonizar. Y en esta se utilizaria el consentimiento para 

descolonizarla. Pero no basta con incluir en el proyecto el metoda de 

consentimiento previa que acabo de proponer. Tambien es preciso 

que se corrijan otras deficiencias que tiene la medida para 

garantizar su equidad y balance y para que llegue a ser aprobada 

par el pueblo. 

Un defecto fundamental del proyecto es que esta a cargado a 

favor de la estadidad. El proyecto pinta esa alternativa en colores 

brillantes e irreales. Al mismo tiempo que pinta la alternativa de 

soberanfa separada de manera opaca, esquematica e injusta. 

Para corregir ese desbalance, sugiero que ustedes soliciten a los 

diversos sectores que sometan sus propias definiciones. Pero de 

alternativas descolonizadoras para la consideraci6n de este comite. Pero en todo caso, hay que enmendar este proyecto para que diga 

toda la verdad respecto a la estadidad. 

Este proyecto deja la impresi6n de que Puerto Rico puede 

convertirse en estado, mantener el idioma espaiiol como idioma 

primario y conservar su identidad nacional como pueblo distinto y 

separado de los Estados Unidos. 

Sabre estos temas pocos han hablado con mayor claridad que el 

Presidente de la Camara, Newt Gingrich, co-autor de este proyecto. 

Recientemente luego de aseverarlo respecto a la naci6n americana 

que, y cito, "La asimilaci6n es nuestra meta, el sinecuanon de 

nuestra supervivencia", cierro la cita. 

Concluy6 que sin ingles como idioma comun, cito, "No hay 

civilizaciiin americana", cierro la cita. Seiial6 ademas y cito, "El 

concepto mismo de los derechos de grupos contradice la naturaleza 

de America", cierro la cita. 
50 

Me refiero tambien a las palabras del Senador Dem6crata, Moynihan cuando plante6 ante el Senado y cito, " (,Quieren lo.s 

puertorriqueflos convertirse en americanos? Porque es lo que 

implica ineludiblemente la estadidad, eso es lo que trae la 

estadidad. (,0 quieren preservar su identidad separada"? y cierro la 

cita. 

Ese es el claro concenso bipartista. Deberia bastar para llevarlos 

a ustedes a enmendar el proyecto para dejar claramente establecido 

que la estadidad implica una ruta de asimilacion cultural y 

lingiiistica. Debe por lo tanto enmendarse la seccion que se refiere 

al idioma para dejar claro lo absurdo que seria concebir la 

estadidad para Puerto Rico sin el inglE~s como el idioma principal 

en las escuelas publicas y en la rama judicial, legislativa y 

ejecutiva. 

No aclarar este asunto que es crucial, seria perpetuar falsas y 

peligrosas divisiones entre cientos de miles de buenos 

puertorriquefios. Es necesario ademas, que el Congreso entienda que mientras la 

nuestra constituya una nacionalidad diferente a la americana, el 

pueblo de Puerto Rico tendra el derecho inalienable para la libre 

determinacion e independencia. Es decir, tendra el derecho a la 

cesacion. 

En cuanto al caracter supuestamente descolonizante de la 

estadidad, debo seflalar que cuando se trata de nacionalidades 

distintas, la extension de la franquicia electoral Federal de por si 

no tiene el efecto de hacer realidad para el pueblo colonial su dere· 

cho a la plenitud de gobierno propio. Pero como sefiale con anterioridad, el proyecto est2L 

desbalanceado no solo porque no dice la verdad respecto a la 

estadidad, si no por la manera en que describe la alternativa de 

soberania separada. El proyecto debe ser enmendado para corregir 

esa deficiencia. 

Por ejemplo, el trato que se da en el proyecto al problema de la 

ciudadania bajo la libre asociacion, al igual que la forma en que se 

trata el asunto del comercio entre Estados Unidos y Puerto Rico, para mencionar solo dos areas importantes, constituye una grave 

injusticia. Ya que en estos aspectos la propuesta ni guarda relacion 

con el estado de Derecho actual, ni recoge los reclamos legitimos de: 

los promotores de la libre de asociaci6n. 

Respecto a la independencia, basta decir que la descripcion 

escueta y rigida que de ella se hace es correcta en cuanto a sus 

elementos basicos. Pero incompleta en cuanto a su potencial de 

flexibilidad y dinamismo. 

Mas min, con respecto a la alternativa de soberania separada 

propongo que se enmiende para el poder que de optarse por esa 

alternativa, se convoque al pueblo puertorriqueflo a una Asamblea 

Constituyente depositaria de nuestra soberania naciente. Que entre 

otras funciones, decidira la forma de soberania propia, libre 

asociaci6n o independencia que habra de negociarse con los Estados 

Unidos. 

Por ultimo, quiero confinarles porque yo promuevo con tanto 

entusiasmo un proceso de definicion del estatus mejorado ahi, que 

podria desembocar inicialmente en un triunfo electoral para una 

opci6n que no sea la independencia. 
51 

El Partido Independentista esta firmemente convencido de que 

bajo las actuales y predicibles circunstancias, la ruta de la 

independencia es la ruta de la definicion. La que anticipo Don 

Pedro cuando hablo de la suprema definicion, o "yankees" o 

puertorriquefios. Y la que supone un proceso que involucre y 

confronte al Congreso por la necesidad de ponerle fin a la situacion 

colonial. 

Este proyecto si se enmienda, puede ser un importante agente 

catalitico de este proceso. Siempre esta por otro lado sentarse a 

esperar el proyecto perfecto o alegar que esta es una trampa. Pero 

no hay que olvidar que en los procesos politicos lo valioso se 

encuentra bien entrelazado con lo mezquino. 

Hay que aprovechar lo bueno y mejorar lo malo. Mal le 

servirfamos a nuestra causa si permitieramos que lo perfecto se 

convirtiera en enemigo de lo necesario. Y lo necesario es echar 

adelante el proceso de descolonizaci6n. Mas temprano que mas 

tarde, yo estoy convencido, Puerto Rico se encaminara hacia su 

propia soberania. 

Ya sea porque el Congreso responda a un reclamo de soberania 

separada o porque tenga que enfrentar respecto a Puerto Rico su 

propia suprema decision. (.Estara el Congreso dispuesto a 

renunciar el principio de muchos unos de "E pluribus Unum?" en 

que se fundamenta la union norteamericana aceptando a otra 

naci6n distinta como Puerto Rico como estado de la union? No 

tengo duda de que el Congreso reafirmara que los Estados Unidos 

es y continuara siendo una naci6n unitaria. En el 1898, finalmente para concluir, el padre de nuestra patria, 

Betances, ante la enorme desproporci6n de fuerzas existentes nos 

sefialo el camino que estaria cerrado por tantos afios. Cito a 

Betances, "Tratar pacfficamente con los americanos para obtener 

una independencia. Es claro que esta es la solucion salvadora.", 

cierro la cita. 

Betances se adelanto un siglo, esa era la soluci6n salvadora que 

no se pudo hacer realidad entonces. Y esa es la solucion salvadora, 

tanto para Puerto Rico como para los Estados Unidos que como 

consecuencia de la nuevas circunstancias, se hace posible ahora. 

Muchas gracias. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Ruben Berrios Martinez may be 

found at the of hearing.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Berrios Martinez, on page 2 of your testimony, 

you criticized the legislation for the proposals, if we were to include 

Commonwealth in the legislation. 

And then on Page 3 you actually, page ... it could be page 3. 

You say that the bill is a booby trap. I will commend you for offering us some suggestions. But just answer my question. They don't 

coincide? is my question. 

Mr. BERRIOS MARTINEZ. Lo que digo es que otros alegan. . . no 

que yo alego, que otros alegan que es una trampa. Yo lo que digo 

es que el proyecto es defectuoso, que necesita mejorarse de la forma 

a la que me referi aqui en mi ponencia. Y que se necesita un 

mecanismo de consentimiento previo y no el mecanismo de incluir 

una alternativa colonial. 

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman from Puerto Rico. 
52 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Berrios-Martinez, I understand the 

differences between you and I, and I don't think there's any point 

in discussing them, our differences are just differences of where we 

see our final path going, but we agree definitely in the fact that 

we are convinced Puerto Rico is a colony, and we have to decolonize 

it, and we have to start a process. And in that we agree with you. 

And I must say also that you are in agreement for the amendment of the bill, in respect to whether you would accept or not the 

referendum, once the bill is adopted in Congress, before we had the 

referendum which path to choose. It seems like a very interesting 

idea, which will be considered by the committee on this, as regards 

to that. I'm sure that the Chairman will see to it also. 

But we will give that very serious consideration. It's an intereE.ting idea, to say the least, I'm not prepared to say anything else 

today, but . . . Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. La ventaja es, si me permite el Senor 

Representante, la ventaja es. . . o mejor dicho, el Senor 

Comisionado Residente, la ventaja es que ya tiene un precedente 

en la historia politica puertorriquena. Y que es el precedente que 

no pueden encontrar algunas personas que hoy en dia alegan que 

se les esta escondiendo de este proceso. Pero que en el 1950 y 52' 

excluyeron a los independentistas y a los estadistas. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Efectivamente, los que hoy se quejan de 

estar excluidos, no nos incluyeron nunca en el proceso del 52', eso 

que quede bien claro. y hemos visto tambien que hoy el no quiso 

contestar la pregunta de si participaria o no. Una pregunta tan 

facil como esa porque quieren seguir jugando el juego de la 

indecision y de confundir la opinion publica, confundir 3.1 

Congreso ... [Applause.] 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Yo creo que hay muchisimas personas en 

Puerto Rico que creen en la autonomia y que deben tener su derecho mediante una enmienda a este proyecto para que se defina la 

alternativa de libre asociacion, consona con sus legitimos reclamos. 

Lo que no podemos hacer ahora es asumir la actitud de aquellos 

profesores del siglo XV en Espana, que cuatro o cinco anos despw~s 

de Colon haber descubierto a America, todavia daban conferencias 

en la universidad de porque el mundo era plano y no era redondo. 

Eso no se puede aceptar, seguir a la altura de casi el Siglo XXI 

argumentando que Puerto Rico no es una colonia y traer como 

argumento que en el 1950 con la oposicion de la Union Sovietiea 

se aprobo para traer la guerra fria nuevamente a vigencia un 

proyecto que decfa que Puerto Rico no tenia que someter 

informacion, no que no lo era colonia, es darse euenta . .. es no 

darse cuenta que el mundo (inintiligible) totalmente en 

(initiligible). 

La Union Sovietiea ni existe hoy en dfa. Y el que esta diciendo 

que Puerto Rico es una colonia, son cuarenta y un Congresistas 

americanos, no es la Union Sovietica que no existe, son cuarenta 

y un Congresistas americanos. Y debo yo decir que la minorfa del 

pueblo puertorriqueno es la que no acepta eso porque yo estoy 

seguro que entre los votantes del Estado Libre Asociado hay 

muchfsimos votantes que aspiran a una autonomfa plena sin 

ningun rezago colonial. 
53 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Con el permiso, queria sin enbargo 

sefialar algo tambien, que al igual que esta cambiando el mundo 

como bien explica en cuanto los concepto de independencia, unos 

pudieran variarse. Tambien tengo que sefialarle que tambien en 

cuanto a la union tambien esta cambiando el mundo. Y sobre todo 

los Estados Unidos, para el afio ya 2010 al 2020 la mayoria . .. la 

minoria mas grande en todos los Estados Unidos va a ser la 

His pan a. 

Y no hay a lugar a duda de que el idioma espafiol va a jugar un 

papel mucho mas importante en la naci6n americana, sobre todo 

ahora que ... [Applause.] 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. . . . que estamos comerciando. . . se esta 

comerciando con America Latina. La importancia del espafiol 

en . .. dentro de la Naci6n, va adquiriendo cada vez mas impulso. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. El Senor Comisionado Residente sabe 

que el y 0 discrepamos. Al primero que tiene que convencer de lo 

que acaba de decir es a Newt Gingrich, el Presidente de la Camara 

que no cree como usted. 

Y despues de eso, explicarle a los Estados Unidos como tener una 

nacionalidad distinta, no ya un grupo de personas que hable 

espafiol como una minorfa, si no una nacionalidad indistinta, no 

pone en peligro la fibra de la esencia del federalismo 

norteamericano. 

Por eso el Sr. Roth, que no esta muy lejos de Canada le tiene 

tanto miedo al proyecto. No es que le tema al proyecto, el a lo que 

le tiene miedo es a que pidan la estadidad. (.Sabe por que?, porque 

el esta al lado de Quebec y obviamente sabe que si la estadidad 

alguna dia se pide, pues el Congreso norteamericano haria lo 

mismo que yo haria si fuera ellos y es votarle en contra. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Yo se que ...... "I'm never going to 

convince you, you're never going to convince me. So, "muchas 

gracias". 

Mr. YOUNG. And the twain shall never meet. The gentleman 

from Indiana, Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. I don't have any questions for this witness. Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Burton. The gentleman from Guam, 

Mr. Underwood. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I find your suggestion about the, I find your suggestion about 

holding a referendum on a past Young bill a very interesting one, 

and I hope that it is entertained. 

But I do find part of your testimony very interesting. Earlier, in 

Governor Rossello's testimony, he had indicated in response to a 

question I had asked, that even the definition of Commonwealth 

were "status quo", that he would still be here asking for essentially 

the same thing. 

Mayor Acevedo kind of waffled on the issue of whether or not he 

would participate in any kind of process authorized by this legislation. 

And in your testimony you say that you would never, you would 

accept the process but that if you, if the vote was for statehood you 

would maintain that you'd continue to have right to secede. 
54 

It seems to me that we are really in a fix here, Mr. Chairman. 

Nobody here is willing to concede anything. 

Mr. YOUNG. Would the gentleman yield in that line? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. That's not a new idea. In my great state we have 

twenty-nine percent of people who would like to secede from 1:he 

union. So it is something that still is there. I went through this 

battle once before, and it never really goes away. It will always be 

there. 

The gentlemen from--

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. La diferencia alla es que alla son 

americanos y aquf somos puertorriqueiios, esa es la diferencia. ~~ue 

en Alaska eso es un problema politico, aquf esto es un problema 

sociologico, politico, cultural, lingii.fstico e idiomatico. Es un 

problema de una nacionalidad distinta. 

Alaska en su mayorfa no es una nacion distinta. Puerto Rico es 

una nacion distinta y por tanto serfa un problema de naturaleza 

dis tin to. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Roth. 

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman I have no questions at this time. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank you. And I do thank you for your presentation, and being very sincere in your obligation to do what you 

consider right for Puerto Rico. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BERRIOS-MARTINEZ. Gracias a ustedes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Next we will have the Honorable Luis A. Ferre representing the New Progressive party. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Welcome, Governor, certainly glad to have you here 

with us today. And you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF LUIS A. FERRE, FOUNDER AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEW PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF PUERTO RICO 

Mr. FERRE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the 

Committee. 

Mr. YOUNG. Pull that, pull that mic a little closer to you, please. 

Mr. FERRE. Yes, my name is Luis A. Ferre. I'm a very young man 

who has been waiting for 92 years to see the Congress of the United States give Puerto Rico the opportunity to get rid of being a colony, and becoming a State of the the Union. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. FERRE. So that is why we are here. 

Now, I was rather amused to hear the mayor of San Juan saying 

that he was in love with a young lady, but that he was going to 

be the one that was going to determine how he is going to marry 

the lady. She will have nothing to do with it. She has nothing to 

decide. He was the one who has to decide. 

So the mayor of San Juan wants to decide Puerto Rico's self determination only from the side of Puerto Rico, but he doesn't give 

Congress or the United States any chance to say anything about 

it. 

And that is what I think has gone wrong. 

Now, the New Progressive party stands firmly behind the Young 

bill, entitled "The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Bill." 
55 

We're very happy that you have defined very clearly what Congress can do, and what Congress cannot do, in this bill. 

And we are very happy indeed that you all subscribed H.R. 3024, 

which finally opens the road for Puerto Rico to make a decision on 

its ultimate political status in a dignified manner, that becomes the 

United States Congress, and the people of the United States, including statehood as an alternative which was the implicit understanding under which the people of Puerto Rico welcomed the 

American forces of General Miles in 1898. Upon landing, General Nelson Miles published a proclamation. This proclamation was considered, by our political leaders, and the 

Puerto Rican people, as a moral commitment by the United States 

to accept Puerto Rico eventually as a State of the Union with full 

U.S. citizenship. 

Accordingly, both political parties that participated in the elections of 1900, under the leadership of the two most important and 

respected leaders, Barbosa and Munoz Rivera, included statehood 

in their platforms. 

Unfortunately, and to everybody's disappointment, Congress enacted the Foraker bill to establish the first civil government in 

1900, which did not grant United States citizenship to Puerto 

Ricans, acting in contradiction to the established policy of accepting 

territories only to become States. 

However, the people of Puerto Rico did not lose their confidence 

in the ultimate spirit of justice of the United States, and persisted 

in their demands for United States citizenship, as a step to ultimate statehood. 

We are now approaching 100 years from the date of the signature of the Treaty of Paris, which bestowed upon Congress the 

power to determine the political destiny of Puerto Rico. It took Con- gress 19 years to grant United States citizenship under the Jones 

Act, and to establish an elected Senate. It took Congress 50 years 

to provide for an elected governor. 

It took an additional four years to allow us to draft and approve 

our own State like Constitution in 1952, through an elected Constitutional Convention to which I had the honor of being elected as 

a statehood advocate and spokesman. 

In 1950, Congress authorized the people of Puerto Rico to vote 

in a referendum to accept or reject Law 600, which provided for the 

adoption of the local Constitution, as well as the other amendments 

to the Jones Act of 1917. And this is what I want to point out. 

This authorization was described as one adopted in "the nature 

of a compact," in the nature, to make it clear that it did not constitute a constitutionally binding compact on Congress, and because the voters in Puerto Rico were required to consent to or re- ject said authorization. The Federal Relations Act remained unchanged, maintaining 

Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory under the Territorial 

Clause of the United States Constitution and the full sovereignty 

of Congress. 

It was under the clear understanding that the Commonwealth, 

E.L.A., as defined by the constitution drafted by the convention, 

was to be a transitory status that kept the way open for Puerto 
56 

Rico to achieve statehood, or independence, at a future date, if the 

people so decided, that we gave our vote, as recorded in the minutes of the convention, and as confirmed by Luis Mufioz Marin, 

chairman of the Popular Democratic party delegation, in its own 

words, in the proceedings. 

This was the position assumed by the P.P.D., when Luis Mufioz 

Marin was authorized to find new ways to achieve either statehood 

or independence, the accepted final status solutions. 

He was not authorized to create a new status when he was commissioned to ask Congress for the authority to draft a local Constitution under Law 600. 

In fact, Dr. Antonio Fernos, who chaireG. our Constitutional Convention, and served as Resident Commissioner, acknowledged before Congressional committees that Puerto Rico's relation to the 

United States had not been altered, and that in fact the sovero~ign 

powers acquired by the United States over Puerto Rico in accordance with the Treaty of Paris, remained unaltered. To our surprise, shortly after the Commonwealth Constitution 

was approved by Congress, and taking advantage of the phrase "in 

the nature of a compact" out of context to mislead the people of 

Puerto Rico, the pro-Commonwealth leaders asked for further 

modifications which would establish Commonwealth as a final status by subscribing the Aspinal bill in 1957. 

But the bill was rejected by Congress, because it closed the door 

to real alternatives of self determination. 

Subsequently, they filed the Fernos-Murray bill in 1959, with the 

same intentions, but we fought it out, and it was defeated. 

In 1962, they attempted to obtain the same objective by asking 

President Kennedy for a letter to clarify the concept of "permanent 

union of Commonwealth," which failed again. 

When all attempts failed to amend Law 600, through all these 

devious ways to establish Commonwealth as a permanent status, 

trying to commit Congress through a "fait accompli" strategy, it 

was then decided to ask for the appointment of the United StatesPuerto Rico Status Commission, in 1964, to try to arrive at the 

final definition of the Commonwealth status. 

The pro-Commonwealthers had been trying to deceive the people 

of Puerto Rico, claiming advantages for the Commonwealth status 

that we knew were clearly unconstitutional, and of which Congress 

was never made aware. 

These are the advantages of Commonwealth that they offered in 

the recent plebiscite of 1993. And I am speaking as a personal participator. At the same time they maintained that statehood was not attainable, and that it would be economically disastrous for Puerto Rico. 

I was appointed member of the Status Commission, on behalf of 

the statehood position, and argued against these misleading statements. I further requested on several occasions that the pro-Commonwealth delegation spell out what they understood by "Culminated 

Commonwealth," but was unable to obtain any clarifying answer. 

Every time they insinuated that the Commonwealth status was 

outside the Territorial Clause of the Constitution, Senator Jackson 
57 

and Senator Javits, as others did before and would do after, would 

rebuke them. 

Finally, the Status Commission Report came out with the following conclusion, amongst others, and I quote: 

"Economic studies indicate that sustained economic growth, 

under the present status and continuation of the special arrangements, will make statehood with adequate but not extraordinary or 

unprecedented provisions for transition fully possible without severe risks." 

And further, "With respect to the nature of the compact agreed 

upon under Law 600, the Supreme Court of the United States is 

the final interpreter, and has not expressed itself, as yet, on these 

matters." That is a quote from the report. 

This was in 1966. Since then it has expressed itself in several instances, in particu- lar in 1980, in the case of Harris v. Rosario, in which it ruled that 

Congress had the authority to discriminate against the United 

States citizens of Puerto Rico, since Puerto Rico was held under the 

Territorial Clause of the Constitution. 

It is significant that this case was brought to the court by one 

of the members of the United States-Puerto Rico Status Commission, Patricia Robert Harris. 

The growth of the statehood party has been overwhelming since 

1968. And by the way, the present Resident Commissioner Romero 

Bareclo was present with me in the Status Commission during this 

discussion. He will remember these things. 

And going ahead. The growth of the statehood forces has been 

overwhelming since 1968. 

In 1964, the Pro-Commonwealth party had 487,280 votes, or 59.4 

percent of the vote, and the Pro-statehood party had 284,627, or 

34.6 percent. 

In the last election of 1992, the statehood party had 49.33 percent of the vote, and the Pro-Commonwealth had dropped down to 

45.34 percent. 

The Pro-Commonwealth party in Puerto Rich has been misleading the electorate in Puerto Rico by advocating a right to self deter- mination that is based on the principle that Congress is under obligation to grant whatever the people of Puerto Rico demand, wheth- er they are privileges or advantages that Congress cannot grand 

because of Constitutional constraints, such as permanent union, irrevocable U.S. citizenship, tax exemption, Federal advantages in 

appropriations, transfer of power to control immigration, and so on. 

On the basis of these misleading advantages, which they incorporated into their ballot in the last plebiscite, they have gained 

votes of those who were not properly informed. For the Commonwealth leaders, Congress does not have any right to exert its own 

self determination. 

For this reason we endorse H.R. 3024, which establishes clearly 

that "Congress will continue to respect the principle of self determination in its exercise of Territorial Clause powers, but that authority must be exercised within the framework of the United 

States Constitution," so as to do away with all this wishful thinking of the leaders of the Popular Democratic party, and stop their 

misleading arguments. 
58 

Furthermore, we oppose the inclusion of any formula of final status that is not decolonizing as an alternative in the proposed plebiscite. And reject naming of any of the decolonizing alternatives 

under prefix E.L.A., which because of its use in describing a false 

decolonized status will be mislead the Puerto Rican voters. 

Congress cannot--

[Applause.] 

Mr. FERRE. Congress cannot be a party to a hoax in which United States citizens of Puerto Rico will be offered the same colonial 

alternative under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution as a 

sovereign decolonizing solution. 

And I think, of course, that the history of Puerto Rico has shown 

that we have social forces bringing Puerto Rico to this decision. 

There are two million and a half Puerto Ricans now living in the 

United States. We feel that Puerto Rico is ripe to become a state 

after almost a hundred years of apprenticeship, and to assume its 

political rights and responsibilities. 

During all this century more than 200,000 Puerto Ricans have 

served with distinction in all the wars that the United States has 

been involved, and in several cases with higher casualties than 

some states. 

More than 2,000 Puerto Rican soldiers served in the recent Gulf 

War, amongst whom was a grandson of mine in the Armored Division, the 1st Armored Division. Several, such as Fernando Luis Garcia, who gave their lives, heroically, and have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. 

Amongst other distinguished leaders are Admiral Horacia Rivero, 

in 1968, Commander in Chief of NATO Forces in Southern Europe, 

and later Ambassador to Spain. And Admiral Diego Hernandez, who was in command of the Mediterranean Fleet; Major General 

Pedro del Valle, commanded the U.S. Marine Corps., First Division 

in the Pacific; General William A. Navas, Jr., who is Deputy :in 

Command of the National Guard. 

Dr. Antonia Novello served as U.S. Surgeon General; and Dr. 

Enrique Mendez, Jr. , as Deputy Surgeon General of the United 

States. 

Puerto Rico is participating successfully, and with distinction, in 

Mainstream America to enrich its economy and its culture. 

There are about 2,000,000 Puerto Ricans living throughout the 

nation, doing constructive and creative work as factory workers, 

and as professionals, in all fields of activity. Thousands of physicians and engineers, thousands of teachers and professors in 

schools and universities. In the arts and humanities, our rhythms and melodies have contributed to enrich American music. Our great actors, like Jose 

Ferrer and Raul Julia, have been American favorites. Justina Diaz 

and Pablo Rivera have been great voices of the Metropolitan Opera. 

In the area of civil government, amongst many others, Judge 

Juan Torruella, Chief Justice of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals; Judge Jose Cabranes is a member of the U.S. Second Court 

of Appeals; and Maurice Ferre has served as Mayor of Miami. 

In the area of sports, we have contributed with many baseball 

players, amongst them Roberto Clemente who has been included in 

the Hall of Fame. Charles Passarell was the number one tennis 
59 

player in the United States in 1969, and now, Gigi Fernandez, a 

tennis champion, as well as Chi Chi Rodriguez, a golf professional. 

And last but not least, to show how much Puerto Rico is 

imbedded in American life, it was the Puerto Rican judge of the 

Southern District of New York, Sonia Sotomayor, who as a fearless 

jurist decided a few months ago to issue an injunction that could 

break the deadlock in the baseball strike and, by doing so, sent the 

baseball players back to give Americans, after more than a year, 

the enjoyment of their favorite sport. Nobody could be part of America more than this fearless and 

competent jurist of 40 years of age. She was the true image of the 

freedom and respect of law America stands for. 

Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come for Congress to live up 

to the commitment of equality under which we were brought into 

its fold. It is time to do justice to more than 3. 7 million 

disenfranchised American citizens of Puerto Rico. 

We congratulate you for taking the proper step with H.R. 3024 

to comply with your moral duty as it becomes the United States 

Congress and our fellow citizens of the United States. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you very much, Governor. Mr. FERRE. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. You are an inspiration to the Puerto Rican people, 

and the Congressman who stand at this table. 

Mr. FERRE. Thank you, sir. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. If I can do as well as you're doing when I reach 

those golden years, I'll be extremely pleased. And I notice with 

great interest you read your statement without any glasses. 

Mr. FERRE. Yes, I forgot them. 

Mr. YOUNG. I loved it. He forgot it, but he has them. 

But anyway, Governor, as an example of where I'm coming from, 

this battle is a battle between the Puerto Rican people, but we play 

a role in the United States Congress, and have to be part .of the 

solution. And that's really what these hearings are all about. 

I also noticed the contribution the Puerto Rican people made, you 

mentioned in your statement, but one of those that got my attention the most, of course, is Chi Chi Rodriguez. I'm one that loves 

to pursue that little white ball around, and I can't hit it worth a 

darn, but I sure respect his capability. 

Mr. FERRE. [Laughs.] 

Mr. YOUNG. The history of it is very clear. And I'm glad that you 

bring the institutional memory of what was decided in the years 

and the steps, and what was the Commonwealth definition, and 

what it was meant to be at the time of identification. And I think a lot of people have lost sight of that. It was an interim definition, prior to another standard. And as we go through 

these discussions I hope everybody keeps that in consideration. 

Mr. Romero-Barcelo? 

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

I just want to congratulate you once again, Governor Ferre for 

your excellent statement. 
60 

Mr. FERRE. Thank you. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. And I just want to ask this one question 

because you've been through this process for so many years, and 

you know more than anybody else from first hand. Governor, what has been the experience-every time they have 

tried to get what they call enhancement or improvement for the 

Commonwealth, what has been the result? 

Mr. FERRE. They try to make Congress do things which are contrary to the constitution, and they can't do it. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. So we're not going anywhere--

Mr. FERRE. We haven't gone anywhere. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. Thank you, thank you, Governor. Mr. YouNG. The gentleman from Indiana. Mr. BURTON. First of all. . . Mr. FERRE. Yes, Congressman Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Governor, if I should live to be 92, and be as 

healthy as you, I hope I can get rid of my glasses as well. They're 

a big burden to me. 

This is one of the best statements that I've read. And I want to 

commend you. 

Mr. FERRE. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. It's very well thought out. 

There's one part of your statement on page 7 that I hope the 

media will pick up, and it's the last paragraph on page 7. I'd lik·~ 

to read it. And I don't mean to take positions in the electoral process down 

here , but I think this is a very salient point that needs to be made. 

It says, "The Pro-Commonwealth party in Puerto Rico has been 

misleading the electorate in Puerto Rico by advocating a right to 

self determination that is based on the principle that Congress i.s 

under obligation to grant whatever the people of Puerto Rico demand, whether they are privileges or advantages, that Congress 

cannot grant because of constitutional constraints. Such as permanent union, irrevocable U.S. citizenship, tax exemption, Federal advantages in appropriations, transfer of power to control immigration, etcetera." 

You're absolutely correct, and that's the point we've been trying 

to make all day long, that the plebiscite that was held in 1993 did 

not clearly delineate those issues. 

And that's why we sent this letter down in answer to the legislative request to clarify those issues so that in 1998, if the Young bill 

passes, and becomes law, that there will be a very clear definition 

of Commonwealth should Mr. Young choose to put that in the bill. 

And I think that your comments there are right on the money, 

and I appreciate very much your intellectual attitude. 

Mr. FERRE. Thank you, sir. I agree with you because we've had 

too much of semantic playing. The Commonwealthers have been 

just playing with words. But they haven't gone down to facts. And 

the people of Puerto Rico are completely lost. And I think it's time 

Congress says, no. This is as far as we can go, and no more. Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Governor. 

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Roth. 

Mr. FERRE. Yes, Mr. Roth. 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
61 

Governor, I want to associate myself with the comments of my 

colleagues in the panel here today in complimenting you on your 

excellent statement. You have a real historic sense as to, you know, these issues. I wonder, is there some way that we could take a very serious 

issue like Commonwealth, statehood, independence, is there a way 

we could debate this out of election time? It seems it comes up in 

elections, and becomes part of an election. 

Is there any where that you can see that this could be debated--

Mr. FERRE. No. 

Mr. ROTH.-away from an election? 

Mr. FERRE. I think the only way you can do it is by a plebiscite, a referendum. And that is why the Young bill is such a perfect oc- casion. In 1967 when I really defeated the Commonwealthers, even 

though I lost the referendum, because up to that time they had 

held the power in Puerto Rico for almost 30 years, complete power. But I broke that in 1967 with the elections of 1968. I wasn't able to change that. Because they kept on talking about 

Commonwealth, doing things that they couldn't do. Now I think that the only way you can stop that is by having 

a referendum in which you can define what are the alternatives 

that clearly are obtainable. It was an error, I think, for the government of Puerto Rico to approve a plebiscite in 1993 that gave every party the chance to define-it was wishful thinking, it was not a plebiscite. I would like to be in heaven. Well, you can't be in heaven; that's 

all there is to it. But if we have a plebiscite in which Congress has the responsibility-by the Treaty of Paris you are responsible for us. Now you 

tell us, you can have this, or you can have that. And then we make 

a decision on the basis of really obtainable solutions. 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you very much, Governor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Governor. I appreciate your testimony, 

and have a good day. 

Mr. FERRE. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. YoUNG. I was thanking the staff. I was just wondering how 

we were going to get three people over there in one chair. That 

would have been an exciting moment in this hearing. At this time I'd like to call Dr. Myriam Ramirez de Ferrer, president of the Puerto Ricans of Civic Action; Mr. Juan Garcia; Mr. Luis Vega Ramos. Please. 

I want to thank, not only the audience, but also the panel or panels for being so patient. This process which we go through called 

democracy is sometimes very cumbersome, and very slow. But I believe it's the appropriate way to do it. And, as you've noticed, I've 

been very lenient with the gavel when it comes to time , because 

this is a very important issue. I would like to say I'm going to be just as lenient with this group, 

but bear in mind it's getting late in hour, so we will be as convenient as I can for you. 

And, Doctor, you're up first. 

24-926 - 96 - 3 
62 

Ms. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. Thank you, Mr. Young. 

And I would like to start my statement by asking that my testimony be included for the record, my written testimony. 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. OK I welcome you to Puerto Rico. 

Mr. YOUNG. It's great to be here. 

Ms. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. You have no idea what a pleasure :t 

is to see you here. Our group has worked for this for many years, 

and every time we see Congress interested in solving our issues, 

it gives us hope, you know, for the future , and gives a lot of 

strength to continue. 

First thing, you might have noticed a lot of enthusiasm in the 

people. This shows that the people of Puerto Rico want to solve 

this. 

You also might have noticed that it looks like we're divided. But 

actually it is because when this issue is brought into the politic2J 

parties itself, elections, candidates, it becomes almost like a basketball team against each other. But it really is not what the people 

out there in Puerto Rico, in the majority feel. 

And, you know, the worst thing of it is that even if you sound 

confused by some of the different arguments that have been 

brought here, particularly from the Commonwealth representative, 

can you imagine what it's like out there, every day? We've living 

this thing every day; debates; media; analysis. 

I mean, we are subject to this every day of our lives, and have 

been working on this very, very, very strongly since 1984/85 when 

we delivered 350,000 petitions. 

My organization sends people from both sides. 

I don't think people are that confused. And I, you know, apologize for some of my fellow citizens here, who are nice people, and 

they come here and speak in Spanish to you. I think they forget 

what a hearing is; you're hearing us. They're talking for people out 

there to hear them. And that's what they do every day of our lives. 

Talk to these people out there; argument. And you give us the opportunity to hear us. They both speak 

wonderful English. One of them is a lieutenant colonel in the reserves. The other fellow?-! think he even studied in the States. He 

speaks good English. Their children go to school in schools that 

speak English, you know, that teach English. 

So I apologize for having them, for having to use the little things. 

Because they could understand what you were asking, but they 

would answer in Spanish. 

So mean it was really a waste of time. 

Keep that bill the way it is. Don't touch it. You don't have to 

touch it. As a matter of fact, you know, everybody knows that we 

only have two ways to go: either we become closer to you, under 

the U.S. Constitution that so many of us feel so proud about, and 

support so strongly; or we move the other way, to become a separate country. There's no, there's no middle of the road to that. 

If we can't make up our minds, you have a lot of provisions in 

the bill for us to stay just the way we are. 
63 

And I have a little comment for Mr. Roth, and I'm pleased to see 

you again. We saw each other a couple of weeks ago out there in 

Congress. 

I'm sure your constituents back home, even though you're not 

running for office again, would love to vote for United States citizenship, permanent union with the United States, they would love 

to vote for not taxes. You know, to have a tax gimmick like 936. 

Congress has already answered to that. They've given a sweat to 

936. But even worse than that, since you agree that Commonwealth is such a good option, you know, we really need $500 million for Medicaid. Perhaps you can start moving the, you know, the 

thing up there so we can get that money without paying taxes, because we really need that money. 

The third thing I want to mention is the citizenship issue. The 

citizenship issue has become, you know, a little funny thing happening down here. Well, we revised, you know, all our documents, 

and we saw, in the Jones Act-and by the way, as you see my testimony-you will be able to notice that we've put together documents 

way back from the Treaty of Paris, that sort of defines what Commonwealth is or has been since this whole discussion began. And we were particularly interested to see in the Jones Act-the 

Jones Act mentions the fact that this citizenship that we're getting, 

by a legitimate action of Congress, is a citizenship that cannot be 

awarded to anybody from Puerto Rico who is already a citizen from 

another country. 

So if you were to give dual citizenship, or whatever somebody 

wants down here, I think you would have to repeal the Jones Act. 

Because the Jones Act that creates a different citizenship than that 

from the other States, that Jones Act doesn't allow you to give citizenship to anybody who is taking up another citizenship. 

And then, why would anybody want to become an independent 

country, and yet continue to be a U.S. citizen? I mean, it's mind 

boggling. I just can't understand that. 

Another question I want to ask: why are they fighting for U.S. 

citizenship? What comes with U.S. citizenship that they can't guarantee with Puerto Rico citizenship, or with Puerto Rico sovereignty? Could it be money? Are they looking for more money, you 

know? So that they can, you know, continue with the little game 

of Federal funding. How is anybody governing Puerto Rico with 3.8 million U.S. citizens? Or are you planning to make two American citizen republics? 

One big one, with 50 States? Or one little one, with 3.8 U.S. citizens? How are you going to handle that? 

I mean, how do we go and, you know, and work in the international community with a little, tiny country of U.S. citizens. It's really absurd. You can't allow that to happen. But I also wanted to say something. Don't be misled by those 

who say that you are abusing your power, or that you have come 

here to impose something on us. My God, everything that has been 

Commonwealth has been basically imposed. 

We cannot respect an option that's a fraud to start with. If you 

take a look at our documents, I mean, do you know when Munoz 

Marin sent a telegram to the president of the United States to call 

the U.N. we were something or the other, a couple of hours before 
64 

Eisenhower swore as president of the United States, have any of 

you been in the middle of an inaugural, presidential inaugural and 

see what goes on in the White House? 

I have had the opportunity to do so, and nobody is there in 

charge really. You can do a lot of little things during that time, but 

we're stuck with those things. 

The process was not done from the United States, it was right 

from here. The misleading was from here. And we're stuck with the 

problem that we are almost begging you to help us resolve. 

Don't touch the bill. It's fine . We've got a lot of safety nets to 

keep what we have. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Doctor. I'm not going to say anything, 

but we appreciate your testimony. 

I believe the next one is Juan Garcia? Yes. I see four witnesses. Are there four witnesses up here? No. One? 

OK, Juan Garcia, you're up next. Esquire. 

STATEMENT OF JUAN M. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA, 

PRESIDENTE, ANALSIS INCORPORADO 

Mr. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA. My name is Juan Manuel GarciaPassalacqua. I am a political analyst for newsmedia in Puerto Rico 

and the United States, with 35 years experience in my profession. 

I'm a professor of political history of Puerto Rico and the Caribbean at the Centro de Estudios Avancado de Puerto Rico del Caribe 

in San Juan. 

I appear before you today strictly in my personal capacity in support of the bill under your consideration. 

I appear also to specify one of the key concepts of the bill, the 

nature of the Free Associated State, in Spanish, Estado Libre 

Asociado de Puerto Rico. 

As defined in it, Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico was created in 1952/1953 by the administrations of the United States 

Presidents, Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, together 

with Puerto Rican Governor Luis Muiioz Marin, for whom I worked 

as a special assistant during the years 1958 and 1962/1964. 

I would address the political and juridical intent of said creation. 

Since Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, is a historian, I am 

sure he will be interested in the historical intent of Luis Muiioz 

Marin, speaking on behalf of Puerto Rico, in creating Estado Libre 

Asociado, that I must state at the outset is coincidental with a 

clear and precise definition included in the bill for the formula of 

free association. A series of citations from official documents issued by the founder of Estado Libre Asociado, throughout his political life, will make 

this evident for the record of this hearing, and for history. 

Since some of these documents are still classified, or in 

unpublished archives, if the Honorable Chairman or the member.s 

so require at the end, I'm willing and able to be sworn. 

Let us examine the historical record of the alternative of free association for the people of Puerto Rico as defined by Luis Muiioz 

Marin. 

In 1932 Luis Muiioz Marin forced the inclusion in the platform 

of his Liberal party of the demand for "the immediate recognition 
65 

of the sovereignty of Puerto Rico", with a transition period as a 

"Commonwealth", modeled on the Philippine Islands. 

In 1934, Munoz proposed, in an editorial in his newspaper written in English a choice between only two options: "statehood on one 

side, and independence or autonomy on the other", as the question 

for the United States called to resolve in harmony with the people 

of Puerto Rico. 

Sixty years later Chairman Young has listened to Luis Munoz 

Marin. 

In 1937, in a memorandum to the Secretary of Interior, Harold 

Ickes, Munoz assured that under independence the United States 

could have all the naval and military facilities that it may require 

for its National defense. 

In 1942, in his Historia del Partido Popular Democratico Munoz 

again recognized only two tendencies: equality or difference. Equality he defined as annexationism or statehood, and difference he defined as autonomy, independence, free community, or Estado Libre 

Asociado, in those same words. 

In 1944, in a Committee created by Washington to discuss the 

status issue, Munoz demanded "sovereignty" for Puerto Rico, while 

Abe Fortas, then in the Interior Department, insisted sovereignty 

must remain in the hands of the United States. 

In 1946, in three articles in the newspaper El Mundo, Munoz 

proposed the creation of the associated people of Puerto Rico as a 

transitory measure until economic self-sufficiency is achieved, to 

then opt between statehood and independence. In 1952, the Popular Democratic party adopted unanimously a 

platform for that year's election proposed by Munoz that reads, "obtain the development of the potentialities of the Commonwealth 

through readjustments in the Federal relations that will be 

achieved by a bilateral compact" between Puerto Rico and the United States. 

At that moment, gentlemen-and this is the important part of 

my statement-Dwight D. Eisenhower became President of the 

United States, in the ticket of the Republican party. 

Under his presidency, the United Nations began to consider the 

matter of Estado Libre Asociado created in 1952. Luis Munoz Marin believed a "compact" had been established. The Eisenhower administration believed otherwise. The State Department favored that the issue "be determined ultimately by the 

courts", and that was the basis of the Eisenhower policy before the 

United Nations. In the case decided during the consideration of the matter, the 

United States District Court for Puerto Rico decided that a compact 

existed, and was confirmed by the U.S. First Circuit Court in Mora 

v. Mejias in 1953. 

However, after all these years, in United States v. Sanchez, 1992 

Federal 2nd 40 11th Circuit, 1993, the most adequate legal interpretation to date has been that Puerto Rico remains a territory of 

the United States. 

The cabinet of President Dwight D. Eisenhower met on November 20th and discussed the matter of Puerto Rico. 

In a breakfast that morning, the President proposed to United 

Nations Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge that, instead of going 
66 

with the statement by the Alternate Delegate, the Ambassador 

himself offer independence for Puerto Rico. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge made the announcement in the 

United Nations on November 27, 1953, and it was a resounding 

success. 

In 1953-and this is the crucial point here-in a handwritten response to the offer of independence from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Governor Luis Munoz Marin stated, "We must eliminate 

all functions that would not be exercised by an independent country and that are unnecessary to the concept of free association with 

common citizenship," exactly the definition of free association that 

is included by Chairman Don Young in his bill. 

In 1954, Munoz repeated that definition, stating that the United 

States would abandon their sovereign rights over Puerto Rico, exercising from then on only the powers delegated by Puerto Rico. On March 26, 1956, Ambassador of the United Nations, Henry 

Cabot Lodge wrote a letter to Chairman Adams, chief of staff in the 

White House, proposing that "Congress adopt a resolution offering 

independence to Puerto Rico." 

The documents of the exchange of letters-since my time is finished-are accompanying my memorandum. They include the classified, secret, and top secret documents that have the initials of 

Dwight D. Eisenhower here, on the top, right. It says "Secret D.E ." 

that's Dwight D. Eisenhower. 

And in that particular top secret memorandum, Eisenhower approved the following: page two of the top secret memorandum, [t 

would also do no harm to hint at the almost certain honor which 

would attach itself to Governor Munoz should he become the first 

president of Puerto Rico. That was the intent of the Eisenhower administration. Because 

of that, gentlemen, I wholly support the definition of free association as contained in this bill. 

[The prepared statement of Juan M. Garda-Passalacqua may be 

found at the end of hearing.] 

Mr. YoUNG. Thank you, sir. That was very good. I mean, I hope 

the rest of the members who follow this chronological, historical aspect of what is before Puerto Rico. 

The next witness is Mr. Ramos, I believe. 

STATEMENT OF LUIS VEGA-RAMOS, PRESIDENT, PROELA 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. Mr. Vega-Ramos for the record. 

So that the Chairman be clear, I am joined today by Raul 

Mariani, Esq., who is the vice president of PROELA which is an 

organization that for 20 years has advocated for the developmer:.t 

of the current status within the context of our lateral association. 

I will speak today to you in English so that you, our foreign visitors, understand me. 

Today, we speak on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans who in 1993 voted in favor of the Estado Libre Asociado. 

The U.S. acquired Puerto Rico as a war booty in 1898. Since Congress approved the last Puerto Rican status act in 1952, we have 

constantly struggled to attain a larger degree of self governmen·:, 

and full self determination. 
67 

In 1993 over 800,000 Puerto Ricans petitioned the United States 

to adopt-and I quote from the winning definition-"a bilateral 

compact that can only be amended by mutual consent." 

The people of Puerto Rico have pushed the envelope as far as we 

can. Now it is time for the United States to act rationally, fairly, 

and honestly to solve our mutual dilemma. 

It is your duty to act now. 

The U.S. has expressed its commitment to the most basic principles of democracy and self determination. Government should 

work by the consent of the governed. 

We believe that the best response to the 1993 plebiscite would 

be to present to Puerto Rico a bilateral compact act. 

Last October we urged you to do this. We do the same today. 

However, you have chosen to call for a new plebiscite between 

that of assimilation, and I mean assimilation, and sovereignty. 

Since this is truly a process of mutual determination, we are will 

to consider your proposal if, if you are willing to consider our 

amendments. 

In any attempt to structure a plebiscite Congress has to follow 

two important principles: fair play and good will. 

Fair play means that all three options are presented on the ballot on an equal footing. 

Good will requires that all the status options have the same 

guarantees in terms of access to the ballot, and that they are immune to demagogic manipulations that adversely affect them. 

If Congress acts with good will, and provides for fair play, you 

will have the support of everyone in Puerto Rico. If you don't, you not only miss another chance to break the status impasse, but you will also make the situation worse. 

H.R. 3024 does not need to discuss the legal nature of the current relationship. By adopting a position on that debate, one way 

or the other, you would alienate hundreds of thousands of Puerto 

Ricans. 

This is totally unnecessary. 

The House adopted unanimously in 1990 a plebiscite bill that did 

not dwell on this debate. Everyone here in Puerto Rico agrees that 

Congress has the authority to mandate a status plebiscite. To ascertain whether it is in light of the Treaty of Paris, the territorial clause, or Section 9 of the Federal Relations Act is irrelevant and diverting. Just legislate a plebiscite and let the scholars and analysts debate the issue. 

Civic groups, such as PROELA must have the same rights that 

political parties to represent the various status options. We are as 

active on this issue as the political parties, as you well know from 

this hearing, so the law should grant us similar rights to the political parties. 

We now direct our attention to how H.R. 3024's offer for a bilateral pact should be improved to comply with international law, 

U.S. constitutional law, and the aspirations of Puerto Rico as expressed in 1993. 

First, the options of a free associated State, in Spanish, Estado 

Libre Asociado. And independence should be separated. Inter-
68 

national law recognizes them as separate options, and so should 

the bill. 

Not to do so would be against the principles of fair play and good 

will. 

Second, the language concerning the U.S. citizenship of Puerto 

Ricans living on the island, under the bilateral compact, should be 

identical to the section by section analysis of Section 172 of the 

compacts included in the Compact of Free Association Act of 19815. 

And that quote is in my written statement. 

We also submit a legal paper of citizenship issues prepared by 

PROELA vice president, the gentleman at my right, Raul MarianiFranco. 

Regarding other aspects of the Estado Libre Asociado offer, we 

are filing a ballot text to be included in the law. We are ready to 

discuss that text in detail. 

But let us be totally clear. Estado Libre Asociado has to be one 

of the options of the Puerto Rican people, but not as it is today. 

Instead, it must be included as it should be, sovereign, clearly outside the territorial clause powers, and associated to the United 

States by means of a bilateral compact. 

Your willingness to include this legitimate option would be the 

clearest indicator of the seriousness of your offer. 

The Congress is now considering H.R. 3024. The administration 

has expressed a clear position with regards to the inclusion of the 

1993 plebiscite's winning option, and the guarantee of Puerto 

Ricans' U.S. citizenship. 

We agree with the administration on both counts. 

You should revise H.R. 3024 to accommodate the present views 

to remove unnecessary diversions and to provide for a fair and just 

process that commits Congress irrevocably to a resolve of the plebiscite. 

If you are not willing to do so, in a plebiscite that includes as 

statehood offers, then bite the bullet. Say so, say so to the leaderships of the statehood party, say so to the Puerto Rican people, and 

be willing to remove statehood from the list of options. 

For almost 100 years the Puerto Rican nation has waited for 

Congress to fill its obligation, and provide us with a process that 

ensures final disposition of the political status issue. 

We have been ready for all these years. Now it is time to show 

that you in Congress, and in the United States, are ready too. 

Las generaciones pasadas, presentes y futuras de . Puertorriquenos esperan por ustedes. El pueblo de Puerto Rico 

hablo y continua hablando hoy. La bola Senoras del Congreso, esta 

en su cancha. 

Muchas gracias. 

[The prepared statement of Luis Vega-Ramos may be found at 

the end of hearing.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank you, Luis, for your testimony. 

Does anyone-Yes, go ahead. The gentleman from Hawaii. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Sr. Ramos--

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. Mr. Vega would be the correct Spanish way of 

arranging names. It's that the first last name is the correct one. So 

I would be Mr. Vega. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I beg your pardon. 
69 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. No problem. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Sr. Vega, excuse me. What would you say 

then if Mr. Young submits the result of the plebiscite with the status definitions, as they were presented to the people of Puerto Rico 

in this plebiscite, to the Congress with the sense of the Congress' 

resolution to be voted up or down? 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. That could be a way to go. But I think that 

would be unnecessarily diverting. There is a core element on that 

definition that is a bilateral compact that can only be amended by 

mutual consent. 

We are asking, in our amendment, that if you are willing to offer 

a free association alternative, you incorporate the concept of Estado 

Libre Asociado into that alternative, and separate it from the option of independence. 

If you would do so, and would do it in a fair process that guarantees equal access to all the options in the ballot, I would think that 

would be a fair response to the 93' plebiscite. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. But that's not the question I asked. I asked 

a very simple question. You cite this plebiscite, the plebiscite came out with 48 point 

something, 46 point something. The claim by the Commonwealth 

people is that this constitutes the will of the people. Therefore, it 

could be put forward to the Congress. By resolution by Mr. Young, very simply a sense of the Congress resolution as to whether we 

accept it or not in the Congress. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. I was very clear on my oral statement that I 

thought that the correct way to answer to the plebiscite results was 

to file a bilateral compact act. 

However, you have chosen a different path. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That's right. Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. I would love to see a bilateral compact act 

come before Congress and be considered. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I'm trying to explain something--

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. Go ahead. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE.-in my question. 

What you think, and we should do, and what we're going to do 

may be two different things. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. I grant you that. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Now, in terms of the Commonwealth, believe 

me, I've been through this before, you don't have anything to say 

about it. I'm asking you, if the argument is-:-and I came down with no 

preconceptions, but I'm learning a lot at this hearing, I'll tell youif the argument is that the vote taken previously in the plebiscite 

is the will of the people, then should we or should we not submit 

that to the Congress for its approval or disapproval? 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. The thing I think it should be done is that 

Congress should structure a response, and then vote on whether 

it--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. You can't have it both ways. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. No. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. On the one hand I'm being told that I have 

to accept the results of this plebiscite. And now you're telling me 

I should restructure the results of the plebiscite. 
70 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. And the results of this plebiscite was to legi;Slate a bilateral compact for Puerto Rico. And you can do that outside the territorial--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That's not what it says in this definition. Because I can tell you right now, I believe if we submit this--

and I'm becoming more and more to this conclusion-if we just submit this as a sense of the Congress resolution, and vote on it, I'll 

bet the vote is 435 to nothing. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. Yes. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And then you're going to have to start all over 

again anyway. But maybe that's the cleanest way to do it. Because if the end result of this hearing is an endless debate 

over what the results of the plebiscite was previously, then [t 

seems to me that we need to take then what was on the plebiscite, what people understood to be the status definitions, and submit [t 

to the Congress. Because Mr. Burton, Mr. Young, and the others, Mr. Gallegly 

and Mr. Gilman have stated correctly-and I believe the quotation 

comes in Senator Berrios' statement, I believe he quotes the letter-it indicates very clearly that Congress defines the nature of 

the relationship. 

And so if this is, if this is the position of the people of Puerto 

Rico at the time the plebiscite was taken, then it seems to me that 

we should put it before the Congress and see whether it's acceptable. 

My guess is that it will not be. That's why I'm bringing it to your 

attention. That doesn't please me, and it's not something forward 

to, believe me. 

But-So I'm asking the question as to whether or not this would 

at least clear the decks for another attempt at trying to discen. what should be done. Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. Can I clear an aspect of what you've been arguing? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes, of course. Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. I believe that the people of Puerto Rico voted 

in 1993, and it was the definition adopted in 1990, that the Commonwealth had to be developed outside the territorial clause, and 

let me explain this to you. 

This international law is free association. We recognize that in 

Congressman's Young bill there is an offer for free association. We 

think it has to be clarified and it has to be worked on so that it 

reflects the proper parameters of the free association, in terms of 

international law, U.S. constitutional law, and the aspirations of 

Puerto Rico for a bilateral relationship. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. OK. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. If you want to go that way, then work within 

the bill, show good faith, and have an option that can be defended 

here. But I think that the offer of association, as presented right now, 

needs to be worked, and that's we are suggesting amendments the 

way that we did. It's up to you. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I appreciate that. 

Mr. VEGA-RAMOS. It's up to you to decide--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much. 
71 

Mr. VEGA-RAMos.-if you are willing to structure the process 

that way or not. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii. The gentleman 

from Indiana, Mr. Burton. Mr. BURTON. Real briefly. The bottom line is what we covered before, and that is the Congress of the United States, from a fiscal 

standpoint, is going to start making cuts in spending. 

The 936 program, I think, is in peril. It think it is going to be 

reduced and phased out over a period of seven years. I think the welfare benefits and other benefits that are received 

by Puerto Rican citizens, for which, much of which they're not 

taxed, are going to be reduced as time goes by as well. 

And benefits without taxation, I think, is going to be gradually 

phased out. I think this will provide a hardship on Puerto Rico unless they 

have some kind of really, truly elected representation in Congress. And the thing I'd like to get across today is, if you had two United 

States senators, one senator can tie up the Senate, if you've ever 

watched the U.S. Senate. 

If you had two elected senators, and six or seven congressmen, 

you would have a real voice in explaining to the people of the mainland, and the rest of the United States, the needs of Puerto Rico, and why certain things should be done. As it is right now you have one delegate who really doesn't even 

get to vote on the floor. And these programs as they are phased out, and they will be 

phased out many of them because of fiscal constraints in the Congress, when these programs are phased out, I think it will prove 

a hardship for Puerto Rico. 

So it seems to me if logic dictates that the best course of action, at least from my perspective, and I'm not getting into the internal 

politics of the island, it seems to me that logic would dictate at 

some point that statehood would be the logical alternative, because 

you would have elected representation that would lead to a real fulfillment of the dreams and aspirations of the Puerto Rican people. Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Guam, 

Mr. Underwood. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Mr. Garcia a question. A lot of-there's been a great deal of discussion about the nature 

of the Commonwel:).lth, and its removal, the removal of Puerto Rico 

from the list of non-self-governing territories at the United Nations. And the legislation being proposed has a very unique dimension 

in it in that it recognizes the U.N. definitions of what constitutes 

ultimately the fulfillment of self determination. 

The creation of the Commonwealth actually occurred in the early 

fifties, and predated the definition that is made by the United Nations, which came in the succeeding decade. The question I have for you is if in fact it is your belief-and I 

assume it is-that Puerto Rico is non-self-governing, and that the 

Commonwealth arrangement is not a self governing form of government or relationship with the United States, would you seek to be 
72 

placed back on the list of non-self-governing territories? And why, 

or why not? 

Mr. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA. Well, I think it's very clear that Puerto Rico is not self governing. And I think it's very clear that Puerto 

Rico is a colony of the United States. And I think it's very clear 

also that the intention of the United States when it appeared before the United Nations was to let the judiciary decide a point in 

which there was very strong disagreement between Secretary of 

State Dean Atchison, and Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Munoz 

Marin. 

Governor Luis Munoz Marin thought that he had established a 

bilateral compact of free association with the United States. The 

Secretary of State, Dean Atchison said, no, this is not what happened. They settled their disagreement by saying we will abide hy 

what the courts say. 

On that issue, Congressman, I am offering to the staff of this 

committee, and I leave it with you, 65 secret documents of the 

United States Government that I am filing as part of my testimony, so that you can see all these letters between State and Justice and Munoz and everybody else, so that you will be-if the 

chairman agrees-that you will be, I'm sorry to say, educated on 

the question. 

Mr. BURTON. Yeah, but in order to validate your point wouldn't 

it make sense to--

Mr. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA. Could I have a ruling from the chair, 

first? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, you may submit it for the record, absolutely. Mr. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA. Thank you very much. Mr. BURTON. But in order to validate your point wouldn't it make 

sense to seek restoring the status of Puerto Rico as a non-self-governing territory, given that the fact that you endorsed the United 

Nations' definitions of what constitutes self determination, and 

that none of those have been met? 

Mr. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA. The question is if the United States of 

American should notify the United Nations that it is not in agreement with the resolution adopted in 52', that the United States has 

changed its mind? 

I think it's perfectly feasible for the United States to apologize 

to the United Nations and say, we had a disagreement then, we 

didn't bring it into the open, the documents are here, they have 

been declassified. Now we can explain to you what happened. Governor Luis Muiioz Marin, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower had to different theories., and we opted not to bring that difference open to the United Nations. 

Therefore, for that reason, we are hereby apologizing to the United Nations, and asking that Puerto Rico be installed in the list of 

colonies again. No problem. 

Mr. BURTON. OK. 

Mr. YOUNG. Dr. Ramirez, do you want to comment, please? 

Ms. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. Yes, I do. 

I don't think they have to clarify anything. Our documents-because we have our own little share of documents as well-and our 

documents say that the United States definitely told the U.N. that 

we continue to be an unincorporated territory. 
73 

So we don't need to do anything. That was-and that's going to 

be included in my testimony, and you have it right here. Foreign 

relations with the United States, years 1952 to 54'. And it says 

very, very, very clearly that the people of Puerto Rico have attained 

a full measure of self government consistent with Puerto Rico's status as a territory of the United States. 

So, what needs to be clarified? 

The documents are clear. It's the interpretation and what has 

been done with them that has caused this confusion. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, I think what needs to be clarified is we 

have a definition of what constitutes self determination that came 

years after the creation of the Commonwealth, and what is happening is that there is a great disjuncture here between how, whether 

people are maintaining that Puerto Rico is non-self-governing and 

it should be on the non-self-governing list, given the fact that this 

legislation proposes to accept that committee's definition of what 

constitutes self governing. Mr. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA. Congressman, my written testimony 

proves unquestionably, with at least 15 official quotes, in official 

memorandums from Luis Munoz Marin, that the option that he favored is the one defined by the United Nations in 1960. 

He foresaw that. That's what he wanted. A sovereign free associated State of Puerto Rico with dual citizenship. So there is no problem. I mean, the intent of Luis Mufi.oz Marin is exactly what Resolution 1541 Roman 15 says, free association. 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. But that isn't what he got. Is that what he got? 

Mr. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA. That's not what he got because there 

was a difference between Dwight D. Eisenhower and Luis Munoz 

Marin. That's the record. Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK, thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. This is a learning process, believe me. 

The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Roth. 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions other 

than to say that I appreciate the testimony of our witnesses today. 

I paid attention, and I appreciate the comments they made. I would like to ask Dr. Myriam, however. She is pro-statehood, 

and I know she studied this issue of statehood in great detail, I'm 

sure. 

Ms. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. Yes, I definitely have, Mr. Roth. 

Mr. ROTH. Let me ask you this. There is another area in the 

United States that has applied for statehood, and that is the District of Columbia. Would you be in favor of statehood for the District of Columbia? 

Ms. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. Well, no, I'm not, because I see that the 

constitution decided to take away some land from all the States, 

and make the District of Columbia, and I have heard that these 

States are very willing to receive that land back, and give them full 

representation in Congress. 

It's not the same situation as Puerto Rico, sir. 

Mr. ROTH. So you would not be in favor of statehood for the District of Columbia. 

Ms. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. I would not be in favor of statehood for 

Washington, D.C. Mr. ROTH. Thank you very much. 
74 

Ms. RAMIREZ DE FERRER. OK. 

Mr. ROTH. One thing, Dr. Myriam, or Myriam, or Juan-I love 

your name, Garcia--

Mr. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA. Passalacqua. It's a Corsican name, 

Congressman. 

Mr. ROTH. Passalacqua, Esquire. Mr. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA. It's a tough one. 

Mr. ROTH. I love it. I mean . . . 

Mr. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. YOUNG. If the questions aren't asked, don't take offense. I 

happen to think that all the testimony, especially the indepth history and the background is extremely important for the committee. 

Again, I want to stress to the panel, and those remaining in the 

audience on the media, that this is a process that takes a considerable length of time. And every time we get some historical background, what was intended, where we're going, the one thing I 

want to stress again and again, I expect to get us off the dime. We must do something. And I have not particularly decided what 

it would be, but we cannot have the status quo as we are being recognized and talk about other countries and democracy and the 

right to vote, and all the other good things right next door. I do thank these witnesses, and I appreciate it very much. 

The next panel, Panel Two. We have a senator, Antonio FasAlzamora, Roberto Buso-Aboy, and Herbert Brown III; three people. 

Again, to the panel I apologize. Our audiences are dwindling 

quite rapidly. But it makes little difference because your testimony 

carries just as much weight as you give it orally. 

And those that were unable to give it orally, their testimony will 

be sent in also as part of the record, and will be analyzed to the 

best of our ability to come to a sound solution. Senator, in deference, you're up. 

STATEMENT OF ANTONIO J. FAS ALZAMORA, ESQ. 

Mr. F AS ALZAMORA. Good afternoon. 

Mr. YOUNG. I like your pin, by the way. I had one the other day 

that looked similar to that. Go ahead. Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Congressman. I am going to deliver my statement in Spanish. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. F AS-ALZAMORA. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Cor.-

gressmen. I am going to deliver my statement in Spanish. 

Mr. YOUNG. If there is no objection. Approved. 

Mr. FAs ALZAMORA. Senores Congresistas, soy legislador del 

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico desde hace veinte aiios y 

ocupo la posicion de portavoz alterno del Partido Popular 

Democnitico en el Senado. 

Quiero dejar consignado en este distinguido foro mi firme 

oposici6n al proyecto del Congresista Don Young por entender que 

atenta contra la libre determinacion de los puertorriqueiios 

expresada en la consulta plesbicitaria del 1993 por ser un proyecto 

de estadidad. 

Ese plesbicito fue un proceso limpio, legitimado por el voto de 

uno punto siete millones de compatriotas que fieles a su tradicion 
75 

de pueblo, amante de la democracia decidio continuar siendo un 

Estado Libre Asociado y rechazo categoricamente la estadidad y la 

independencia. 

No hay nada mas anti democratico y anti norteamericano que no 

respetar la voluntad mayoritaria de un pueblo. Pretender llevar a 

cabo otra consulta de estatus, irrespectivamente de las opciones 

incluidas en la papeleta electoral y de las definiciones de cada 

formula, es un golpe bajo a la democracia puertorrique:fia. 

Estados Unidos se vanagloria como cuna de la democracia y como 

salvaguarda de los procesos y las decisiones de los pueblos. Asi lo 

ha hecho en los cinco continentes. i_Por que entonces no hace lo 

propio en Puerto Rico, por que un grupo de congresistas 

norteamericanos insisten en validar un proceso democratico 

convocando a otro ejercicio electoral para satisfacer el interes 

revanchista del gobierno pro estadista de Puerto Rico? 

Este ultimo es como volver a poner en practica la vieja filosofia 

del imperialismo. De aceptar un resultado electoral unicamente 

cuando le es favorable al gobierno y a sus aliados y desvalidarlo, 

anularlo o destruirlo cuando no le favorece. 

El tratar de imponernos el proyecto en cuestion del distinguido 

Congresista Young es una actuacion anti democnitica de parte de 

quienes lo patrocinan. Estados Unidos como nacion y el Congreso 

como institucion respeta la democracia norteamericana. Debe 

tambien por tanto, respetar la democracia de la nacion 

puertorriqueiia. 

Nuestra condicion juridica fue (inintiligible) desde el 1952. Fue 

el gobierno de ustedes en el 1953 por voz del propio Presidente 

Einsenhower que defendio ante el mundo a traves del foro de las 

Naciones Unidas que Puerto Rico habia alcanzado su gobierno 

propio bajo el Estado Libre Asociado. 

Le pregunto, (.le consta a ustedes que ha cambiado esas 

condiciones desde entonces para que concluyan como imperativo la 

necesidad de un cambio en nuestro sistema de gobernar la nacion 

puertorriqueiia? 

Uno de los principales conceptos de la Constitucion del Estado 

Libre Asociado que entra en vigor precisamente con la aprobacion 

del Congreso de los Estados Unidos, establece que su poder politico 

emana del pueblo y que sera ejercido de conformidad con su 

voluntad. 

Este proyecto Young pretende convertir en retorica hueca la 

legitimidad internacional que ha dado el propio gobierno de los 

Estados Unidos al Estado Libre Asociado, tanto en la declaracion 

de las Naciones Unidas como en subsiguientes declaraciones ante 

la comunidad mundial. 

Es un tremendo contrasentido el proyecto pues esta opuesto a 

nuestra condicion juridica por considerarla inferior y colonial. Y 

busca cambiarla por otra, como la estadidad que representa la 

negacion total de lo que hemos alcanzado los puertorriqueiios como 

pueblo, como nacion caribeiia. 

Recordemos que la estadidad es smommo de anexwn, 

incorporacion e integracion. Seria si n duda alguna, diluir nuestra 

nacion en la nacion norteamericana y como resultado, nuestra 

desaparicion como nacion del mundo. Pues una vez asimilados 

como estados de la union, no habria forma de dar marcha atras 
76 

convirtiendonos en colonia permanente de Estados Unidos y 

minoria en nuestra propia patria. 

Esto que promueve el proyecto si es inferioridad. Puerto Rico es 

una naci6n con su particular y comun raza, historia, idioma 

espafiol, literatura, cultura, territorio, valores y. costumbres y 

tradiciones. Cualquier asunto entre el continente y la isla debe 

estar enmarcado en el contexto de que somos dos naciones distintas 

aunque asociadas mediante un pacto bilateral en la busqueda de 

un prop6sito comun. 

Los puertorriquefios hemos contribuido durante los pasados 

noventa y ocho afios al que ustedes puedan estar disfrutando de!. suefio americana. U stedes por la forma en que comenz6 nuestra 

relaci6n hace ese mismo numero de afios, tienen la obligaci6n legal 

y moral de contribuir a que sigamos desarrollando el suefio 

puertorriquefio expresado democniticamente por la mayoria de 

nuestro pueblo. Atendiendo afirmativamente el resultado del plesbicito de 1993 y 

continuar desarrollando al Estado Libre Asociado al maximo de su 

autonomia compatible con nuestra relaci6n permanente con 

Estados Unidos. 

Asi ambas naciones podnin seguir conviviendo con la misma 

dignidad, tal y como se acompafian en la actualidad en igualdad de 

condiciones nuestra bandera puertorriquefia y la bandera 

norteamericana. 

Las pretensiones del proyecto Young de desnacionalizar a Puerto 

Rico a traves de la estadidad es como lanzarle piedras a la luna. 

Ya el pueblo de Puerto Rico ha sido decidido en tres ocasiones 

cuando se ha enfrentado a la disyuntiva de dejar de ser lo que 

somos para convertirnos en otra cosa. 

Por lo tanto, no insistan distinguidos Senores Congresistas, pues 

el verdadero y unico poder digno para la mayoria de los 

puertorriquefios es aquel que nace y se forja de nuestras propias 

entrafias. Muchas gracias. 

[The prepared statement of Antonio J. Fas Alzamora may be 

found at the end of hearing.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Senator. I don't know who is next in 

order. Let's go with Mr. Brown, let's start with Mr. Brown. 

STATEMENT OF HERBERT W. BROWN, III, CHAIRMAN, 

CITIZENS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement which I have submitted. I would like to have it incorporated as part of the record. 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, we'll put your whole statement in 

the record. 

Mr. BROWN. I also have a brief statement that I would like to 

read. I have additional copies I'd like also to have included in the 

record. 

Mr. YOUNG. Proceed. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. Good afternoon, and welcome to Puerto Rico. My name is Herb 

Brown. I am a second generation Puerto Rican. My father was born 

here of American parents, and my mother, a Californian by birth, 

carr.e to Puerto Rico to teach in the public school system, prior to 

the outbreak of World War II. 
77 

My U.S. citizenship then, like that of many of us here in Puerto 

Rico, will be subject to statutory change in the event Congress determines to change Puerto Rico's current status from an unincorporated territory to an independent Nation. 

For that, and for many other reasons, I have led the Citizens 

Educational Foundation's efforts to permanently secure U.S. citizenship for Puerto Ricans through statehood, which will also erase 

our current status as second class citizens, a status that denies us 

representation in Congress and the presidential vote, and, at its 

most insidious, allows the United States Government to legally discriminate against American citizens residing here. A situation that 

will continue if we don't embrace the historic opportunity presented 

by H.R. 3024 to attain first class U.S. citizenship through statehood, or in the alternative, by choosing independence to replace it 

with Puerto Rican citizenship. 

1n connection with these thoughts, I want to make three points 

today that are pivotal to these hearings. 

First, at the risk of respectfully disagreeing with you, I want to 

say that the 1993 plebiscite, far from being inconclusive, was defin- itive on at least one issue. That issue, which brings us together 

today, was that the present status quo must be changed. 

Second, that regardless of what--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman-Excuse me, Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Yes. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, is there a copy of this testimony that you're reading in our files? I can't find it. 

Mr. BROWN. It's contained-this is a summary of my statement. 

Mr. YOUNG. It's probably in your packet. I mean, we'll get itGo ahead. 

Mr. ROTH. He submitted his full statement for the record. We let 

him give an abbreviated version. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Go ahead, sir. Mr. BROWN. Thank you. 

Second, that regardless what some may say, Congress, through 

this proposed legislation, and the letter of February 29, 1996 to the 

leaders of the Puerto Rico Legislature, has addressed the results of 

the 1993 plebiscite and set in motion a process through which the 

Puerto Rican people can exercise their right to full self determination. 

Third, that unless we take action, as outlined by this bill, to determine our destiny, then we will continue to run the risk that 

Congress, exercising its authority under the Constitution, will settle once and for all the status issue in a way that may further 

erode or end our rights as U.S. citizens and, most likely, create an 

independent Puerto Rico. 

Contrary to what some may argue, Congress did, indeed, address 

the 1993 plebiscite results. 

The response signed by the four chairmen of the committees and 

subcommittees responsible for Puerto Rico carefully analyzed the 

plebiscite results and the testimony given at hearings on the ballot 

on October 17th, 1996. The result was the bill now before us. 

Showing a keen knowledge of history and constitutional law, you 

have correctly concluded that the winning formula, enhanced Commonwealth, was legally defective in that Congress was constitu-
78 

tionally barred from implementing any of its provisions, including 

the guarantee of U.S. citizenship and permanent ties with the 

United States, provisions that can only be realized through statehood. 

Having shown in 1993 that Commonwealth, or the status quo, is 

but an impermanent state of affairs, the people of Puerto Rico have 

the opportunity to determine the future status of the island, and 

its relationship, if any, with the United States. 

Congress has it in its power, constitutionally, to determine our 

status and our citizenship. The territorial clause specifically confers 

these powers on Congress, and it is within its authority, even its 

duty, to exercise them. 

We have it within our power to choose to retain our U.S. citizenship, and forever cement our ties to the United States, in whose defense of democracy we have made the supreme sacrifice since the 

First World War. This statehood offers. 

We also have it within our power to choose to become an independent nation, and exchange our U.S. citizenship for a Puerto 

Rican citizenship. A painful decision, yet one in keeping with international norms. 

Finally, we have it within our power to abdicate our responsibilities and cede control to those who profit from the status quo by 

killing this bill, or failing to choose one of the two paths to full self 

government this legislation offers. 

These, then, are the choices available: statehood and U.S. citizenship, and the right to participate as equals in the American process; independence, and Puerto Rican Nationality and citizenship; 

the status quo, with its impermanence both as to political status 

and citizenship. And, if we choose the latter, then those who have been singularly 

unsuccessful in extending, enhancing, culminating, and perfecting 

our status will have been successful only in transferring back to 

Congress Puerto Rico's future. 

Are we finally open to the challenge that this bill hands us, or 

are we destined to allow political opportunism and short sighted 

economic interests to defeat our right to self government? 

For one, I believe that we are up to task Congress has laid out 

for Puerto Rico. In this belief I ask all Puerto Ricans to support 

this legislation, and then join together and exercise our right to full 

self determination. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Herbert W. Brown III may be found 

at the end of hearing.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Next is Mr. Roberto Buso Ahoy of the Puerto Rican 

Bar Association. You're not a trial lawyer, are you? 

Mr. Bus6-ABOY. I am. 

Mr. YOUNG. Oh, boy. Go ahead. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I say that in jest, so don't take me too seriously . 

. STATEMENT OF ROBERTO BUSO ABOY, BAR ASSOCIATION OF 

PUERTO RICO 

Mr. Bus6-ABOY. I answered in jest also. 
79 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, my name is Roberto 

Buso-Aboy--

Mr. YOUNG. Roberto, could you pull the mic a little closer so we 

can hear you clearly? 

Mr. Bus6-ABoY. My name is Roberto Buso-Aboy, chairman of the 

Puerto Rico Bar Associations's Commission for the Study of the 

Constitutional Development of Puerto Rico. 

With me in the audience is Attorney Angelita Rieckehoff, Executive Director of the Bar. 

We appear before you in representation of the oldest professional 

institution in Puerto Rico, serving the country since 1840. 

The Colegio de Abogados, as it is known in Spanish, is unified 

and a compulsory Bar, with 9,600 members who are representative 

of all the ideological currents in Puerto Rico. 

The Bar Association has served as a forum for the multi partisan 

dialog on the legal and constitutional aspects of Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States. 

It maintains a permanent and long standing commission for the 

Study of the Constitutional Development of Puerto Rico, composed 

of lawyers of all political persuasions, and we make sure that we 

do have lawyers of all political persuasions every time that we 

meet. 

The Commission, the Governing Board and/or the General Assembly of the Bar have adopted important reports and resolutions 

on this issue. 

I am submitting as an addendum to this statement that I am 

reading to you copies of some of those reports and pronouncements 

which are adopted by consensus, and unanimous vote, in the certainty that they will be very valuable to the study of the Congressional committee. 

As a matter of fact, I understand that you have been supplied 

with a booklet which includes all the different resolutions since 

1944. 

In the past half century our institution has approved and issued 

more than 18 reports on this issue. I'm not going to read the names 

of them, because they are included in the booklet that has been 

supplied to all the members of the committee. 

Our Bar Association has appeared repeatedly before the United 

Nations since 1972, where it has proclaimed the right of self determination of the people of Puerto Rico. 

As we have said before, that forum, and we reiterate in this 

forum right now, it is not the role of our Bar Association to determine which of the formulas of self government recognized by the 

international community should be preferred by the people of Puerto Rico. 

That decision rests with the people, and it should be followed 

once they vote on it through a free and democratic expression of 

their will. 

We believe, notwithstanding, that it is the historic role of the Bar 

Association to assist in our people's constitutional process by pointing out those minimum requirements that must be met in any of 

the formulas that could be preferred by them. 
80 

For that reason, since 1963, we have pointed out the m1mmum 

substantive requirements essential to each of the three formulas to 

establish a political system of self government in our country. 

After reiterating the requirement of sovereignty, and I make a 

point of sovereignty, necessary to all the status formulas, we have 

emphasized the minimum requirements that must exist in each of 

the formulas of association, integration into the United States, or 

outright independence. 

We have also affirmed the minimum procedural requirements essential to achieve full decolonization. And, of course, that's wha·; 

this is all about. And that's why we're here today. 

The process of decolonization of Puerto Rico has been very slow 

and traumatic. 

In 1953, more than 44 years ago, based upon the fact that our 

country had become a Commonwealth, and that such a development had allegedly ended the colonial regime, the United States 

was relieved from delivering the annual reports to the respective 

organism of the United Nations about its administration of Puerto 

Rico. 

In spite of those commitments, after 44 years, there still exists 

the same restrictions to the freedoms of the people of Puerto Rico, 

as a consequence of our relationship with the United States. 

Puerto Rico lacks sovereignty and control over its own affairs. 

And as Mr. Brown so eloquently put it before, if anything the 

1993 plebiscite shows that everyone in Puerto Rico, at least all the 

voters that went to the polls, want change, some type of change. 

As the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and the 

conduct of Congress attests, Puerto Rico is subject, for all practical 

purposes, to the quasi absolute power of the territorial clause of the 

United States Constitution which vests upon Congress, and to the 

anarchic and accidental constraints of Federal administrative agencies, which are not of Congress's doing, but they happen against us 

anyway. 

It is imperative to renegotiate the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. 

The Bar Association has urged the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico to consult voters, through a referendum, to determine if 

they wish a Constitutional Convention, that can actually bring 

forth a proposal for anew status, and to revise the terms of the existing relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. 

The Bar Association, looking at H.R. 3024, respectfully recommends the following to the committee. 

First, it should reaffirm the inalienable right to self determination of the people of Puerto Rico. In the manner it is stated right 

now, we understand it is not sufficiently strong, and I really think 

that the committee believes in self determination for Puerto Rico, 

and we are asking that it be reaffirmed clearly, without any doubts 

as to our rights. 

Second, reaffirm that for any form of free association between 

Puerto Rico and the United States to be acceptable, it must be attained in conditions of political equality and respecting international law, recognizing once again the sovereignty of the people 

of Puerto Rico. 
81 

I may draw your attention to one of the documents in the booklet 

that we gave you with was approved in 1977, and it's a statement 

for the process of decolonization, which includes what should be included specifically with regard to each one of the different formulas. Fourth, we call for a decolonization process involving a transitional period that would guarantee the effective functioning of a 

constituent assembly. 

I know there is a minimum 10-year requirement, and contrary 

to what Dr. Rossello said this morning, 4 years is certainly not 

quite enough. 

I mean, if it were my own decision, I would have my new status 

right away. But we understand that politics and political processes 

do take time if they are going to be made conscientiously and correctly. 

So the Bar Association calls for this proceeding to take place for 

a period long enough to have a functioning constituent assembly 

set up in Puerto Rico to try to build up the new status that will 

finally be adopted. 

Fifth, we think that H.R. 3024 should be amended so that it adheres faithfully to the minimum substantive and procedural requirements which the Bar Association has suggested. As I told you, 

there are 18 of them specifically set out in the adjoining document. 

We make these recommendations in our role as the traditional 

forum for the creative discussion by all political and ideological sectors in Puerto Rico, and I am sure that by this time today you realize that we are probably the only ones that have come forth with 

some sort of a consensus feeling of anything regarding the process 

of decolonization. 

And we understand that that process should be acceptable to the 

international community, because whether we like it or not, Puerto 

Rico is still a colony, Puerto Rico should be and is subject to the 

United Nations charter, and the United States, as the main signatory and actual safe guarder of the United Nations should abide by 

it. 

Actually everyone in Puerto Rico of the different political persuasions has gone to the United Nations, and that includes all the political persuasions on the Island. 

We commend this committee of the Congress for initiating an effort to help solve the colonial problem of our country. We like that. 

I think it's late in coming, but it's here. I mean, maybe under the 

Treaty of Paris it should have been done 80 years ago. It wasn't. But it should start, and it should go forth from now on. 

We strongly support and commend its initiative to open a dialog 

that will protect the interests of both the United States and Puerto 

Rico. 

We are not a territory, except in legal terms, but we are a people, somos un pueblo, a people with our very own Hispanic and African 

culture, and that is the reality, the sociological reality of Puerto 

Rico, and that's the way we like it. We have our own Spanish lan- guage, traditions, and values. Among our values, we cherish our 

democratic tradition, and for the sake of the people, the people of 

Puerto Rico, the Bar Association of Puerto Rico invites this committee to carefully consider the reports we are hereby submitting. 
82 

Most particularly, we ask that you study the substantive requirements that our multi partisan membership has established four our 

Nation's self determination. 

We invite you to amend the current bill so as to clarify the terms 

under which the Congress of the United States is willing to initiate 

negotiations with the people of Puerto Rico on their political future. 

In the event that the final version of the bill is congruent with 

the traditional, long standing position of the Bar Association on 

this issue, we will support it. 

On the contrary, if the final version does not comply with the so 

stated minimum requirements, the Bar Association will reject the 

process. 

In the hope that everything will work out for the better future 

of both Puerto Rico and the United States, and with our sincerest 

offer of cooperation in your endeavor, we thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Roberto Bus6-Aboy may be found at 

the end of hearing.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, sir. 

The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Romero, do you have any questions? 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. No, I have no questions. Mr. YOUNG. No questions. The gentleman from Hawaii? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. Mr. Fas, I'm a little bit at a loss to understand the rationale of 

your statement. If I did not know-you favor the Commonwealth, 

correct? 

Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. Si, senor. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Commonwealth status. 

Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. Si, senor. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. But if I didn't know that, and I was looking 

at your testimony, it would seem to me you are favoring independence. 

Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. No. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No? 

Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. No, lo digo claro en mi testimonio, Senor 

Congresista. Lo que sucede es que la estadidad en mi concepto 

disminuiria, por ser una condici6n de anexi6n, disminuiria nuestra 

naci6n. Por eso parto de la primer pregunta que hay que hacerse. 

(.Que es Estados Unidos y que es Puerto Rico? 

Los dos somos dos naciones, Puerto Rico fue una naci6n colonia 

de Espana, luego con la guerra Hispanoamericana pasamos a sE'r 

colonia de Estados Unidos en el 1898. Conforme a nuestra teoria, 

la teoria de ustedes que esbozaron ante las Naciones Unidas en el 

'52, dejamos de ser colonia y nos convertimos en un Estado Libre 

Asociado. La estadidad para mi no es una opci6n digna para Puerto Rico, 

con el respeto de los companeros que la puedan respetar, (.por que? 

porque al ser . .. , la estadidad, para mi no es una soluci6n digna 

al problema de estatus para los puertorriquenos porque 

conlleva . .. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No, I didn't .. . excuse me ... excuse me. I 

didn't say statehood, I said independence . Mr. F AS-ALZAMORA. Por eso le digo. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. You state ... 
83 

Mr. F AS-ALZAMORA. 0 sea, si me explico. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. You state, for example, that the United States 

is a nation with its own history, language, literature, territory, values and traditions. Puerto Rico is exactly the same, a nation with 

it's own particular characteristics. Doesn't that mean thatwouldn't I conclude from that that you wish Puerto Rico to be independent? 

Mr. FAs-ALzAMORA. No, no. Yo me explicaba que cualquier 

soluci6n al estatus de Puerto Rico tiene que partir de la premisa, 

que es Puerto Rico y que es Estados Unidos. Puerto Rico es una 

naci6n distinta a la naci6n de Estados Unidos. 

La diferencia es que estamos dos naciones unidas en un pacto bilateral desde del 1952 tal y como ustedes mismos lo han dicho ante 

las Naciones Unidas consecuentemente a la comunidad 

internacional. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Alright. 

Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. Yo no respaldo la independencia, no respaldo 

la estadidad. Creo que las tinicas dos opciones dignas que hay, 

es .. . Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I accept that. Mr. F AS-ALZAMORA. r. . el desarrollo del Estado Libre Asociado, 

que conservaria la nacionalidad del pueblo puertorriquefio o la 

independencia, que los separaria. La estadidad disolveria la naci6n 

puertorriquefia, seria la muerte de nuestra naci6n. Por 

consiguiente la desaparici6n de Puerto Rico de las esferas 

mundiales como naci6n existente actual, por su cultura, por su 

territorio, por su raza, por sus costumbres, con todo lo que pueda 

ser las caracteristicas de una naci6n. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. If that's the case . . . if that's the 

case then, I will ask you the question I asked to Sr. Vega previously. 

What if the suggestion was made to Chairman Young, because 

you also indicate in your testimony that Governor Rossello has not 

committed himself to accept the results of the 1993 plebiscite, and 

defend them before the United States Congress, on behalf of the 

people. 

What if. .. if Congressman Young then took the plebescite results, with the definitions that appeared in the plebescite, and then 

presented that to the Congress of the United States in a resolution 

to see whether the Congress would approve or disapprove, would 

that be acceptable to you? 

Mr. F AS-ALZAMORA. Ese es precisamente debi6 haber sido el 

primer paso, no a medidas del Congresista Young. El primer 

paso. . . lo mismo que esta hacienda un comite en Casablanca, 

haber establecido unos comites para defender en el Congreso el 

resultado del plesbicito que entonces era responsivo a la voluntad 

mayoritaria de la democracia puertorriquefia. 

Cada uno de esos puntos son . . . pueden ser negociables. Porque 

ahara mismo ustedes estan discutiendo la Secci6n 936. El cafe tiene 

una protecci6n, (.por que no extenderlo a otros productos agricolas 

puertorriquefios? Y asi cada una de las cosas podia discutirse. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No, no, no, excuse me. No, I'm not going to 

discuss everything. The testimony here today is that the plebescite 

which took place in 1993, regardless of the closeness of the vote, 
84 

nonetheless, the plurality of people spoke for the Commonwealth as 

defined in the plebiscite. That's true, is it not? 

Mr. F AS-ALZAMORA. Eso es asf y lo que nosotros alegamos es que 

este proyecto esta demas. Y si se impulsa, le estaria faltando a la 

democracia puertorriquefia porque hubo un mandato. Lo correcto es 

comenzar con ese mandato, con. . . Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Alright. 

Mr. FAs-ALZAMORA. r .. rabajarlo en el Congreso y no imponer 

un plesbicito hasta que no se le de contestacion al resultado del 

1993. De ahi adelante, empezariam--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So the answer is. . . so the answer is that 

you would be favorable for Chairman Young presenting the results 

of the plebescite to the Congress to say yes or no as to whether we 

would be in agreement. 

Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. No creo que sea tan simplista poder llevar 

eso al Congreso para contestar si o no. Porque esto requiej"e 

conversacion y porque tal como esta. . . tal como esta pues es muy 

facil uno poder llegar a la conclusion, donde hemos podido notar y 

por lo inicios de este mismo proyecto que hay unos miembros del 

Congreso favorecedores de la estadidad. Y nadie que favorezca la 

estadidad o pudiera favorecer la independencia van a favorecer 

estas cosas. Seria una cuestion de dialogo. 

Yo le diria una cos a con mucho respeto a ustedes miembros del 

Congreso. El pueblo puertorriquefio debe tener la libertad de 

decidir cualquier asunto que tenga que ver con su estatus. La 

situacion actual es, en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos pues hay 

Congresistas que ya se han manifestado a favor de determinada 

formula. Entonces, causa cierta preocupacion y hasta cierw 

pun to ... 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I have not stated that. 

Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. No estoy diciendo usted obviamente. Causa 

preocupacion y tiende a causar hasta indignacion de que si los 

asuntos de Puerto Rico como termine yo mi mensaje, deben 

resuelto por iniciativa de los puertorriquefios, entonces sea en la 

direccion contraria. 

Y eso hay que impugnarlo, por lo menos desde mi punto de vista. 

Los asuntos de Puerto Rico deben ser iniciados por los 

puertorriquefios y no por el Congreso. Y sobre todo cuando la 

iniciativa del Congreso es contraria a la voluntad democratica del 

pueblo como ha sido la iniciativa del distinguido Congresista 

Young. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I appreciate that, "muchas gracias". 

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman from Indiana, do you have any questions? 

Mr. BURTON. I have no questions. 

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman from Wisconsin, do you have any 

questions? 

Mr. ROTH. I just appreciate the excellent testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I have no further questions. 

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman from Guam, Mr. Underwood? 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I have no questions. 

Mr. YOUNG. No questions? The gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCELO. Una sola pregunta. Entonces, Senador 

Faz-Alzamora, (.usted no esta de acuerdo con se le someta .al 
85 

Congreso una propuesta de que si acepta o no lo que se pone que 

es el Estado Libre Asociado en la papeleta del 93' para que vote 

sf o no, si lo acepta o no lo acepta, usted no esta de acuerdo con 

eso? 

Mr. F AS-ALZAMORA. No, yo no he dicho eso, Sefior Comisionado 

Residente. Yolo que he dicho ... 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. {,Pues entonces esta de acuerdo? 

Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. Pero estaba en mi contestaci6n. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. No, lo que quiero saber es 

unicamente. . . para que el pueblo de Puerto Rico entienda 

claramente si es que esta de acuerdo o no. 

Mr. F AS-ALZAMORA. Pues fijese . . . Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Es que me parece que podrfamos hablar 

claro si esta de acuerdo o no esta de acuerdo. Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. Para estar claro, yo le voy a dar mi 

contestacion. Yo estoy de acuerdo tal y como dice la formula que 

nosotros los de Puerto Rico, de que se haran gestiones en el 

Congreso. No es de la forma que usted dice que voten sf o no 

porque esto no es un referendum. 

Es que se haran gestiones en el Congreso y esas gestiones 

conllevan dialogo, conversaciones, estudios econ6micos, viabilidad 

de la responsabilidad que tiene el gobierno de Estados Unidos para 

con Puerto Rico y su democracia, no se contempla con un simple 

sf o no. 

Eso es lo que ustedes quisieran porque obviamente bajo esas 

alternativas, pues usted tiene muy buenos amigos, los que no tengo 

yo que podrfan favorecer su formula rechazando unos pedidos 

justos que hay de un pueblo puertorriquefio como ciudadanos 

norteamericanos que somos. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Para el record, estoy leyendo ahora de la 

misma papeleta. Dice, "Un voto por el Estado Libre Asociado es un 

mandato a favor de le garantizara si. . . Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. Siga leyendo ... Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. r .. al proponerse, etcetera, etcetera. Asf 

que, uso es lo que esta aguf, tu no esta de acuerdo con esto .. Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. Lease las minutas ... 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. No hay problema, no hay problema. No 

esta de acuerdo. 

Mr. FAS-ALZAMORA. Yo le pido al Senor Congresista ... al Sr. 

Comisionado Residente que siga leyendo y dice, "un mandato para 

gestionar en el Congreso . .. ". Nosotros no podemos fomentarlo 

porque si nosotros fueramos los que tuvieramos la decision aca, 

pues no habfa que ir a solicitar nada al Congreso. 

Se trata de solicitudes de legislacion Federal que no estan 

incluidas en el pacto del Estado Libre Asociado y que el 

Congreso . .. por el convenio propio se le delego al Congreso sobre 

ese tipo de legislacion. Como es la 936, que no tienen que ver nada 

necesariamente con el Estado Libre Asociado y su pacto pero que 

no podrian existir bajo la estadidad del Comisionado Residente 

defiende. 

Mr. YOUNG. I want to thank you for your testimony and your 

strong beliefs and your positions. And I also want to thank the audience again and all those participants. I want to thank the press. 
86 

For the first time I feel a little bit kinder to you because it's been 

hotter than the devil down here. You're all fanning yourselves. 

But as of now, this hearing is adjourned, and we will continue 

this later on down the road, .and hopefully will arrive at a solution 

for the people of Puerto Rico. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.) 
87 

104Tu CONGRI<JSS H R 3024 2D SESSION • • 

'l'o provide a process leading to full self-government fm· Puerto Rico. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 1996 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for· himself, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. 

SERRANO, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. ROMEROBARCELO, Mr. GILALAN, Mr·. BURTON of Indiana , Mr·. UNDERWOOD, iHr. 

CALVERT, Mr. LONGLEY, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, !Vk DguTSCH, and 

Mr. KLINK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to t he Committee on Rules, for a 

period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within t he ju•·isdicLion of the eornmittee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide a process leading to full self-government for· 

Puerto Rico. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

4 (a) SIIOR'l' TrnE.-This Act may be cited as the 

5 "United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act". 

6 (b) TmLg OF CON'l'ENTS.-The table of contents for 

7 this Act is as follows: 
Sec. 1. Short title. 

Sec. 2. Findings. 

Sec. 3. Policy. 

88 

2 

Sec. 4. Process for Puerto Rican full self-government, including the initial decision stage, transition stage, and implementation stage. 

Sec. 5. Requirements relating to referenda, including inconclusive referendum 

and applicable laws. 

Sec. 6. Congressional procedures for consideration of legislation. 

Sec. 7. Availability of funds for the referenda. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 The Congress finds the following: 

3 ( 1) Puerto Rico is an unincorporated and lo4 cally self-governing territory of the United States, 

5 ceded to the United States and under this Nation's 

6 sovereignty pursuant to the Treaty of Paris ending 

7 the Spanish-American War in 1898. Article IX of 

8 the Treaty of Paris expressly recognizes the author9 ity of Congress to provide for the political status of 

10 the inhabitants of the territory. 

11 (2) United States citizenship was extended to 

12 Puerto Rico in 1917, as well as partial application 

13 of the United States Constitution. 

14 (3) In the period 1950-1952, Congress author15 ized, amended, and then approved a constitution for 

16 Puerto Rico's local government, which is now caDed 

17 the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico", without alter18 ing the territory's fundamental economic, political, 

19 and legal relationship with the United States. 

20 (4) In the 1989 State of the Union Message, 

21 President George Bush urged the Congress to take 

•Bit 3024 IB 
89 

3 

the necessary steps to authorize a federally recog2 nized process allowing the people of Puerto Rico, for 

3 the first time since the Treaty of Paris entered into 

4 force, to freely express their wishes regarding their 

5 future political status in a congressionally recognized 

6 referendum, a step in the process of self-determina7 tion which the Congress has yet to authorize. 

8 (5) In November of 1993, the Government of 

9 Puerto Rico conducted a plebiscite initiated under 

10 local law on Puerto Rico's political status. In that 

11 vote none of the three status propositions received a 

12 majority of the votes cast. The results of that vote 

13 were: 48.6 percent commonwealth, 46.3 percent 

14 statehood, and 4.4 percent independence. 

15 (6) In 1994, President William Jefferson Clin16 ton established the Executive Branch Interagency 

17 Working Group on Puerto Rico to coordinate the re18 view, development, and implementation of executive 

19 branch administrative policy concerning Puerto Rico 

20 in light of the November 1993 plebiscite in the is21 lands. 

22 (7) There have been inconsistent and conflicting 

23 interpretations of the 1993 plebiscite results, and 

24 under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution (ar25 ticle IV, section 3, clause 2), Congress has the au-

•HR 3024 IH 
90 

4 

thority a11d responsibility to determine I~'ederal pol2 icy and clarify status issues in order to advance the 

3 self-determination process in Puerto Rico. 

4 (8) On December 14, 1994, the Puerto Rico 

5 Legislature enacted Concurrent Resolution 62, which 

6 requested the 104th Congress to respond to the re7 suits of the 1993 Puerto Rico Status Plebiscite and 

8 to indicate the next steps in resolving Puerto Rico's 

9 political status. 

10 (9) Nearly 4,000,000 United States citizens live 

11 in the islands of Puerto Rico, which have been with12 in the American political system and the United 

13 States customs territory for almost 100 years, mak14 ing Puerto Rico the oldest, largest, and most popu15 lous United States island territory at the southeast16 ern-most boundary of our Nation, located astride the 

17 strategic shipping lanes of the Atlantic Ocean and 

18 Caribbean Sea. 

19 (10) Full self-government for Puerto Rico is at20 tainable only through establishment of a political 

21 status either without or within United States sov22 ereignty, under which Puerto Rico is no longer an 

23 unincorporated territory subject to the plenary au24 thority of Congress arising from the Territorial 

25 Clause. 

•HR 3024 IH 
91 

5 

SEC. 3. POLICY. 

2 In recognition of the significant level of local self-gov3 ernment which has been attained by Puerto Rico, and the 

4 desire by both the United States and Puerto Rico to en5 able the people of the territory to achieve full self-govern6 ment through a self-determination process consistent with 

7 United States and internationally recognized standards, 

8 this Act is adopted with a commitment to encourage the 

9 mutual development and implementation of procedures to 

I 0 determine the political status of Puerto Rico. 

11 SEC. 4. PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICAN FULL SELF-GOVERN12 MENT, INCLUDING THE INITIAL DECISION 

13 STAGE, TRANSITION STAGE, AND IMPLEMEN14 TATION STAGE. 

15 (a) INITIAL DECISION STAGE.-A referendum on 

16 Puerto Rico's political status shall be held not later than 

17 D€cember 31, 1998. The referendum shall be held in ac18 cordance with the applicable provisions of Puerto Rico's 

19 electoral law and other relevant statutes, and approval 

20 must be by a majority of the valid votes cast. The referen21 dum shall be on the following question: 

22 "Which path leading to full self-government for Puer23 to Rico do you prefer to be developed through a transition 

24 plan enacted by the Congress and approved by the people 

25 of Puerto Rico? 

•HR 3024 IH 
92 

6 

" ( 1) A pttth of separate Puerto Rican sov2 ereignty leading to independence or free association, 

3 in which4 "(A) Puerto Rico is a sovereign nation 

5 with full ltuthority and responsibility for its in6 ternal and external affairs, exercising in its own 

7 mtme and right the powers of government with 

8 respect to its territory and population, lalilguage 

9 and culture, and determining its own reiations 

10 and participation in the community of Rations; 

11 "(B) a negotiated treaty of friendship and 

12 cooperation or an international bilateral pact of 

13 free association terminable at will by either 

14 Puerto Rico or the United States, defines fu15 ture relations between Puerto Rico and the 

16 United States, providing for cooperabon and 

17 assistance in matters of shared interest as 

18 agreed and approved by Puerto Rico and the 

19 U11ited States pursuant to this Act and their re20 spective constitutional processes; 

21 "(C) a constitution democratically insti22 tuted by the people of Puerto Rico, establishing 

23 a republican form of full self-government and 

24 securing the rights of citizens of the Puerto 

25 Rican nation, is the supreme law, and ilie Con-

•HR 3024 IH 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

lO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

7 

stitution and laws of the United States no 

longer apply in Puerto Rico; 

"(D) Pue1to Rico exercises the sovere1gn 

power to determine and control its own nationality and citizenship, and United States nationality and citizenship conferred on the people of 

Puerto Rico based upon birth in the territory 

during the period in which the United States 

exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over 

Puerto Rico is withdrawn in favor of Puerto 

Rican nationality and citizenship, and the United States Congress has authority to prescribe 

criteria for affected individuals to establish eligibility for retention of United States nationality and citizenship or naturalization in the 

United States on a basis which does not create 

an exception to the establishment and preservation of separate United States and Puerto 

Rican nationality and citizenship; 

"(E) upon recognition of Puerto Rico by 

the United States as a sovereign nation and establishroont of government-to-government relations on the basis of comity and reciprocity, 

Puerto Rico's representation to the United 

States is accorded full diplomatic status; 

•HR 3024 IH 

24-926 - 96 - 4 
94 

8 

"(F) Puerto Rico is eligible for United 

2 States assistance provided on a government-to3 government basis, including foreign aid or pro4 gTammatic assistance, at levels determined at 

5 the discretion of Congress and the President; 

6 "(G) property rights and previously ac7 quired rights vested by employment in Puerto 

8 Rico or the United States are honored, and 

9 where determined necessary such rights are 

10 promptly adjusted and settled consistent with 

11 government-to-government agreements imple12 menting the separation of sovereignty; and 

13 "(H) Puerto Rico is outside the customs 

14 territot-y of the United States, and trade be15 tween the United States and Puerto Rico is 

16 based on a treaty. 

17 "(2) A path under United States sovereignty 

18 leading to statehood, in which19 "(A) the people of Puerto Rico are fully 

20 self-governing with their rights secured under 

21 the United States Constitution, which is the su22 preme law and has the same force and effect as 

23 in the other States of the Union; 

24 "(B) the sovereign State of Puerto Rico is 

25 in permanent union with the United States, and 

•HR 8024 IH 
95 

9 

1 powers not delegated to the Federal Govern2 ment or prohibited to the States by the United 

3 States Constitution are reserved to the people 

4 of Puerto Rico or the State Government; 

5 "(C) United States citizenship of those 

6 born in Puerto Rico is guaranteed and pro7 tected to the same extent as those born in the 

8 several States; 

9 "(D) residents of Puerto Rico have equal 

10 rights and benefits as well as equal duties and 

11 responsibilities of citizenship, including payment 

12 of Federal taxes, as those in the several States; 

13 "(E) Puerto Rico is repriO'sented in the 

14 United States Senate and the House of Rep15 resentatives proportionate to the population; 

16 "(F) Puerto Rico is enfranchised to vote 

17 for United States presidential and vice-presi18 dential electors proportionate to the population; 

19 and 

20 "(G) Puerto Rico adheres to the same lan21 guage requirement as in the several States.". 

22 (b) TRANSITION STAGE.-

23 (1) PLAN.-Within 180 days of the receipt of 

24 the results of the referendum from the Government 

25 of Puerto Rico certifying approval of a ballot choice 

HR 3024 IH--2 
96 

10 

1 in a referendum held pursuant to subsection (a), the 

2 President shall submit to Congress legislation for a 

3 transition plan of 10 years minimum which leads to 

4 full self-government for Puerto Rico consistent with 

5 the terms of this Act and in full consultation with 

6 leaders of the three branches of the Government of 

7 Puerto Rico, the principal political parties of Puerto 

8 Rico, and other interested persons as may be appro9 priate. 

10 (2) CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION.-The 

11 plan shall be considered by the Congress in accord12 ance with section 6. 

13 (3) PUERTO RICAN APPROVAh14 (A) Not later than 180 days after enactIS ment of an Act pursuant to paragraph (1) pro16 viding for the transition to full self-government 

17 for Puerto Rico as approved in the initial deci18 sion referendum held under subsection (a), a 

19 referendum shall be held under the applicable 

20 provisions of Puerto Rico's electoral law on the 

21 question of approval of the transition plan. 

22 (B) Approval must be by a majority of the 

23 valid votes cast. The results of the referendum 

24 shall be certified to the President of the United 

25 States by the Government of Puerto Rico. 

•HR sost m 
97 

11 

{4) EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TRANSITION PLAN.-

2 Upon receipt of the results of the referendum under 

3 this subsection certifying approval of the transition 

4 plan, the President of the United States shall issue 

5 a proclamation announcing the effective date of the 

6 transition plan to full self-government for Puerto 

7 Rico. 

8 (c) IMPLEMENTATION STAGE.-

9 (1) PRESIDENTIAL RECOMMENDA'fiON.-Not 

10 less than two years prior to the end of the period 

11 of the transition provided for in the transition plan 

12 approved under subsection (b), the President shall 

13 submit to Congress legislation with a recommenda14 tion for the implementation of full self-government 

15 for Puerto Rico consistent with the ballot choice ap16 proved under subsection (a). 

17 (2) CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION.-The 

18 plan shall be considered by the Congress in accord19 ance with section 6. 

20 (3) PUERTO RICA.."r APPROVAL.-

21 (A) Within 180 days after enactment of 

22 the terms of implementation for full self-govern23 ment for Puerto Rico, a referendum shall be 

24 held under the applicable provisions of Puerto 

25 Rico's electoral laws on the question of the ap-

•HR oou m 
98 

12 

1 proval of the terms of implementation for full 

2 self-government for Puerto Rico. 

3 (B) Approval must be by a majority of the 

4 valid votes cast. The results of the referendum 

5 shall be certified to the President of the United 

6 States by the Government of Puerto Rico. 

7 (4) EFFECTIVE DATE OF FUI,L SELF-GOVERN8 MENT.-The President of the United States shall 

9 issue a proclamation announcing the date of imple10 mentation of full self-government for Puerto Rico, 

11 upon receipt of the results of the referendum certify12 ing approval of the terms of implementation. 

13 SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO REFERENDA, IN14 CLUDING INCONCLUSIVE REFERENDUM AND 

15 APPLICABLE LAWS. 

16 (a) APPI"ICABLE LAWS.-

17 (1) REFERENDA UNDER PUERTO RICAN 

18 LAWS.-The referenda held under this Act shall be 

19 conducted in accordance with the laws of Puerto 

20 Rico, and voter eligibility for residents and non21 residents shall be determined by the Puerto Rico 

22 State Election Commission. 

23 . (2) FEDERAL I"AWS.-The Federal laws appli24 cable to the election of the Resident Commissioner 

25 of Puerto Rico shall, as appropriate, also apply to 

•HR 3024 IH 
99 

13 

the referenda. Any reference in such li'ederal laws to 

2 elections shall be considered, as appropriate, to be a 

3 reference to the referenda, unless it would frustrate 

4 the purposes of this Act. 

5 (b) CEI{'J'IFICA'l'ION 01<' REI•'EHI~ NDA RJ<JSUIII'S.-The 

6 results of each referendum held under this Act shall be 

7 certified to U ~ President of the United States and the 

8 Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 

9 by the Government of Puerto Rico. 

10 (c) CONSl!TJl'A'I'ION AND RECOMME NDATIONS FOR I NII CONCLlJSfVE REFEREND!JM.-

12 (1) IN GENERA!J.-If a referendum provided in 

13 this Act does not resnlt in approval of a fully self14 governing status, the President, in full consultation 

15 with leaders of the three branches of the Govern16 ment of Puerto Rico, the principal political parties 

I7 of Puerto Rico, and other interested persons as rnay 

18 be appropriate, shall make recommendations to the 

I9 Congress within 180 days of receipt of the results of 

20 the referendum. 

21 (2) EXIS'I'ING STIWC'I'TTTU~ '1'0 REMAIN IN JW22 I•'ECT.-If the inhabitants of the territory do not 

23 achieve full self-governance through either integra24 tion into the Union or separate sovereignty in the 

25 form of independenee or free association, Puerto 

•HR 3024 IH 
100 

14 

Rico will remain an unincorporated territory of the 

2 United States, subject to the authori-ty of Congress 

3 under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Uni-ted 

4 States Constitution. In that event, the existing Com5 monwealth of Puerto Rico stmcture for local self6 government will remain in effect, subject to sueh 

7 other measures as may be adopted by Congress in 

8 the exercise of it's Territorial Clause powers to de9 termine the disposition of the territory and status 

10 of it's inhabitants. 

11 SEC. 6. CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDUitES · FOil C~lt12 ATION OF LEGISLATION. 

13 (a) IN GENERA1.J.-The Chairman of the Commi-ttee 

14 on Energy and Natural Resources shall introduce legisla15 tion providing for the transition plan under seetion 4(b) 

16 and the implementation recommendation under section 

17 4(c), as appropriate, in the United States Senate and the 

18 Chairman of the Committee on Resources shall intl'Od4lee 

19 such legislation in the United States House of Representa20 tives, providing adequate time for the consideration of the 

21 legislation pursuant to the following provisions: 

22 (1) At any time after the close of the 180th cal23 endar day beginning after the date of introduction of 

24 such legislation, it shall be in order for any Member 

25 of the United States House of Representatives or 

•BR 3024 IH 
101 

15 

the United Sta~ Senate to move to discharge any 

2 committee of that House from further consideration 

3 of the l~slation . A motion to discharge shall be 

4 hig~y privi)eged, and debate thereon shaH be limited 

5 to not more than two hours, to be divided equally 

6 between those ~pporling and those opposing the 

7 motio11. . .AJt amendment to the motion shaH not be in 

S order, and it shall not be in order to move to recon9 stder the vote by which the motion was agreed to or 

I 0 disagree« to. 

II (2) At a11.y time after the close of the 14th leg12 islative day begi.nning after the last committee of 

I 3 that House ha~; reported or been discharged from 

I4 further coosideration of such legislation, it shall be 

I5 in order for any Member of that House to move to 

16 proceed to the immediate consideration of the legis17 lation (sueh motion not being debatable), and such 

18 motioa is ~reby made of high privilege. An amend1 ~ ment to the motion shall not be in order, and it shall 

20 not be in 9rder to move to reconsider the vote by 

21 whioo the IJtOtioo was agreed to or disagreed to. For 

22 the purposes «this paragraph, the term "legislative 

23 day" means a day on which the United States 

24 Howse of &presentatives or the United States Sen25 ate, as appropriate, is in session. 

•HR 3024 IH 
102 

lG 

(b) COMi\II'l':\mNT <W COl\'Gimt>s.-Enactmcut of this 

2 section constitutes a commitmeut that the United States 

3 Congress will vote on legislation establishing appropriate 

4 mechanisms and procedures to implement the political sta5 tus selected by the people of Puerto Hico. 

6 (c) EXERCISE (W Rm.JJ<JiVIAlGNG POWER.-The provi7 sions of this section are enacted by the Congress8 (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of 

9 the Senate and the House of Representatives and, as 

10 such, shall be considered as part of the rules of each 

11 House and shall supersede other rules only to the 

12 extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and 

13 (2) with full recognition of the constitutional 

14 right of either House to change the rules (so far as 

15 they relate to the procedures of that House) at any 

16 time, in the same manner, and to the same extent 

17 as in the case of any other rule of that House. 

18 SEC. 7. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE REFERENDA. 

19 (a) IN GgNERAL.-

20 (1) AVA1LAHILI1'Y OF Ai\IOUN'l'S DERIVED I•'ROM 

21 TAX ON FOREIGN IWM.-During the period begin22 ning on October 1, 1996, and ending on the date the 

23 President determines that all referenda required by 

24 this Act have been held, the Secretary of the Treas25 my, upon request from time to time by the Presi-

•HR 3024 IB 
103 

17 

dent and in lieu of covering amounts into the treas2 ury of Puerto Rico under section 7652(e)(1) of the 

3 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall make such 

4 amounts available to the President for the purposes 

5 specified in subsection (b). 

6 (2) USE OF UNEXPENDED AMOUN'I'S.-Follow7 ing each referendum required by this Act and after 

8 the end of the period specified in paragraph (1), the 

9 President shall transfer all unobligated and unex10 pended amounts received by the President under 

11 paragraph (1) to the treasury of Puerto Rico for use 

12 in the same manner and for the same purposes as 

13 all other amounts covered into the treasury of Puer14 to Rico under such section 7652(e)(1). 

15 (b) GRAN'I'S FOR CONDUCTING REFERENDA ANO 

16 VOTJ<;R EDUCATION.-Frorn amounts made available 

17 under subsection (a)(1), the President shall make grants 

18 to the State Elections Commission of Puerto Rico for 

19 referenda held pursuant to the terms of this Act, as fol20 lows: 

21 ( 1) 50 percent shall be available only for costs 

22 of conducting the referenda. 

23 (2) 50 percent shall be available only for voter 

24 education funds for the central ruling body of the 

25 political party or parties advocating a particular bal-

•HR 3024 IH 
104 

18 

1 lot choice. In the case that more than one party is 

2 advocating a ballot choice, the 50 percent shall be 

3 apportioned equally among the parties. 

4 (c) ADDITIONAL RESOUR I<~S -bl addition to 

5 amounts made available by this Act, the Puerto Rico Leg6 islature may allocate additional resources for administra7 tive and voter education costs to each party so long as 

8 the distribution of funds is consistent with the apportion9 ment requirements of subsection (b). 

0 

•Hil 3024 IH 
105 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUM M. GARCIA-PASSALACQUA 

After four decades, this bill answers the question. 

However, John F. Kennedy won the Presidency in 1960. • In 1961. Munoz filed a proposal of the future status in the White House that 

reads: "Upon certification by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to 

the President of the United States that the conditions specified in this Act have 

been fulfilled, the President shall proclaim that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

has become a fully sovereign state, in permanent association with the United 

States" • In 1962. A draft bill approved by Munoz came out of the White House, reading: "That at the effective date of this Act the United States of American shall relinquish 

its sovereign rights in and to Puerto Rico and shall from then on exercise only such 

rights with respect thereto as may be delegated to it by the people of Puerto Rico 

and accepted by the government of the United States". 

In the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico, Munoz got approval of a resolution 

that asked for: "The recognition and reaffirmation of the sovereignty of the people 

of Puerto Rico, so that there may remain no doubt as to its capacity to enter into a compact in juridical terms of equality". The PDP won big in 1964. 

Luis Munoz Marin retired in 1964. This is his official record of all his official positions regarding the status issue. • In 1978. Just two years before his death, Munoz left his political testament in an interview in the newspaper El Mundo. In it, talking about political status, he 

gave his final word: 

"If Puerto Rico had obtained independence from Spain and had proposed to the 

United States to unite with them, in an autonomous union , the minimum of powers that we would have to developed autonomy" for Puerto Rico. This, gentlemen, is the official historical record. We are pleased that your bill honors it. That is why I support it. 

EXHIBITS 

1. Letter from Henry Cabot Lodge to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, November 

28, 1953 (1 page): "Your idea about Puerto Rico turned out to be a ten-strike". 2. Top Secret letter from Mason Sears to Henry Cabot Lodge of January 8, 1954 

with annotation by President Eisenhower: "Fine. Secret. DE" (2 pages. Declassified 

10/20/81): "It would also do no harm to hint at the almost certain honor which 

would attach itself to Governor Munoz should be become the first President of Puerto Rico". 3. Memorandum to Senator Lodge from Mason Sears, March 23, 1956 re Puerto 

Rican Independence (2 pages): "Here is an idea about ultimate Puerto Rican independence which I think has much merit and which I which could somehow be 

brought to the attention of the appropriate Congressmen". 

4. Letter from Henry Cabot Lodge to Sherman Adams, March 27, 1956 (1 page): 

It is that Congress adopt a resolution offering independence to Puerto Rico on precisely the same terms as the President offered it. If the offer were accepted, many 

problems would be solved". 

5. Memorandum fro Jerry Morgan from Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 17, 1959 (1 

page): "This is the memorandum handed to me by Governor Munoz-Marin when you 

accompanied him to my office. When bother him so much, please give me a report." 

* * * * * * * 
D EAR GENERAL: 

106 

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 

UNITED NATIONS 

November 26, 1958 

Your idea about Puerto Rico turned out to be a ten-strike. 

As you will have seen in the papers, I made the announcement in the General 

Assembly yesterday-{)ne week to the day after you mentioned it at breakfast-and 

received an unprecedented burst of applause from the delegates. I was warmly 

thanked by the Puerto Rican Delegate in particular and the comment among the 

newspapermen was uniformly enthusiastic. The effect will be tremendous in Latin 

American and in all colonial areas and it will regain some of the ground which Enavoidably we lost earlier because of Tunisia and Morocco. The domestic reaction is 

good too. Enclosed is a copy of the statement I made. 

Enclosed also is a copy of a letter which I am using to some Jewish friends I 

thought it might be useful to you in case any Jewish people come to talk to you 

about the Security Council resolution on Kibya. While the resolution was not as I 

would have written it myself, it is by no means as bad as some Jewish extremists 

say that it is. In fact the net long-term result should be helpful to Israel. I believe 

the enclosed is a balanced statement. 

Faithfully yours, 

Enclosures 

The President, The White House. 

The Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., White House, 

Washington, DC 

D EAR MR. CABOT: 

HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR., 

January 8, 1954. 

Last Tuesday you asked me to give some thought as to how it might be possible 

to stimulate the Puerto Rican Legislature to adopt a resolve requesting the United 

States to give full independence to Puerto Rico. here are some preliminary thoughts on the matter. To begin with, there are certain fixed factors in the situation. They are: 1. The present compact between Puerto Rico and the United States cannot be altered without Puerto Rican approval. 

2. A rough breakdown of party strength among the electorate puts the Popular 

party, headed by Governor Munoz, at 60 percent, the statehood party of 20 percent 

and the Independence party of 20 percent. As a practical matter this means that 

nothing can be done unless Governor Munoz is able and willing to sell the idea to his own party. This will not be easy, considering that the principal reason for the 

existence of the Popular party has been the belief that as an independent Nation 

the Puerto Ricans could not enjoy the close integration with the United States econ- omy, which is necessary if they are to stand on their own feet economically. 

3. It should also be borne in mind that as soon as the possibility of independenee 

becomes public in Puerto Rico it may have the result of the temporarily increasing 

the number of people who wish to migrate to the United States while it can be done 

without any restrictions. 

With these facts in mind here is a possible line of approach to governor Munoz,: 

(1) It should be explained to the Government that it was recognized in Washington The the establishment of Independence would be meaningless to Puerto Rico un- less its present economic arrangements with the United States were continued into 

the future: 

(2) In view of the fact that up to the present Governor Munoz has gone out of 

this way to emphasize that the present commonwealth relationship with the United 

States is far more beneficial to Puerto Rico than independence, some formula must 

be devised to permit him to make an about-face without risking a political loss-offace . It might be suggested that this could be accomplished if the governor were to 

send a message to the legislature stating that operations of the Government under 

the 1952 compact had proved so much more successful than anticipated that it wc.s 

apparent that if the United States were willing to extend into the future its present 

economic arrangements with Puerto Rico, the time had definitely come when there 
107 

would be great advantage to the Puerto Rican people if they were to become fully 

independent and on an equal footing with all other Latin American countries; 

(3) It would also do no harm to hint at the almost certain honor which would attach itself to Governor Munoz should be become the first president of Puerto Rico; 

(4) It should be explained to the Governor that the establishment of independence 

in Puerto Rico in the near future would have an international impact in view of the 

colonial issue which is so red hot in most parts of the world. It would be received 

with great satisfaction by the Asiatic-African Nations and would enhance the influence of the two American continents in world affairs. In conclusion it is my opinion that it is going to be difficult to persuade Governor 

Munoz to accept this proposal. If he opposes the idea, there would, of course, be no chance of success. For this reason I believe that the proposal should be presented 

to him at a very high level, preferably by yourself or by the Secretary of State if 

he were willing. Toward that end I would suggest that a confidential communication 

be sent to Governor Munoz inviting him to a private conference the next time it is 

convenient for him to be in the United States. 

Finally, let me say that this whole matter is fraught with danger and any misstep 

could easily lead to violence and bloodshed in Puerto Rico. 

Sincerely yours, 

To: Senator Lodge 

FROM: Mason Sears 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Puerto Rican Independence. 

MASON SEARS 

March 23, 1956 

Here is an idea about ultimate Puerto Rican independence which I think has much merit and which I wish could somehow be brought to the attention of the appropriate Congressmen. It concerns the possibility of a Congressional resolution in support of a statement in favor of independence for Puerto Rico which you presented 

on behalf of the President to the General Assembly two years ago. At that time you 

said to the General Assembly: "I am authorized to say on behalf of the President 

that if at any time the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico adopts a resolution in 

favor of more complete or even absolute independence, he will immediately thereafter recommend to Congress that such independence be granted." 

I believe that a parallel statement in the form of a Congressional resolution would 

be very beneficial to the United States in view of its anti-colonial traditions, which 

it is temporarily having to stifle in view of its NATO alliance with the colonial pow- ers. 

While I am not familiar with Congressional drafting procedures, I submit the following idea for a resolution which could be altered in any way to meet the requirements. It goes as follows: Whereas the President of the United States has stated that if at any time 

the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico adopts a resolution in favor of more complete or even absolute independence he will immediately thereafter rec- ommend to Congress that such independence be granted; and 

Whereas the present agreement between Puerto Rico and the United States 

is a compact which cannot be altered unilaterally; and 

Whereas the people of Puerto Rico have been in charge of their own government for many years and have been officially recognized as a self-governing 

people by the United Nations: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States 

of America in Congress assembled, That if the Legislative Assembly of 

Puerto Rico adopts a resolution in favor of more complete or even absolute 

independence, and if the President of the United States were to recommend 

to Congress that such independence be granted, the Congress that such 

independence be granted, the Congress would desire to cooperate with the 

Legislative Assemble of Puerto Rico in an effort to reach a new agreement 

which would result in independence. 

I earnestly hope that something can be done to bring this suggestion to the attention of the appropriate committees in the House and Senate. 
108 

March 27, 1956. 

D EAR SHERM: 

You know how much thought has been given to this problem of Puerto Rico-with 

all its implications at home and abroad. 

You may also remember that two years ago the President authorized me to say 

to the United Nations that any time the Puerto Rican Assembly adopted a resolution in favor of independence that the President would immediately recommend to 

Congress that such independence be granted. 

There was no reaction from Puerto Rico to this move. Mason Sears, who is our United States Representative on the Trusteeship Council, has evolved an idea which I think has a great deal of merit. It is that Congress 

adopt a resolution offering independence to Puerto Rico on precisely the same terms as the President offered it. 

If the offer were accepted, many problems would be solved. 

If the offer were rejected, our Congress would at the very least have taken a step 

which would be interpreted as "anti-colonial" and do us great good throughout the world-notably in Afro-Asian countries. 

As this involves so many different Departments, I am sending it to you. It is an idea that has real merit and I do not see what we could possibly los·e by it. I enclose Sears' memorandum to me. 

Faithfully yours, 

Encl. Memorandum 3/23/56 

The Honorable Sherman Adams, 

The White House. 

HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR. 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

WASHINGTON 

JUNE 17, 1959. 

MEMORANDUM FOR JERRY MORGAN 

This is the memorandum handed to me by Governor Munoz-Marin when you ac- companied him to my office. When you have examined into the "Commonwealth" 

question that seemed to bother him so much, please give me a report. 

D.D.E. 
109 

SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET 

My full name, complete address and telephone number are: 

JUAN M. GARCIA PASSALACQUA 

President, Analysis Inc. 

Condominia Parque de las Fuentes 

Apt. 503 

Hate Rey, PUERTO RICO 00918 

(758) 758-5029. 

The topical outline or summary of the testimony is: 

The Estado Libre Asociado of Puerto Rico was created in 

1952-1953 by the administrations of United States Presidents 

Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisehower together with Puerto 

Rican Governor Luis Munoz Marin, for whom I worked as a Special 

Assistant during the years 1958 and 1962-1964. In that capacity I 

was privy to confidential information on his intent in creating 

the status as one of "free association". 

President Dwight D. Eisenhower offered the people of Puerto 

Rico independence through Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge at the 

United Nations on November 27, 1953. 

To that offer, Luis Munoz Marin responded, on behalf of the 

people of Puerto Rico proposing the following course of action: 

"We must eliminate all functions that would not be exercised by 

and independent country and that are unncecesary to the concept 

of free association with common citi.zenship". 

That concept, as proposed by Luis Munoz Marin to Dwight D. 

Eisenhower in 1953, is the one contained in H.R. 30 24 as the 

definition of "free association". 

In his memory, and for that reason, I favor H.H. 3024. 

GIVEN, in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on 
110 

JUAN M. GARCIA· PASSALACQUA PRESIDE!fn 

ANAUSIS INCORPORADO 

PALliA REAL 152 

RIO PIEDRAS, P.ll 00827 

(108)711-onT 

CURRICULUM VITAE 

President of Anllioie Inc., a non-profit political anal ys i s 

firm founded in 1969 in Son Juan, Puerto Rico. Graduate of the 

Harvard Law School, 1962. Visiting Profeoor at Yale University 

Politico! Science Deportment (1987-88, 1990-91). Author of a 

dozen books, among them Puerto Rico: Equality and Freedom at 

~~ Hoover/Praeger, New York, 1984. Founder of the Harvard 

Internati on al Law Journal (1961). Founder of the National 

Association of Hispanic Journolists (1982). Member of the 

Hispanic Advisory Group to Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, 1977-

198 0. Member of Jimmy Carter o bser ver team to the Panama 

elections in 1989 and several other observer missions for the 

National Democr at ic Institute for International Affairs. Member 

of the Council on Foreign Relation& in New York since 1989. At 

present political analyst for El Nuevo Herald in Miami. 

• • • 

Born in Hate Rey, Puert o Rico in 1937. Has degrees fro:n the 

University of Puerto Rica ( 1957), Fletcher School of Law and 

Diplomacy of Tufts University (1958), Juris Doctor of Harvard 

University (1962), Tulane University (1967), and an Honorar y 

Degree from Central University, Bayam6n, Puerto Rico (1972) . 

Has served in the State Department of Puerto Rico ( 19 58) , 

the Office of the Gove rnor of Puerto Rico (1962-1967), and the 

Ana G. ~n dez Educational Foundation in Puerto Rico (1967 -1 987), 

where he is a member of the Board of Directors since retirement 

from his position as House Counsel, after t~enty years~ 

Has done p olit i cal analysis for th e last t\lienty five years 

on Puerto Rican, the Caribbean, Latin America and United States 

a :fairs fur television, radio and newspapers in Puerto Rico. 

t:as lectured at the Sorbonne, Harvard, Universidad Nacional 

Aut6n oma de M€xico, Universidad Hen~ndez y Pelay o in Sp ain, 

Universidad de la Habana in Cuba, the Smithsonian Instituti on, 

the World Peace Foundation in Boston, the Friedrich Ebert 

Foundation in Germany, the Institute for European-Latin Amer ican 

Relations in England, and the Ame ricas Society in New York. 

His latest publication is an essay in Colin Clarke ( ed.), 

Society and Politics in the Caribbean, Macmillan/St. Anthony .. s 

Colleg•, Oxford , Eng land, 1991. 

Has tra~eled to fifty countries in Latin Ameri ca, Europe and 

Asia. Speaks, read& and writes fluently in both English and 

Spanish. Reading ability in other langusges. 

Is married to Ivonne Acosta and has thr ee children. 
111 

TESTIMONY OF 

HECTOR LUIS ACEVEDO 

PRESIDENT 

POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

BEFORE ffiE NATIVE AMERICAN AND 

INSULAR AFFAIRS SUB-COMMITTEE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

HEARINGS ON H.R. 3024 

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 

MARCH, 23, 1996 
Mr. President, 

Representatives. 

Members of 

112 

the United States House of 

I come before you today to speak about democracy. Of the t ype 

of democracy that equates the weak with the powerful. Of the 

special sense that human beings have that make us understand that 

in this life no person is more nor less than any o ther person. 

The struggle of the Puerto Rican people, as soon as it gained 

consciousness of its collective self, has been to affirm its va lues 

through political action. 

The tale of my people is not about civil war nor about 

bloodshed; it is the tale of equality in hope and in the r espect 

that each human being deserves. Where people are judged not by the 

position that they hold or the wealth that they accumulate, but by 

the contributions they make when faced with the challenges of life 

and the causes that they defend. 

In this historic epic, our people have framed their centennial· 

struggle demanding respect for their identity. 

It is under those premises of self-respect, of commi tment with 

the well being of our people and the recognition that we should 

liberate ourselves from the ambush of traditional ways, that the 

relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States has been 

guided. A principal part of that relationship is the respect to 

the free and self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico, as 

evidenced by u.s. presidents like Harry Truman, Dwight D. 

Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy. No one can preach to be in favor 

a£ liberty and not be willi!!g to respect its exercise. 

This is why this bill (HR 3024) finds no place in a democracy. 

It is the produc t of the actio ns of those who give their backs to our voters and who do not respe ct the will of the people of Puerto 

Rico as expressed freely in the ballot box. Of those who only 

respect democracy when they win. Today, those who could not 

convince our people to take a different course, after impos ing a 

plebiscite under their own rules, ask you to impose solutions that 

were defeated in the ballot box. This bill is not about different 

status formulas, but about the respect owed to the democratic 

dignity of Puerto Rico and the United States. 

Here in Puerto Rico the votes were already counted. In 

explaining those results some wish now to re-write history and 

alter the will of the people. That behavior constitutes an offense 

to the Puerto Rican people. 

Voting constitutes one of the most precious values of our 

people. And we have showed it over and over; that is why Puerto 

Rico has one of the highest rates of electoral participation in the 

world. Certainly much higher than the rate in the United States. 
113 

2 

That is the reason why we demand respect for the Commonwealth 

status; and by doing it we are also demanding respect for the 

democratic will of all Puerto Ricans. 

Commonwealth won the plebiscite; those who lost are obliged 

now to recognize, accept and respect that decision of our people. 

They abuse their power and in the process offend the dignity of 

Puerto Ricans when, using the strength of money and the political 

power, they pretend to obtain through illegitimate means what they 

could not advance in the ballot box. 

Those who a few weeks ago were celebrating the loss of 

American citizenship, but today, after seeing the outrage of our 

people, oportunistically retracted themselves, deserve our most 

powerful rejection. 

Those who have lost an election to the Commonwealth and have 

to resort to another plebiscite as their only means to defeat it, 

insult our people. 

The U.S. Congress must also respect and work constructively to 

make effective that decision. 

That goal cannot be accomplished if it is not understood that 

by virtue of Law 600 Puerto Rico and the United States entered into 

a compact between the two peoples; if it is not understood that in 

1953 the United States presented to the United Nations the 

Constitution of Puerto Rico and the concerted compact with Puerto 

Rico to justify the request that Puerto Rico be eliminated from the 

list of colonial territories. 

There, the U.S. Ambassador, Henry Cabot Lodge, informed that 

the compact between the people of the United States and the people 

of Puerto Rico could not be broken unilaterally by one of the 

parties and that is was stronger than a treaty. And that by virtue 

of that representation the United Nations eliminated Puerto Rico 

from the list of colonial territories, recognizing that Puerto Rico 

had exercised its right to self-determination and had achieved a 

legitimate form of self-government. 

The bill that you have before you and for which these hearings 

were called, declares that Congress still wields plenary powers 

over Puerto Rico, that the establishment of Commonwealth status did 

not in any way change the relationship between Puerto Rico and the 

United States, that there is no compact and that none is 

constitutionally possible. These were the very charges leveled at 

the United Nations, against the United States, by the principal 

enemies of democracy then, Cuba and the Soviet Union. Invariably, 

every time the issue was raised, the ambassadors of the United 

States before that body, including former President George Bush, 

vehemently rejected those allegations and reiterated that since 
114 

3 

November 3, 1953, the contrary to what it stated in this bill is 

true: that Puerto Rico exercised its right to self-determination 

and ceased to be classified as a colonial territory. 

If you disagree now against the official position of the 

United States before the United Nations, there is something that 

respect for proper international behavior requires you to do 

immediately. You should inform the United Nations that everything 

said in 1953 and that has been repeated since, has been a 

monumental fraud. 

Not being this the true nature of Commonwealth, the premises 

of HR 3024, which is deeply colonial in spirit, are totally wrong. 

In conclusion, this bill does not do justice to the good name 

of the United States. It is meager and crabbed . It is disdainful 

of what the people of Puerto Rico has freely and overwhelmingly 

backed for almost half a century in support of Commonwealth. It 

portrays a great country as still fumbling for answers to what are 

fundamentally very easy questions, if respect for the equality of 

our peoples and the right to respect and self-determination are 

taken to heart. That is not the United States that we know and 

admire and are proud to be associated with. 

The Popular Democratic Party rejects this undemocratic bill, 

and, in the unlikely event that it be approved, shall not 

participate in any such sham plebiscite as is tried to be imposed 

here. 

Do not ask me either to suggest amendments to this bill. Its 

defecLs cannot be saved because they emanate from its intenti01i. 

When someone intentionally takes a shot at you, the issue is not 

the make of the gun or the caliber of the bullet. 

Please be aware, members of Congress, that the people of 

Puerto Rico must be respected. Our dignity is not for sale nor is 

it willing to be humiliated. Our people, always respectful of 

others, look in equality to all men through the eyes of liberty. 

Please be aware, members of Congress, that Puerto Rico shall 

never be bought, and shall never surrender. 

Thank you. 
115 

SENATOR RUBEN BERRIOS MARTINEZ 

PRESIDENT OF THE PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 

MARCH 23, 1996 
116 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcomittee: 

After listening to the Presidents of the New Progressive and 

Popular Democratic Parties (NPP and PDP), I imagine that you, au 

well as a substantial number of our people, must be thinking that 

the prospects for a bill with wide support in this country are 

limited, indeed. Often, however, a difficult challenge provokes a 

good response. This is one of such instances. 

Today, I bring before you a proposal designed to achieve the 

widest possible support without forcing anyone to yield on 

fundamental principles. 

Although the bill under consideration, H.R. 3024, suffers from 

serious flaws which must be corrected, it also has great merit, and 

it constitutes an important step in our decolonization process. The 

bill vindicates the independence movement's historic position: it: 

recognizes the colonial nature of Puerto Rico's status and propose~: 

to enable our people to choose among decolonizing alternatives. 

Last Monday, however, the Governor and President of the NPP 

announced that he would make a proposal which, if adopted, would 

undo the very essense of the bill under consideration. H.R. 3024 

would lose its best attributes if it were to incorporate as a~ 

option the very status which it challenges as of a territorial, ancl 

hence of a colonial, nature. It would no longer be a decolonizin9 

measure if, under the guise of a so-called basic principle of 

democracy, the people were asked to choose between colonalism anc. 

decolonization. 

Since when does democracy create a vested right to opt for 

colonialism, an institution of servitude which, like apartheid anC: 
117 

2 

slavery, has been outlawed in the civilzed world? Colonialism by 

consent is not -for us or for anyone- a decolonizing option. 

The PDP leadership, · for its part, views H.R. 3024 as an 

unilateral and anti-democratic imposition, and an electoral booby 

trap. It is therefore necessary to put forth a proposal that 

harmonizes the legitimate interests of the various sectors, 

preserves the decolonizing nature of the bill, and guarantees a 

democratic and bilateral process. 

To achieve these ends. I propose that H.R. 3024 be amended. 

first, to establish a mechanism that guarantees that the Puerto 

Rican people be the one to democratically authorize the 

decolonization process; and second. to ensure that the decolonzing 

options presented to the people are defined in a fair and equitable 

manner . 

To democratically authorize the decolonization process, I 

propose the following mechanism: The bill, after its approval by 

both Houses of Congress and the President's signature, would not be 

implemented until the people grant their consent to the process 

through a referendum in which we vote, Yes or No, to the Young Act. 

Such referendum would be held in Puerto Rico after the 1996 general 

election. 

If we mean to democratize the process, this would not be 

achieved by adding a colonial option, as the Governor has 

suggested, but by submitting the Young Act for ratification by the 

people as a condition for its implementation. The amendment which 

I propose will also establish the boundary between a status process 
118 

3 

and the general elections, since it would not take effect until th·~ 

Young Act is ratified in a referendum after the 1996 general 

election. Finally, our proposal would facilitate the bill':> 

approval in Congress, since the enemies of decolonization will no\: 

be able to argue that it is undemocratic as an excuse to oppose it. 

And as if all this were not sufficient, both you and we would all 

avoid the shamefulness of having colonialism offered as an 

alternative. 

I should add that the mechanism proposed is not wi thou1: 

precedent. A similar one was devised by 'the U.S. Congress for the 

approval of Public Law 600 in 1950, although its goals were quite 

different. The referendum-for-ratification mechanism was then used 

to consolidate colonalism, and to exclude decolonizing options . 

This time it will be used to promote decolonization. On the 

previous occasion it served to accommodate the interests of the 

times; but the world has changed and now it accommodates today's 

interests. Previously, it degraded the mechanism of consent by 

using it to colonize; now it will be used to decolonize. 

To approve the proposed mechanism thus making the Governor'E: 

proposal unnecessary is not enough, however. It is absolutely 

necessary for the Puerto Rican peopl_e's approval that other 

shortcomings in the bill be corrected in order to guarantee equity 

and balance. 

One of the bill's greatest shortcomings is that it is front-· 

loaded in favor of statehood. The bill paints that option in bright. 

but unrealistic colors, while depicting the separate sovereignty 
119 

4 

options schematically and in shaded hues --and free association, 

specifically, unfairly by not endowing it with a minimum of the 

legitimate claims of its advocates. 

In order to correct that imbalance, I suggest that you ask of 

the various groups in Puerto Rico to submit for your Subcommittee's 

consideration their preferred definition of the decolonizing option 

which each advocates. 

Now, regardless of the proposals which the various status 

advocates may submit. the bill must be ammended to tell Puerto 

Ricans the truth about statehood. 

H.R. 3024 gives the impression that Puerto Rico may become a 

state, keep Spanish as its primary language, and preserve its 

national identity as a distinct and separate people from the Unites 

States. 

Few have spoken about the issues of language and national 

identity with greater clarity than the Speaker of the House, Newt 

Gingrich, primary co-sponsor of this bill-. After recently affirming 

with regard to the American nation that, "our goa~ is assimilation" 

and "the sine gua non of our survival," he concluded that "without 

English as a common language, there is no [American] 

civilization." 

I would also refer you to the words of Senator Daniel Patrick 

Moynihan (D-NY) who, in 1990, articulated the heart of the problem 

before the u .s. Senate: 

In the end, the great issues before us are civic, not 

economic. Do Puerto Ricans wish to become Americans? For that is 

what statehood ineluctably implies. That is what statehood brings. 

Or do they wish to maintain a separate identity? 
120 

5 

This rare bipatrisan consensus should suffice to lead you to 

amend the bill in order to make it patently clear that statehood 

implies a path of political and cultural assimilation. 

In harmony with the above, the 'section referring to langua<Je 

s hould also be amended to clearly establish the absurdity of 

conceving statehood for Puerto Rico without English as the primary 

language in the public schools and in the judicial, legislative and 

executive branches. Not to clarify these crucial matters would 

pe rpetuate false and dangerous illusions among hundreds of 

thousands of fellow Puerto Ri c ans who still naively perceive no 

contradiction between statehood and a separate cultural identity. 

With r e gard to the statehood option, it is also necessary for 

Congress to understand that as long as ours remains a differer,t 

nationality from that of the United States, the· people of Puert.o 

Rico will retain their inalienable right to self-determination ar.d 

independence -that is, the right to secede. A nation cannot selfdet ermine itself o ut of self-determination. 

Regarding the allegedly decolonizing nature of statehood, I 

would remind you that, although statehood for Puerto Rico is 

juridically decolonizing on its face, it is not so in its 

application. Where nationalities are concerned, federal 

enfranchisement in and of itself does not result in a colonial 

people's right of full self-government. 

As previously noted. however. the bill is unbalanced. not just 

because of what it does not say about the true nature of statehood~ 

but also because of the manner in which it describes the separate 
121 

6 

sovereignty option. The bill must be amended to correct that flaw. 

Let me give an example. The treatment which H.R. 3024 affords 

the matter of citizenship under free association, as well as the 

manner in which free trade between the United States and Puerto 

Rico is dealt with -to mention only two neuralgic issuesconstitutes a very serious flaw. Such treatment bears no relation 

to the present state of the law or to modern-day commercial and 

economic reality. 

As far as independence is concerened, suffice it to say that, 

in juridical terms, the summary and rigid definition provided in 

the bill is reminiscent of those found in early 20th century 

textbooks: correct as regards the basic elements, but incomplete as 

to the current potential for flexibility and creativity. 

As regards the separate sovereignty option, H.R. 3024 is 

silent as to which modality should be implemented, if that were the 

prevailing option. I therefore propose that the bill be amended to 

provide that, upon choosing separate sovereignty, the People of 

Puerto Rico be convened in a Constituent Assembly to which our 

nascent sovereignty would be entrusted, an which would, among other 

things, decide the form of Puerto Rico's sovereignty -free 

association or independence- to be negotiated with the u.s. 

Government. 

Lastly, I wish to conclude by explaining what to some may 

appear to be a paradox: why do I so enthusiastically promote a 

status process definition which could initially lead to an 

electoral victory for an option other than independence? 
122 

7 

The Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP} firmly believe'3 

that, under present and foreseeable circumstances, the road to 

independence is the road of the "supreme definition" advanced b:r 

Dr. Pedro Albizu Campos -"Either Yankees or Puerto Ricans"- and 

which presupposes a process that engages and confronts the u.s. 

Congress with the need to put an end to Puerto Rico • s coloniaL 

condition. If this bill is properly amended, it could become an 

effective catalyst for that process. On the other hand, there is 

always the alternative of sitting and waiting for the perfect bill. 

However, one should not forget that in political processes, 

valuable aspects often intertwine with pettiness; but to write the 

bill off as a mere booby trap is no more than an excuse for no·: 

confronting Puerto Rico's colonial problem. One should tak·~ 

advantage of the good and improve on the bad; but it would be d 

disservice to our cause if we were to allow perfection to become an 

enemy of what is necessary. And it is necessary to move a 

decolonization process forward. 

Sooner, rather than later, Puerto Rico will march towards i t:3 

own, separate sovereignty, either because Congress responds to ou= 

clamor for sovereignty, or because it is forced to confront 

because of Puerto Rico- its own supreme definition. Will Congress 

repudiate the fundamental pri nciple of the American Union, J~ 

pluribus unum (''from among many, One"}, by admitting a distinct and 

separate nation as a state of the Union? I haven't the slightest 

doubt that Congress can only respect the very essence of the one 

nation it represents. 
123 

8 

In 1898, the Founding Father of our Homeland, Dr. Ramon 

Emeterio Betances, under more difficult circumstances than those 

confronting us today -16 days before the American invasion- had 

pointed the way that was closed for so long. He counseled us then: 

"Deal peacefully (with the Americans] in order to attain 

independence." Betances, the prophet, spoke a century before his 

time. For that was the redemptive solution which could not 

materialze theni and that is the solution -for Puerto Rico as well 

as the United States- which in light of the new circumstances in 

our world becomes possible now. 

Thank You. 
124 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF LUIS VEGA RAMOS 

Luis Vega Ramos 

President and designated representative 

PROELA 

tel. (787) 724-1309 

Summary of Statemeut to tile Subcommittee on Native American· and Insular 

Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives Regarding H.R. 3024, tile United 

States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act 

On November 14, 1993, Puerto Ricans voted for the development of the .r 

present status, the Estado Libre Asocindo, through a "bilateral compact that can only 

be amended by mutual consent." 

The best response to the 1993 plebiscite would be to present a "Bilateral 

Compact Act" that would define the relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. 

However, your response is to call for a new plebiscite and to legally comm it 

the U.S. to enacting its results. Since this is truly a process of mutual-determination, 

we are willing to consider your proposal, if you are willing to consider ottr 

amendments. 

In any attempt to structure a plebiscite, Congress has to follow two important 

principles: Fair Play and Goodwill. 

Fair play means that all three status tendencies are presented to the people on 

equal footing . It does not mea n that they look the same, but rather that they are 

presented as they truly are, taking into account the applicable principles of both 

International Law and U.S. Constitutional Law and the expressed aspirations of the 

Puerto Rican people. 

Goodwill requires that all status options have the same guarantees in terms 

of access to the ballot and that the definitions adopted are immune to demagogic 

manipulations by opposing forces. There cannot be covert manipulations t.:> 

adversely affect any of the options or actors who represent them. 

If Congress acts with goodwill and provides for fair play, you' ll have the 

support of everyone in Puerto Rico. If you don't, you'll not only miss another 

chance to break the impasse, but you \\'ill also make the situation worse. 
125 

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 of the U.S. House of Representatives 

Regarding H.R. 3024, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 

March 23, 1996 

PROELA is a civic organization that for twenty years has advocated in Puerto 

Rican, federal and international forums for the development of the current political 

status within the context of a bilateral association. We took active part in the status 

plebiscite campaign of 1993. 

Today, we come before this Subcommittee on behalf of the hundred of 

thousands of Puerto Ricans who voted in favor of the Estado Libre Asociado. 

I. The Dutv to Respond 

The United States acquired Puerto Rico as a war booty in 1898. Fifty-two years 

later, Congress approved its last status act, recognizing Puerto Rico's faculty to write 

and adopt its own constitution and granting a measure of internal self-government. 

For the next four decades, Puerto Ricans constantly struggled to attain a larger 

degree of self-government and a full exercise of self-determination. In November 

1993, more than 823,000 Puerto Ricans petitioned the Congress and the President to 

adopt a "bilateral compact which can only be amended by mutual consent." 

We have patiently waited for your answer. Now this Congress is considering 

H.R. 3024, a bill that would authorize a new plebiscite sometime before the end of 

199!l, with a choice between hvo options: 1) a path leading to statehood and; 2) a path 

leading to separate sovereignty. 

The people of Puerto Rico have pushed the envelope as far as we can by 

ourselves. Now it is time for Congress and the Administration to act rationally, 

fairly and honestly to solve our mutual dilemma. It is your duty to act now. 

II. Fair Play and Goodwill 

The U.S. has expressed, domestically and internationally, its commitment to 

the most basic principles of democracy and self-determination. Government should 

work by the consent of the governed. We believe that the best response to the 1993 

24-926 - 96 - 5 
126 

plebiscite would be to present to Congress and the Puerto Rican people a "Bilateral 

Compact Act" that would define the relationship between the Republic of the U.S. 

and the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico. Last October, we urged you to consider 

this alternative. We do the same today. 

However, you have chosen a different path. Your response is to call for a new 

plebiscite and to legally commit the U.S. to enacting its results. Since this is truly a 

process of mutual-determination, we are willing to consider your proposal, if you 

are willing to consider our amendments. 

In any attempt to structure a plebiscite, Congress has to follow two important 

principles: Fair Play and Goodwill. 

Fair play means that all three status tendencies are presented to the people on 

equal footing. It does not mean that they look the same, but rather that they are 

presented as they truly are, taking into account the applicable principles of both 

International Law and U.S. Constitutional Law and the expressed aspirations of the 

Puerto Rican people. 

Goodwill requires that all status options have the same guarantees in terms 

of access to the ballot and that the definitions adopted are immune to demagogic 

manipulations by opposing forces. Also, there cannot be covert manipulations on 

the part of the sponsor of the vote to adversely affect any of the options or actors 

who represent them. 

If Congress acts with goodwill and provides for fair play, you will have the 

support and cooperation of everyone in Puerto Rico. If you don't, you'll not only 

miss another chance to break the impasse, but you will also make the situation 

worse. 

Ill. The Process 

H.R. 3024 does not need a discussion as to the current legal nature of the U.S.-

Puerto Rico relationship. As you should know, that is one of the main points of 

controversy in Puerto Rico. By adopting a position on the debate, one way or the 

other, you would alienate hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans who would view 

you as their enemy. This is totally unnecessary. In fact, the House adopted 

unanimously in 1990 a plebiscite bill (H.R. 4765) that did not dwell on this debate. 

Everyone agrees that Congress has the authority to mandate a status plebiscite. To try 

to ascertain whether it is in light of the Treaty of Paris, the Territorial Clause or, 

Section 9 of the Federal Relations Act of 1950 is irrelevant and diverting. Just 

legislate a plebiscite and let the scholars and analysts debate this issue. 

You should also make sure that the provisions in Section 5(a)(1) and (2) are 

harmonized. We agree that the vote should be held in accordance with Puerto Rican 

2 
127 

law and that the State Electoral Commission (SEC) should determine voter 

eligibility. However, we are worried that 5(a)(2) requires the application of federal 

laws related to the election of the Resident Commissioner. Our main concern is that 

these laws might impair the authority of the SEC to have final say on voter 

eligibility. We insist that the SEC have that authority. 

Another procedural point is that civic groups, such as PROELA, must have 

the same rights the political parties do to represent the status options. We are as 

active on this issue as the political parties, as you well know, so the law should grant 

us similar rights. 

IV. The Free Associated· State (or "Estado Libre Asociado") Option 

The specifics of what PROELA believes a· bilateral compact of association 

should include were presented to this Subcommittee last October 17, 1995. We now 

concentrate on how H.R. 3024's offer of a bilateral pact should be improved to 

comply with International Law and U.S. Constitutional Law criteria and with the 

aspirations of Puerto Rico as expressed in 1993. 

First, the options of Free Associated State, in Spanish "Estado Libre Asociado," 

and independence should be separated. International Law and the Puerto Rican 

debate recognizes them as separate options and so should the bill. Not to do so 

would go against the principles of fair play and goodwill. 

Second, the language concerning the U.S. citizenship of Puerto Ricans living 

on the island upon enactment of the bilateral compact should be identical to the 

section-by-section analysis of Section 172 of the compact between the U.S. and three 

former U.N. Trust Territories included in the "Compact of Free Association Act of 

1985": 

"[aJ United States citizen who becomes a citizen of the FAS and who does not 

renounce his United States citizenship, would retain his United States 

citizenship and continue to be entitled to the same rights and privileges as 

any other United States citizen." 

In . terms of our position regarding citizenship issues in the bilateral compact, 

we submit a legal paper prepared by PROELA Vice President Raul Mariani-Franco 

Esq., that has already been sent to the White House Interagency Working Group on 

Puerto Rico. 

Regarding the other aspects of the Free Associated State offer, we are filing as 

part of our suggested amendments a ballot text to be included in the law. We are 

ready to discuss it in detail. 

3 
128 

V. The Need for Compromise ... and Action 

The Congress is considering H.R. 3024. The Clinton Administration has 

expressed an extremely clear position ~ith regards to the inclusion of the 1993 

plebiscite winning option and the guarantee of Puerto Rican's U.S. citizenship. We 

agree with the Administration on both counts. This Subcommittee should revise 

H.R. 3024 to accommodate the President's views. 

In order to include and commit all sectors in Puerto Rico, the Subcommittee 

should revise H.R. 3024 to remove unnecessary diversions, provide for a fair and 

just process and be willing to commit irrevocably to the results of a congr:essionally 

mandated plebiscite. If you are not willing to do that in a plebiscite that includes 

statehood then, bite the bullet --say so- and remove it from the list of options. 

For almost one hundred years, the Puerto Rican nation has struggled and 

waited for Congress to fulfill its obligations to us and provide us with a coherent 

process that ensures a final disposition of the political status issue. We have been 

ready for all these years. Now it is time to show that you are ready too. 

Las ge11craciones pasadas, presentes y futuras esperan por itstedes. El pueblo 

de Puerto Rico hablo y co11tilllia hablm1do hoy. La bola estti e11 su cancha. 

Muchas gracias. 

4 
129 

PROELA 

P. 0. Box 2864, 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902 

Tel. (809) 724-1309 

Suggested amendments on H.R. 3024 

After reviewing the text of the United States -- Puerto Rico Political Status 

Act (H.R. 3024), we suggest that the following amendments be included. These 

would not alter the spirit or intention of the bill but would facilitate our 

participation in the prescribed process in defense of the Free Associated State 

alternative. 

We are limiting our suggestions to the substantive and procedural aspects of 

the bill. However, we should express our concern that the language of section 2 

("Findings") is one that unnecessarily exacerbates ongoing debates in Puerto Rico. 

Here are our suggestions: 

Section 3 

On page 5, line 20; insert after the word "cast" the phrase "unless Congress 

establishes a different threshold for the statehood option." 

Section 4 

From line 1 of page 6, to line 16 on page 8: the bill should separate the options 

of Free Association an Independence. International Law recognizes them as separate 

options, not variations of one of them. 

The new (a)(1) should read: 

"(1) A path of Puerto Rican sovereignty leading the current commonwealth 

status towards a full free association with the United States to be defined by means 

of a bilateral compact which can only be amended by mutual agreement. The 

bilateral compact shall --

"(A) recognize Puerto Rico as a sovereign nation organized in a Free 

Associated State (in Spanish, Estado Liln·e Asociado) with full authority and 

responsibility for its internal and external affairs, exercising in its own name 

and right the powers of government with respect to its territory and 

population, language and culture, determining its own relations and 

participation in the community of nations, and exercising all the attributes of 

sovereign political entity, except those specifically delegated to the 

5 
130 

Government of the United States in the text of the bilateral compact; 

"(B) define all future relations between Puerto Rico and the United 

States, providing for cooperation and assistance in matters of shared interest 

as agreed and approved by Puerto Rico and the United States, and shall only 

be amended or terminated by mutual agreement pursuant to the procedures 

contemplated in the bilateral compact and to the respective constitutional 

processes of the United States and Puerto Rico; 

"(C) provide for a constitution democratically instituted by the people 

of Puerto Rico, establishing a republican form of full self-government and 

securing the rights of the citizens of Puerto Rico to be the supreme law of the 

Free Associated State, and the Constitution and laws of the United States no 

longer apply to Puerto Rico, with the exception of those included as part of 

the bilateral compact; 

"(D) recognize Puerto Rico the power to determine and control its own 

nationality and citizenship. A United States citizen who becomes a citizen of 

the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico and who does not renounce his 

United States citizenship, would retain his United States citizenship and 

continue to be entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other United 

States citizen.' 

"(E) upon recognition of Puerto Rico by the United States as a 

sovereign Free Associated State and establishment of government -togovernment relations on the basis of comity and reciprocity, Puerto Rico's 

representation to the United States is accorded full diplomatic status; 

"(F) Puerto Rico's eligibility for United States assistance to be provided 

on a block grant government to government basis, including foreign aid or 

programmatic assistance, at levels similar, but never superior, to the present 

ones. Individuals will maintain the federal entitlements, such as social 

security, that they have earned as United States citizens. 

"(G) honor property rights and previously acquired rights vested by 

employment in Puerto Rico or the United States, such as those of federal 

employees and veterans, and where determined necessary, such rights are 

promptly adjusted and settled consistent with government to government 

agreements implementing the bilateral compact. 

"(H) treat Puerto Rico as if it were part of the customs territory of the 

United States in those areas that are beneficial to Puerto Rico and are included 

within the terms of the bilateral compact. 

' The language is taken from the section-by-section analysis of Section 172 of the compact approved 

by Congress as part of the "Compact of Free Association Act of 1985" (P.L. 99-239; 99 Stat. tnO). 

6 
131 

u(I) guarantee that the terms of the bilateral compact of the Free 

Associated State can only be terminated or amended by mutual agreement 

and that the People of Puerto Rico _will give its consent or agreement in 

accordance to the terms of the compact and the applicable constitutional 

processes.'" 

On page 8, line 17; a separate (2) should be included to define the terms of 

statehood (as is done in the draft) and a separate (3) to include the terms of 

independence. 

On page 9, line 20; (2)(G) should be amended to include the word "English" 

between the words "same" and "language". 

On page 10, line 12; insert after the period (.) the following: 

"If after the 180 day period has expired, the President has not submitted a plan 

to Congress, any legislation presented by a Member of Congress which leads to 

full self-government for Puerto Rico consistent with the terms of this Act and 

in full consultation with the leaders of the three branches of Government of 

Puerto Rico, the principal political parties of Puerto Rico, and other interested 

persons as may be appropriate, shall receive the same congressional 

consideration outlined in section 6." 

Section 5 

On page 14, line 13; Insert before the word "The" the phrase "Not later than 30 

days after the President has submitted legislation to the Congress," and replace the 

capital "T" with a small "t''. 

Section 7 

On page 17, line 25; eliminate the word "or" and replace it with a comma (,) 

and insert after the word "parties" the word "or recognized citizen groups". 

On page 18, line 1; insert after the word "party" the word " and/or recognized 

citizen group". 

These are our suggested amendments. We urge the Subcommittee to amend 

H.R. 3024 to accommodate them. 

' This language is taken from Section 441 of the compact approved by Congress as part of the 

"Compact of Free Association Act of 1985" (99 Stat. 1771, at 1829). 

7 
132 

PROELA 

P.O. Box 2864 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902 

To: Luis Vega Ramos 

President, PROELA 

MEMORANDUM 

From: Raul S. Mariani Franco, E~~~-~ Vice-president, PROELA~~ 

Re: Bilateral Compact Analysis II -- Viability under U. S . 

Constitutional and International Law of a dual citizenshiD 

arrangement between the federal government and the governme1:1t of :i. 

non-territorial Free Associated State. 

Date: February 10, 1996 

***** 

I n view of the fact that on January 30 , 1996 Congressperson 

Nydia Velazquez (D -NY ) requested an official opinion from Mr. John 

Killian, Senior Specialist of the American Law Division of the 

Library of Congress, on the existence and implications of dua:. 

citizenship in the case of the United States, I submit to you thE~ 

f ollowing. 

I. The Facts: 

The facts pertinent to the i n stant query are as described in 

paragra ph 3 of Co ngressperso n Nydia Velazquez' letter of Janua~' 

30, 1996. 

II. Issues: 

1. Is dual citizenship pennitted by the Constitution of 

the United States? 

2. Can there be a dual citizenship arrangement between the 

Federal government and the government of a n on- territorial Free 

Assor.iated State? 

III. Discussion : 

Issue 1. There is no prohibition on its face from the text of 

the Constitution of the United States to the possibility of the, 

citizens of the United States also being citizens of another 

sovereign state. This means that if such prohibition exist ed i t. 

would had to be found in a Supreme Court opinion or enacted in c. 

Congressional statute. 
133 

To this day Congress has never e~cted a law prohibiting dual 

citizenship for U.S. citizens. The only statutory provision that 

explicitly dealt with dual citizenship, even if it later was 

repealed was section 350 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act 

of 1952 . Said section, which dealt with dual citizens at birth, 

established that if those citizens sought the benefits of a foreign 

citizenship, they will lose their U.S. citizenship after residing 

in a foreign country for three (3) years after the age of twenty 

two (2 2 }, unless they took an oath of allegiance to the U.S. 

Section 350 was repealed in 1978 by P.L. No. 95-432. 

The House report on the aforementioned law stated that: 

"The primary effect of this section 

(sec. 350) is to cause needless 

anxiety among American citizens 

residing abroad. In addition,it is 

difficult t o administer and has 

caused confusion within the 

Departments of State and Justice." 

With the repeal of section 350, there is no longer any 

provision prohibiting the exercise of dual citizenship by U.s. 

citizens in the U.S. statutes. Since Congress has chosen not to 

exercise its constitutional authority on dual citizenship, we most 

turn to the Supreme Court opinions to find out whether there has 

been found in the Constitution any impediment for the exercise of 

dual citizenship by U.S. citizenship. 

The Supreme Court has recognized the longstanding principle 

of International Law that "it is the inherent right of every 

independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its 

own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be 

entitled to its citizenship." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 

U.S. 649, 688 (1898}. Therefore it might be possible that a 

citizen of the United State may be considered a citizen of another 

country under that country's laws. 

This was the case in Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 

(1951). 

In said case the Court stated: 

"The concept of dual citizenship recognizes 

that a person may have and exercise rights 

of nationality in two countries and be subject 

to the responsibilities of both. The mere 

fact that ·he asserts the rights of one 

citizenship does not without more mean 

2 
134 

th~t he renounces the other." Id. at 723-724 . 

Later, the Court went on to say: 

"As we had said dual citizenship presupposes 

rights of citizenship in each country. It 

could not exist if the assertion of rights 

or the assumptions of liabilities of one 

were deemed inconsistent with the maintenanc e 

of the other. For example, when one has a 

dual citizenship, it is not necessarily 

inconsistent with his citizenship in one 

nation to use a passport proclaiming his 

citizenship in the other." Id. at 725. 

The c losest the Supreme Court has come to putti ng some 

limitations on dual citizenship is found i n a two parag raph dictwn 

in Roaers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971 ). It states: 

"There are a t least intimations in the 

decided cases that a dual national 

constitutiona lly may be required to make 

election. In Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 

329 (1939), t he Court observed that a 

native-born citizen who had acquired dual 

nationality during mino rity through his 

parents' foreign naturalization abroad 

did not lose his United States citizenship 'provided that on attaining majority 

he elects to retain that citizenship and 

return to the Unit.ed States to assume its 

duties'. In Kawakita v. United States, 

343 U.S., at 734 , the Court noted that 

a dual national •under certain circumstances' 

can be deprived of his American citizenshi p 

through an Act of Congress. In Mandoli v . 

Acheson, 344 U. S . 133, 138 (1952), the Court 

took pains to observe that there was no statute in existence imposing an election 

upon that dual national litigant. 

These cases d o not flatly say a duty to 

elect may be constitutionally imposed. They 

surely indicate , however, that this is 

possible , and in Mandoli the holding was base d 

on the very absence of a statute and not on 

any theory of unconstitutionality. And all 

three of these cases concerned persons who 

where born here, that is, persons, who 

possessed fourteenth amendment citizenship ; 

they did not concern a person, such as 

3 
135 

plaintiff Bellei, whose claim to citizenship 

is wholly, and only, statutory." 

The aforementioned quote only states that Congress might at some time impose a duty to elect to dual citizens. It doesn't say 

that it has to impose that duty . To this date, Congress has 

elected not to impose such a duty , in any instance whatsoever . 

Even if Congress choose to enact legislation imposing that 

duty, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile that 

legislation with the Supreme Court's opinion in Afroyim v . Rusk, 

387 U.S . 253 (1967). This case proclaims the irrevocability of 

U.S. citizenship of a fourteenth amendment citizen unless there is 

a voluntary and intentional action by the citizen that constitutes 

a renunciation. Id at 268. 

There is an ongoing debate as to the nature of the U.S. 

citizenship of the persons b o rn in Puerto Rico. Some say this 

citizenship i s of a statutory nature, while others contend that it 

is now a fou rteenth amendment nature. Even if you accept that it 

is of a statutory nature, such as plaintiff Bel lei's was, the 

dictum in said case is innaposite to the case of U. S. citizens born 

in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans contrary to Bellei, weren't required 

to comply with any condition to attain or retain their status as 

birth citizens. 

We agree with Professor Jose J. Alvarez Gonzal ez' conclusion 

to the effect that (even assuming that the U.S. citizenship of 

Puerto Ricans is of a statutory nature ) said citizenship is 

protected by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The 

law that granted citizenship to persons born in Puerto Rico (39 

Stat . 951 (1917 )) did so without imposing any conditions for 

attaining or retaining it . 

Accordingly, any ena ctment of legislation that would strip the 

persons born in Puerto Rico of their U.S . citizenship would 

constitute a violation of "long-standing principles of United 

States constitutional law." Alvarez Gonzalez, J.J., The Empire 

Strikes Out: Congressional Ruminations on the Citizenship Status 

of Puerto Ricans, 27 Harv . J. Legis. 308 (1990). 

In view of all of the above, .we conclude that there is no 

constitutional impediment to dual citizenship within the U.S. 

constitutional system. Furthermore, we conclude that there is no 

statutory prohibition to dual citizenship at this time and Congress 

has been consistently moving toward the elimination of any possible 

limitation. See Ortiz Guzman Angel J . Bl Derecho Constitucional 

Estadunidense y el Pacto Bilateral entre Puerto Rico y los Bstados 

Unidos, 29 Rev . Jur. UIA 297 at 316 n. 80 (1995): 

4 
136 

Mr. Seiberling: 

Now, section 172 provides that citizens 

of Micronesian states not residing in the 

United States shall b entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other 

nonresident alien and that they shall be 

treated as persons within the meaning of 

the Administrative Procedure Act and the 

Freedom of Information Act. 

But in the section by section analysis of 

section 172, it is noted, and I am quoting: 

"[a] United States citizen who becomes a citizen of a FAS and who does not renounce his United States citizenship, 

would retain his United States citizenship 

and continue to be entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other United 

States citizen." 

This doesn't appear pertinent to the subject 

matter of section 172. 

Does this contemplate dual citizenship? 

Mr. Berg: 

It could contemplate a situation whereby an individual would have both American citizenship as well as freely associated states 

citizenship. But if a person does acquire 

American citizenship, or is an American 

citizen, and has taken no act that would 

otherwise strip him of his American citizen- ship, then his rights would be those of an American citizenship versus those of a resident 

alien, which are the rights spoken to in 

section 172 . 

Mr. Seiberling: 

But he could also have a dual citizenship? 

Mr. Berg : The United States has a particular position 

with respect to dual citizenship. Oftentimes, however, an individual act that may or may not be considered dispositive with 

respect to the continuation of U.S. citizenship continues. 

We don't want a situation where a provision 

of the compact might be construed ·to strip 

an American citizen of his rights as citizen 

5 
137 

as long as he is a citizen. 

'emphasis in citation). 

Moreover, the consistency of Congressional actions towards the 

elimination of any possible limitation as to dual citizenship is 

quite apparent from two very pertinent examples. First, Congress 

moved in that direction when as part of the amendments made by P.L. 

95-432 (1978) it elected to eliminate sub-part 5 of Section 349 

which read: 

"Sec. 349 (a) From and after the effective 

date of this Act a person who is a national 

of the United States whether by birth or 

naturalization, shall lose his nationality 

by-

(5) voting in a political election in a 

foreign state or participating in an 

election or plebiscite to determine the 

sovereignty over foreign territory" 

66 Sta t. 268 (1952). 

The second example was s o recently as 1994 when Congress 

enacted P. L . 103·4 17 (1994) which, c onsistent with our 

interpretation, facilitates t he transmission of U.S. citizenship to 

descendants o f a citizen born and l iving outside the United States . 

See Addendum #1, Proe la , Bilateral Compact Analysis #1. 

Issue 2. Having found that there is no prohibition against 

dual citizenship, then no impediment exists for an arrangement of 

dual citizenship b etween the United States and a non-territorial 

Free Associated State . 

Pursuant to contemporary International Law, under a bilateral 

compact of Free Association, the parties could agree to any 

citizenship arrangement that they deem appropriate, United Stat e s 

v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (18 98) . 

Thus, it seems apparent that the granting of dual citizenship 

status t o persons born in Puerto Rico is a matter of policy making 

to be addressed by Congress and the Executive Branch, and not a 

matter of legal or constitutional constraints. A Congressional 

grant o f dual citizenship included as part of a bilateral compact 

of free association could not be judicially reviewable under the 

political question doctrine. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 

137' 164 (1803). 

As a matter of fact, federal courts have refrained from 

reviewing "the policies that underlie the very recognition of 

another sovereign by our own." Antolok v. U.S., 873 F. 2d 369 , 383 

(D.C.Cir. 1989). 

6 
138 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has been extremely consistent 

i~ finding that "the political question doctrine excludes from 

judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy 

choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for 

resolution to the balls of Congress or the confines of the 

Executive Branch." Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean S0c'y, 

478 u.s. 221, 230 (1986). 

This case follows a consistent line of cases ending with U.S. 

v . Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942) where the Supreme Court explained to 

further lengths the limitations imposed by the policy making powers 

of the political branches on the courts. In Pink at 229 the Court 

underlined that: [the] •authority [of recognition] is not limited 

to a determination of the government to be recognized. It includes 

the power to determine the policy which is to govern questions of 

recognition. Objections to the underlying policy as well as 

objections to recognitions are to be addressed by the political 

departments and not to the> courts." 

IV . Conclusion: 

Dual citizenship is permitted by the Constitution and legal 

practice of the United States and a dual citizenship arrangement is 

fully possible in a bilateral compact outside of the Territorial 

Clause of the United States Constitution as a policy determination 

by the political branches. 

7 
139 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTONIO J. FAS ALZAMORA, ESQ. 

Good Morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: 

I appear before you in my personal capacity, even though I 

have been a legislator of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for 

twenty years, four as a member of the House of the Representatives 

and sixteen in the Senate, where I am the Deputy Minority Leader of 

the Popular Democratic Party. From 1985 to 1989, I was Secretary 

General of my Party, whose founder Luis Munoz Marin, is the framing 

father of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

As an active participant in our island's electoral processes 

to elect our elected officials, as well as in those which pose 

fundamental issues, such as the status plebiscite, held on November 

14, 1993, I want to express to this distinguished subcommittee my 

strong opposition to this bill, since it attempts against the right 

of self determination of the People of Puerto Rico . The 1993 

plebiscite was a clean process legitimized by the vote of 1. 7 

millon of my fellow citizens; who faithful to their democratic 

traditions favored the continuation of the Commonwealth status, and 

rejected statehood and independence. This act undoubfully is the 

result of a democratic, free, and voluntary process. 

There is nothing more undemocratic and unamerican than to 

ignore the will of the majority. We learned this from the Framin~ 

Fathers of the Constitution of the United States, and we have 

proudly applied it in our daily lives as an organized society. 

The proposal to hold another status referendum, regardless of 

the options included on the ballot or the definitions of each 

formula, is an .attempt against the democracy and against the 

decision adopted by most Puerto Ricans, less t han three years ago . 

The United States proudly boasts about being the custodian of 

democracy, as zealous guards of the decisions of the people to 

democratically choose its elected officials and status, and as a 

defferent of freedom of speech. 

It has done so in all five continents, in many nations of this 

hemisphere. Why, then, is doesn't do the same in Puerto Rico? Not 

doing so is like reviving the old imperiali stic philosophy, to 

acc ept an electoral result when it is favorable and to invalidate 

it when it is unfavorable. 

Governor Pedro Rossell6 imposed the 1993 status plebiscite, 

committing himself publicly to accept the results and defend them 

before the United States Congress on behalf of the People of Puerto 

Rico. What was done? Nothing. Quite the contrary, he did not 

respect the results, turned his back to the people's mandate in 

favor of the Commonwealth, and then appealed before you seeking 

help to invalidate the plebiscite results, alleging our current 

status relationship is colonial. Now he is favoring a bill 

introduced by Congressman Young, a statehood bill. 

The United .States as a nation and its Congress as an 
140 

2 

i nstitution, respects the American democracy. It should also 

respect, as well, the democracy of Puerto Rico. 

You, Congressmen, are the result of a democratic exercise; 

Governor Rossell6 and the Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero 

Barcel6, as well, are a result of a majority with regards status, 

such an exercise hs b een engaged in the ocassions in 1952, 1967 

and 1993. 

The Commonwealth status has imperfections, as any political 

formula might, and needs to move forward toward more autonomy. 

But, why Congress can not decide to enhance the Commonwealth status 

as expressed by the people of Puerto Rico? Why should sore losers 

get it their the way? Being faithful to your democratic beliefs as 

members of Congress, which you represent today, is respecting the 

mandate of the People of Puerto Rico and addressing responsibly 

such will . 

Our political relationship is not colonial since July 25, 

1952. It was precisely on 1953, when President Dwight Eisenhower 

affirmed before the United Nations that Puerto Rico had achieved a 

level of self government under the Commonwealth status, by virt~ 

of which the United States ceased transmitting information on 

colonial territories. 

I ask you, have the conditions changed since then, or you feel 

a necessity to change the way to govern the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico? Or do you favor statehood over Commonwealth, strictly for 

political or financial reasons? 

If the reason is the first use, the speak clearly and state 

where are we mistaken so we can fix the problem. If it is the 

second one, affirm clearly you wish to add a new star to the United 

States flag, whether it is going to be Puerto Rico or the District 

of Columbia. Lastly 1 if the reasoning is economic to favor 

statehood, I considerly it an injustice, since our people has 

contributed to the united States as much as it has received. Among 

the many economic contributions of Puerto Rico to the United 

States, rank, being one of the top ten markets for United States 

goods, investments in Puerto Rico generate thousands of jobs in the 

mainland, and the military bases, which do not pay a cent to the 

Commonwealth. This represent millions in savings to the United 

States. Equally has been our significant contributions in the 

military, Puerto Rican soldiers have fought courageously overseas 

when call upon to serve America, in every single war and conflict 

in which the United States has been involved since World War I. 

Puerto Rico is a nation which seeks through the Commonwealth 

status to develop to a higher limit its self Government. This has 

been recognized by the United States memorandum on the cessation of 

trasnmmiting information with the establishment of the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico. "The people of Puerto Rico have achieved a full 
141 

3 

level of self government therefore the government of the United 

States has decided that is no longer necessary to transmit 

information with regards to Puerto Rico in light of Article 73 (e) 

of the United Nations Charter. This conclusion acknowledges the 

level of self government attained in the Commonwealth. One of the 

main elements of the Commonwealth Constitution, as ratified by the 

United States Congress, establishes that the political power 

emanates from the people and excersised in conformity with its 

will, as agreed in the compact between the people of Puerto Rico an 

the people of the United States. 

International and national legitimation that the government of 

the United States gave to the Commonwealth at the United Nations on 

the fifties and in the following statements before the 

international community. Likewise, this bill puts you in an 

uncomfortable position, hard to explain and even harder to 

understand, because while you recognized the Constitution of the 

United States as the severing authority of the American nation, on 

the other hand you are deat and refuse to accept ours on those same 

terms. In addition, you are against what yourselves vigorously 

defended, back in 1953 before the United Nation. 

The Young bill is an awesome contradiction, because it is 

against and rejects our natural condition considering it inferior 

and colonial, and seeks to change it for another one like statehood 

which represents the total denial of what the Puerto Rican people 

have achieve as a country and as a Caribbean nation. That which is 

promoted by the Young Bill it is, indeed, inferiority. 

So, i f is a colonial issue, then give a look to statehood, the 

denial of the Puerto Rican nation, which is the most colonial 

status option among the o.thers. Our theory, even though it is of 

the minority, its holding is that the statehood is a political 

complex of inferiority, which would establish a relationship 

without dignity. Do you think you can achieve political dignity 

with seven congressmen , two senators and voting for the President 

of the United States and also paying federal taxes in exchange for 

welfare? 

That is a very narrow minded vision, way too simplistic . The 

dignity of the Puerto Rican people, proud of its history, of is 

struggles and achievements, goes beyond a mere political 

representation or an economic contribution proportional to the IS 

treasury in order to enjoy some benefits. It has more to do with 

our deepest values, with those which give sense and praise our 

existence as a democratic country, freedom lover and respectful of 

man's fundamental rights. 

The United States is a nation with its own history, language, 

literature, territory, values, and traditions. Puerto Rico is 

exactly the same, a nation with its own particular characteristics. 

Any issue between the mainland and the Island should be clear in 
142 

4 

the fact that they are different nations, although associated in a 

search for a common purpose. 

During the last 98 years we have contributed to the American 

dream. In light of the nature of our political relationship with 

the United States, you have the legal and moral obligation to 

contribute to the development of the "Puerto Rico dream" expressed 

democratically by the majority of ou·r people to address 

affirmatively the 1993 results, and to enhance the Commonwealth 

status to the highest degree of autonomy compatible with our 

permanent relationship with the United States. This way both 

nations will continue co-existing with the same dignity, just like 

the way the United States Flag and the Puerto Rican Flag fly next 

to each other, at the same level. We have a self government, which 

was born by virtue of the compact agreed by the people of Puerto 

Rico and the United States, and have entered an era of new 

developments. The pretensions of the Young bill of denationalizing 

Puerto Rico through statehood is "like throwing rocks to the moon" . 

The people of Puerto Rico has decided on three occasions when has 

been confronted with the possibility of becoming something which we 

are not. To those members with such contemplations, I would ask, 

do no insist. Congressmen, because the only dignified authority fo~ 

the majority of the Puerto Ricans is the one which is born and 

raised from our own entrails. Thank you. 
143 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF HERBERT W. BROWN lli 

1) PUERTO RICANS VOTED IN 1993 TO CHANGE THEIR STATUS 

PUERTO RICANS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH STATUS OPTION THEY CHOSE IN 

THE 1993 PLEBISCITE, VOTED 100 PERCENT FOR A NEW STATUS. THEY 

UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT OUR CURRENT STATUS AS AN UNINCORPORATED 

U.S . TERRITORY DID NOT MEET THEIR ASPIRATIONS OF FULL SELFGOVERNMENT. 

WE NO LONGER WANT TO DEPEND ON THE GOODWILL OF CONGRESSMAN AND 

SENATORS FROM DISTANT STATES BEHOLDEN TO THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCIES 

AND SPECIAL INTERESTS. WE NO LONGER WANT TO BE SHUT OUT OF WHITE 

HOUSE POLICY MATTERS AFFECTING OUR ISLAND BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 

ANY ELECTORAL VOTE POWER. WE NO LONGER WANT TO BE CAPITOL HILL 

SUPPLICANTS, DEPENDENT ON THE LARGESSE OF OTHERS. 

WHAT WE WANT IS A VOICE IN OUR FUTURE. A VOICE THAT HAS BEEN 

DENIED FOR 500 YEARS. 

WHAT WE COULDN'T AGREE ON WAS THE APPROPRIATE OPTION TO TRANSFORM 

THE CURRENT COLONIAL STATUS TO ONE THAT REFLECTED OUR SELFDETERMINATION GOALS. MUCH OF THE ROOT OF OUR INABILITY TO CHOOSE 

THE RIGHT VEHICLE FOR SELF- GOVERNMENT WAS, AND IS, CONFUSION AS 

TO THE CHOICES THAT ARE LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE U.S. 

CONSTITUTION. 

2) CONGRESS RESPONDED TO THE PLEBISCITE'S RESULTS 

CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME MAY ARGUE, CONGRESS DID INDEED ADDRESS THE 

1993 PLEBISCITE RESULTS. THE RESPONSE SIGNED BY THE FOUR 

CHAIRMEN OF THE COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES RESPONSIBLE FOR 

PUERTO RICO, CAREFULLY ANALYZED THE PLEBISCITE RESULTS AND THE 

TESTIMONY GIVEN AT HEARINGS ON THE BALLOT ON OCTOBER 17, 1996. 

THE RESULT WAS THE BILL NOW BEFORE US. 

SHOWING A KEEN KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, YOU 

HAVE CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE WINNING FORMULA - ENHANCED 

COMMONWEALTH - WAS LEGALLY DEFECTIVE IN THAT CONGRESS WAS 

CONSTITUTIONALLY BARRED FROM IMPLEMENTING MANY OF ITS PROVISIONS 

INCLUDING THE GUARANTEE OF U. S. CITIZENSHIP AND PERMANENT TIES 

WITH THE U.S.- PROVISIONS THAT COULD ONLY BE REALIZED THROUGH 

STATEHOOD. 

FORTUNATELY, CONGRESS WITH ITS PLENARY POWERS UNDER THE TERRITORY 

CLAUSE DID NOT LEAVE THE MATTER STANDING. IT HAS SEEN FIT, UNDER 

HR 3024, TO DEFINE THOSE STATUS OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO 

PUERTO RICO AND WHICH CAN BE CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPLEMENTED. THAT 

IS CONGRESS' RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND UNDER THE 
144 

3 

TREATY OF PARIS - AND IT IS A RESPONSIBILITY IT HAS ADMIRABLY AND 

COURAGEOUSLY CARRIED OUT IN PROPOSING THIS LEGISLATION. 

YOUR INITIATIVE -WHICH HAS BEEN THE TARGET OF MISPLACED CRITICISM 

BY SOME- HAS BEEN WELCOMED BY ALL CLEAR THINKING PUERTO RICANS. 

FOR THE SAME AUTHORITY THAT GIVES RISE TO THIS BILL COULD WELL 

HAVE BEEN EXERCISED TO UNILATERALLY DETERMINE THE ISLAND'S STATUS 

AND THAT OF ITS RESIDENTS. NOTHING PREVENTS CONGRESS FROM 

DECLARING BY FIAT PUERTO RICO'S INDEPENDENCE - IN WHICH CASE OUR 

STATUTORY AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP WOULD HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY A NEW 

PUERTO RICAN EQUIVALENT. 

YOU HAVE PROVIDED US THE VEHICLE TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHT OF SELFDETERMINATION WITH A CORRESPONDING CONGRESSIONAL COMMITMENT TO 

IMPLEMENT THE CHOICE SELECTED. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY 

AND FINALLY ATTAIN, AFTER 500 YEARS, COMPLETE SELF-GOVERNMENT -

EITHER AS AN INDEPENDENT NATION, WITH OUR OWN LAWS AND 

CITIZENSHIP - OR, AS THE FIFTY-FIRST STATE IN THE UNION, WITH 

FULL AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, EQUAL WITH ALL OTHER AMERICANS, AND 

WITH ALL THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS THIS STATUS ENTAILS. 

GIVEN YOUR COMMITMENT TO IMPLEMENT OUR CHOICE, WE MUST NOT LET 

INTERNAL RANCOR OR PETTY JEALOUSIES DENY US OR OUR WELL EARNED 

DESTINY. 

3) UNLESS WE ACT ON STATUS, CONGRESS WILL ACT FOR US PERHAPS TO 

OUR DETRIMENT 

HAVING SHOWN IN 1993 THAT COMMONWEALTH OR THE STATUS QUO IS BUT 

AN IMPERMANENT STATE OF AFFAIRS, THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO HAVE 

THE OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE THE FUTURE STATUS OF THE ISLAND AND 

ITS RELATIONSHIP, IF ANY, WITH THE U.S .. 

BUT IF THIS BILL IS DERAILED OR IF FULL SELF-GOVERNMENT IS 

REJECTED AND THE STATUS QUO PREVAILS - THE REAL LOSERS WILL BE 

THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO. WHY? WE HAVE A CHANCE TO DETERMINE 

HOW AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS 500 YEARS OF COLONIALISM WILL BE 

SHED. IF WE DON'T MAKE THIS DECISION FOR OURSELVES THEN WE RUN 

THE RISK THAT CONGRESS WILL MAKE IT FOR US. 

HAVING DECIDED THAT COMMONWEALTH IS TRANSITORY AND THAT PUERTO 

RICO'S PATH TO FULL SELF- GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY WAY OF ENDING THE 

LAST VESTIGES OF COLONIALISM, CONGRESS WILL ACT IF WE FAIL TO 

EXERCISE OUR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION. 

CONGRESS HAS IT IN ITS POWER, CONSTITUTIONALLY TO DETERMINE OUR 

STATUS AND OUR CITIZENSHIP. THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE SPECIFICALLY 

CONFERS THESE POWERS ON CONGRESS AND IT IS WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY, 

EVEN ITS DUTY, TO EXERCISE THEM. 

WE HAVE IT WITHIN OUR POWER TO CHOOSE TO RETAIN OUR U.S. 

CITIZENSHIP AND FOREVER CEMENT OUR TIES TO THE U.S. - IN WHOSE 
145 

4 

DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY WE HAVE MADE THE SUPREME SACRIFICE SINCE THE 

FIRST WORLD WAR. THIS STATEHOOD OFFERS . 

WE ALSO HAVE IT WITHIN OUR POWER TO CHOOSE TO BECOME AN 

INDEPENDENT NATION AND EXCHANGE OUR U.S. CITIZENSHIP FOR A PUERTO 

RICAN CITIZENSHIP. A PAINFUL DECISION, YET ONE IN KEEPING WITH 

INTERNATIONAL NORMS. 

FINALLY, WE HAVE IT WITHIN OUR POWER TO ABDICATE OUR 

RESPONSIBILITIES AND CEDE CONTROL TO THOSE WHO PROFIT FROM THE 

STATUS QUO BY KILLING THIS BILL OR FAILING TO CHOOSE ONE OF THE 

TWO PATHS TO FULL SELF-GOVERNMENT THIS LEGISLATION OFFERS. 

SINCE NO TERRITORY HAS EVER ENTERED THE UNION WITHOUT ITS VOTERS 

FIRST APPROVING STATEHOOD, OUR OBSTRUCTIONISM, INACTION OR 

INABILITY TO ACT ON STATUS WOULD CEDE THAT DECISION TO CONGRESS 

WHICH WOULD OFFER UP, UNILATERALLY, ONE ENFORCED OPTION, 

INDEPENDENCE. . 

WHETHER ONE IS FOR INDEPENDENCE OR NOT, FOR STATEHOOD OR NOT, FOR 

THE STATUS QUO OR NOT, THIS REAL POSSIBILITY PRESENTS ALL THE 

WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS. 

A WORLD IN WHICH OUR SLOWLY ERODING RIGHTS UNDER THE U.S. 

CONSTITUTION WOULD CONTINUE AND PERHAPS ACCELERATE AS CONGRESS 

FINALLY GETS FED UP WITH OUR UNWILLINGNESS TO DEAL WITH STATUS 

AND DECIDE TO SETTLE THE MATTER ON THEIR OWN. 

A WORLD WHERE OUR FREEDOM TO CHOOSE OUR DESTINY HAS BEEN REPLACED 

BY CONGRESSIONAL FIAT AND OUR BARGAINING POWER REDUCED TO A 

SUPPLICANT, ONCE MORE . 

THESE THEN ARE THE CHOICES AVAILABLE. STATEHOOD AND U.S. 

CITIZENSHIP AND THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE AS EQUALS IN THE 

AMERICAN POLITICAL PROCESS. INDEPENDENCE AND PUERTO RICAN 

NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP. THE STATUS QUO WITH ITS 

IMPERMANENCE BOTH AS TO POLITICAL STATUS AND CITIZENSHIP. 

AND, IF WE CHOOSE THE LATTER, THEN THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SINGULARLY 

UNSUCCESSFUL IN 'EXTENDING' I 'ENHANCING ' I 'CULMINATING' I AND 

'PERFECTING' OUR STATUS WILL HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ONLY IN 

TRANSFERRING BACK TO CONGRESS PUERTO RICO'S FUTURE-.---

WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE US. 

OUR CONTROL TO DETERMINE OUR FUTURE. CONGRESS 

CHANCE, A CHANCE THAT IF ALLOWED TO SLIP AWAY, 

FOREVER. 

WE HAVE IT WITHIN 

HAS GIVEN US THE 

MAY BE LOST 

ARE WE FINALLY OPEN TO THE CHALLENGE THAT THIS BILL HANDS US? OR 

ARE WE DESTINED TO ALLOW POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM, AND SHORT TERM 

ECONOMIC INTERESTS TO DEFEAT OUR RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT? 
146 

5 

FOR ONE, I BELIEVE WE ARE UP TO THE TASK CONGRESS HAS LAID OUT 

FOR PUERTO RICO. IN THIS BELIEF, I ASK ALL PUERTO RICANS TO 

SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION AND THEN JOIN TOGETHER AND EXERCISE OUR 

RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION. 

THANK YOU . 
147 

TEN-POINT ANALYSIS OF H.R. 3024: 

I. Under U.S. law and practice as well relevant resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly, there are 

three recognized political status options available to the people of territories which have not yet completed 

the transition from a previous colonial status to full self-government: integration into a sovereign nation, 

independence, or a sovereign-to-sovereign treaty with another nation consistent with the status of free 

association. H.R. 3024 provides for a self-determination process through which the people of Puerto 

Rico can become fully self-governing by approving a change in Puerto Rico's current political status in 

order to achieve one of the three recognized forms of full self-government. 

2. H.R. 3024 bill does not address the proposed changes to the existing "commonwealth" regime as set 

forth in the "Definition of Commonwealth" presented by the PDP on the 1993 status plebiscite ballot. 

This is because the alternatives for instituting full self-government are the legitimate subject-matter of a 

formal self-determination process, rather than mere proposals for legislative measures within the scope of 

the existing "commonwealth" framework for local government operations while unincorporated territory 

status continues. Should the voters reject a change of status in favor of a recognized form of full selfgovernment, new or different measures to modifY the current "commonwealth" structure for local 

government administration still can be proposed to Congress. To avoid confusion between legislative 

proposals to modifY the current "commonwealth" structure and the options for a fully self-governing 

status, Section 5(c)(2) of the bill expressly recognizes that the current "commonwealth" unincorporated 

territory status will continue in the event voters reject a plan for transition to full self-government 

proposed in accordance with the act ··subject to the authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause at 

Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution. To reiterate in the most clear and straight-forward 

terms possible: H.R 3024 is a measure which presents the people with the full range of known 

options for changing the present status of Puerto Rico to achieve a recognized form of full selfgovernment. The present status of the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" as an unincorporated 

territorv under the Territorial Clause is not - and constitutionallv never can become - a form of 

full self-government. Therefore, H.R 3024 docs not address the current status, which simplv will 

continue as mav be permitted by Congress if Puerto Ricans do not approve a recognized form of full 

self-government. 

3. Contrary to the newspaper headlines, the Clinton Administration's brief policy statement of March 

I I, 1996 on Puerto Rican self-determination is not inconsistent with H.R. 3024. Both the 

Administration spokesman's policy statement and the bill affirm the long-standing bipartisan U.S. 

position respecting the right of the people of Puerto Rico to choose a future political status which 00 upon 

acceptance by the U.S. Congress·· would transform the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" into a 

recognized form of full self-government based on separate sovereignty or statehood. Both the 

Administration policy statement and H.R. 3024 also recognize that the voters may prefer to remain a 

"commonwealth," in which case the status quo will continue based on voter disapproval of a status 

change. That means continuation of the current unincorporated "commonwealth" territory status under 

the Territorial Clause. This is why the White House statement is very precise and carefully written to 

accommodate a result in which the voters' "aspirations for self-determination" can be "fulfilled" by 

continuation of the current "commonwealth" status quo. It is critical to note that the Administration 

statement does not state that the "aspirations of the people for full self government" can be achieved 

through a determination by the voters in favor of "commonwealth" status. Nor does the Administration 

statement make any commitment to changes in the "commonwealth" structure consistent with the 

"Definition of Commonwealth" on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. This is because the White House knows 

that the nature of "commonwealth" will still be subject to the authority of Congress under the Territorial 

Clause until Puerto Rico becomes a state or a separate sovereign nation. Changes or "improvements" to 

the existing commonwealth status quo arc a matter of Congressional discretion, not something that can be 

achieved through self-determination by the people. 

2 
148 

4. The view that the March II statement by an Administration spokesman rejected the approach 

embodied in H.R. 3024 has no basis in the language of the policy statement itself. Only if the 

Administration asserts that voter approval of the current "commonwealth" unincorporated territory status 

under the Territorial Clause will constitute full self-government would there be a difference between the 

Administration position and H.R. 3024. However, as issued by the White House inclusion of 

"commonwealth" in the Administration statement has the same meaning as recognition of the ability of 

the voters to reject change in favor of continued "commonwealth" in Section 5(c)(2) ofH.R. 3024. Like 

so much of what has been done for the last four decades by those federal and local officials who have been 

ambivalent about ending the colonial era for Puerto Rico, the March II Administration statement was 

ambiguous enough to allow all parties in Puerto Rico to read what they want to in the statement. The 

time for ambiguity is over, and the time for moral courage and intellectual honesty finally has arrived. 

call on the Administration to issue a clear statement that full self-government can not be achieved as long 

as the Territorial Clause applies. It is appropriate to affirm that the U.S. will respect the wishes of the 

people, but honesty requires that commitment to be understood in the context of the reality that Congress 

will continue to have the discretion and authority to alter, modify or otherwise dispose of the territory and 

determine the status of the population in accordance with the Treaty of Paris. Partial application of the 

U.S. Constitution includes certain rights against fundamental abuses of federal powers, but that does not 

secure permanent union, equal legal and political rights or guaranteed citizenship for the inhabitants of 

the territory. It is deceptive to allow people to believe thev are secure in rights which, in reality, can 

be restricted, modified or even taken away in the future. This will be the case until the transition to 

selr-government that began in 1952 is completed by transforming the "Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico" into a nation with separate sovereigntv or a state of the union as defined in H.R 3204. The 

approval process and voting procedures through which the wishes of the people regarding these options 

are expressed can vary, and will be determined by Congress in any federally-sanctioned self-determination 

process. The Administration may have views on the proposed mechanism which differ from H.R. 3024, 

and that can be debated. But as long as the procedure is one in which the voters understand how to cast 

a ballot in order to approve a change in the current status, or reject change in favor of preserving the 

status quo, the process of democratic self-ex-pression will be valid under norms for self-determination. 

5. H.R. 3024 recognizes that as long as unincorporated territory status continues the "Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico" will not achieve a recognized form of full self-government. Misguided policies intended 

to establish that unincoporated territory status is consistent with full self-government have failed, despite 

the best efforts of certain U.S. and Puerto Rican political and commercial interest groups to preserve the 

status quo out of self-interest at the expense of progress toward a recognized form of full self-government. 

Such measures as partial ex1ension of the U.S. Constitution under the Insular Cases, the extension of a 

limited form of U.S. citizenship based on birth in the territory, and the establishment oflocal 

constitutional government during the current territorial era have not created a permanent, legally 

enforceable, or fully self-governing status for the territory and its inhabitants. What one Congress may 

give to Puerto Rico, a future Congress can take away as long as the Territorial Clause applies. It is 

dangerous for the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico to believe othenvise, because even the well-intentioned 

federal officials who may sincerely wish unincorporated territorial status could become permanent and be 

based on an enforceable government-to-government mutuality will not be around if and when a future 

Congress exercises its discretion to gradually or summarily alter, modify, amend, reduce, restrict or 

eliminate the legal rights and political status the territorial population has come to take for granted at 

their own peril. We should never forget that under U.S. constitutional law Puerto Ricans continue to be 

classified legally as "inhabitants" of a "territory" of which Congress may "dispose" through the exercise 

of its "plenary power" over unincorporated "possessions" such as the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico." 

Pueno Ricans have "civil rights and political status" conferred at the discretion of Congress under Article 

IX of the Treaty of Paris. 

6. Although the United States ceased transmitting information to the United Nations in 1953 based 

upon adoption of a local constitution approved by Congress and the inhabitants of the territory, Puerto 

3 
149 

Rico has not been fully integrated into the United States. Nor does Puerto Rico exercise the necessary 

indicia of separate sovereignty and nationality to constitute free association. The historical and legal 

record which supports this conclusion includes the fact that both before and since local constitutional selfgovernment was instituted the legal, political and citizenship status of the population of Puerto Rico has 

been determined unilaterally by the U.S. Congress, a national legislative body in which the people of the 

territory have no voting representation. The legal and oolitical status of the population provided and 

continued at the discretion of the U.S. Congress does not include equal rights with other U.S. citizens 

in the states. is a limited form citizenship which is not guaranteed, and the political status of the 

"Commonwealth of Puerto Rico," still an unincorporated territory, is not permanent. Although 

the principle of consent was respected in establishing the local constitution in that the voters of the 

territory gave approval, the constitution was authorized, approved and amended by Congress. The 

Federal courts have interpreted the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" structure for local 

constitutional self-government as merely a delegation of Congressional authority over local affairs 

pursuant to the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, both the 1961 "Kennedy 

Memo" on Puerto Rico's status, and the "Bush Memo" of 1992, the most recent formal Presidential policy 

document ·relating to Puerto Rico's status, explicitly state that the authority of the local constitutional 

government is limited to "internal affairs and administration" at the territorial level. 

7. Numerous acts of Congress and Federal court decisions applicable to Puerto Rico establish beyond 

doubt that the attempt to establish a commonwealth status during the current territorial era based on 

mutual consent has failed both legally and politically, and has not resulted in decolonization. Contrary to 

recent dangerously misleading statements by certain federal and territorial officials, the precedent of the 

Northern Mariana Islands and Guam territories, as well as free association for Micronesia, Palau and the 

Marshall Islands, make it clear that the attempt to carve out a status falling somewhere between 

permanent union and separate sovereignty - the so~led best ofboth worlds solution -- is doomed to 

failure due to the purposeful design of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Tbe boundaries of the 

possible have been established, and the bottom line is this: a non-state area under U.S. sovereignty is 

subject to the Territorial Clause and a pact based on the principle of consent or mutuality is not 

legally enforceable to the extent that such an area can become fully self-governing. As to free 

association, creative arrangements are possible as the Micronesian treaties demonstrate, but with 

separate sovereignty there is separate nationality and citizenship. Liberal alien immigration policies 

have been provided but not dual citizenship, and the relationship is not permanent or binding, but rather 

is terminable at \\ill on the same terms by either government. 

8. The preceding discussion reminds us that the current nationality and citizenship status of Puerto 

Ricans under 8 U.S.C. 1402 does not arise under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution based on birth 

or naturalization in the United States. Like the previous status of "citizens of Puerto Rico" under the 

Foraker Act, the current U.S. citizenship of the people of Puerto Rico is a statutory arrangement 

which was conferred at the discretion of Congress under the Territorial Clause and does not arise 

from an exercise of sovereign self-determination by the people of Puerto Rico. The current limited 

and less-than-equal U.S. citizenship status of people born in Puerto Rico during the territorial period was 

prescribed by Congress to implement U.S. sovereignty and nationality established under Article IX of the 

Treaty of Paris. It is easy for those with constitutionally guaranteed citizenship rights in the U.S. to 

insist that Congress could only restrict or eliminate the current citizenship status based on birth in Puerto 

Rico if there were some compelling Federal purpose which satisfied the due process equal protection test. 

These "friends of Puerto Rico" are simply missing the point that Puerto Ricans want the same rights as 

other U.S. citizens, and will stand for nothing less if Puerto Rico is to remain \\ithin the U.S. political 

system. Of course, if Puerto Ricans choose separate sovereignty Puerto Rico \\ill control its own 

nationality and citizenship status, and U.S. nationality and citizenship \\ill end on terms prescribed by 

Congress. A legal analysis of the Congressional Research Service dated November 15, 1990, has been 

cited by those who argue that U.S. citizenship can not be lost mthout the consent of the people of Puerto 

Rico. That is not what the CRS opinion concludes. Rather, the memo points out that as long as Puerto 

Rico remains an unincol]lOrated territory Congress must have a legitimate pulJlOse that would justify 

4 
150 

tennination of U.S. citizenship. However, the memo explicitly recognizes that the "possibility of 

revocation in the event of independence" would not involve the same difficulty of identifying a "legitimate 

reason" for enrung U.S. citizenship for those who acquired it dwing the territorial period based on being 

born in Puerto Rico (See, CRS Document on "Questions in re ·Citizenship Status of Puerto Ricans," 

November 15, 1990, p. 4). A vote for separate sovereignty would be consent by the people to withdrawal 

of U.S. nationality and citizenship, and majority rule would prevail and affect the entire population unless 

Congress provided otherwise. The concept of mass dual citizenship is a fantasy which will never come 

true. As ruscussed below, Congress will never agree to dual citizenship because it is incompatible with 

and would undermine both U.S. and Puerto Rican sovereignty. 

9. The self-detennination procedure proposed by H.R. 3024 very simply asks the people concerned 

which of the paths to full self-government would be preferred, and then requires the U.S. Congress --after 

failing to do so during a century of colonial rule -- to inform the people of the specific terms under which 

the Congress would be willing to approve the preferred future political status constituting full selfgovernment outside the Territorial Clause. If the voters do not accept, agree with or approve the 

terms offered by the U.S. Congress for achieving the recognized form offull self-government 

preferred by the population, the power to preserve the status guo by rejecting the U.S. offer 

remains with the people under the terms of H.R 3024. Voting on the option of preserving the 

status guo would be redundant, because the status guo is what Puerto Rico automatically will get if 

the voters reject change. While expressly inducting the option of preserving the unincorporated 

territory status quo on the ballot would not be legally objectionable, it is not required or even relevant to 

the choice between the three recognized forms of full self-government. In the history of post W. W. II 

decolonization, the norm has been for non-self-governing people to choose between the recognized forms 

of full self-government, and remaining in colonial status generally has not been an option which needed to 

be included on a self-detennination ballot in most cases. For example, in U.S. decolonization practice the 

voters in the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and the Republic of tht' 

Marshall Islands were not given the option of remaining in a non-self-governing status under the U.N. 

trusteeship system. 

10. Similarly, there is no logic or purpose in voting again on the changes to the status quo which 

were proposed under "improved" or "enhanced" version of the "Definition of Commonwealth" as 

presented on the I 993 ballot. For as long as the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" remains an 

unincorporated territory such changes will be at the discretion of Congress rather than something 

that can be implemented through an exercise of sovereign self-determination by the people of Puert•! 

Rico. Again, only the options for full self-government are the legitimate subject matter for a valid 

act of self-determination in which the U.S. Congress would agree to recognize an exercise of the 

inherent sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico as the basis for decolonization for the first time in 

500 vears. A vote to remain in the present colonial status has little value or meaning in the contex-t of a 

process intended to detennine if the U.S. and Puerto Rico will be able to agree on a process for 

democratically instituting one of the recognized options for full self-government. H.R. 3024 represents 

the most authoritative and definitive proposal regarcting the status of Puerto Rico formally introduced by a 

Member of Congress since the Treaty of Paris was taken up by the Senate almost 100 years ago. As a 

matter of constitutional and international law, this bill goes beyond the proposals considered by Congress 

in 1991 because it recognizes that a vote to preserve the status quo and continue unincorporated territory 

status will never resolve Puerto Rico's status permanently, and that continuation of the present 

"commonwealth" status is what will occur automatically and by default if the people of Puerto Rico are net 

yet ready for full self-government. Having said that, if Congress chose to include some ballot provision 

relating to continuation of the present status it would not be wrong to do so as long as it is made clear tha!: 

the unincorporated commonwealth status is not a form of full self-government and is not a path to 

decolonization. 

5 
151 

AUTHORITIES, CITATIONS AND COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PRECEDING ANALYSIS: 

I. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT 

As a party to the Charter of the United Nations, the United States has administered its territories 

and possessions in the context of the U.N. decolonization pro.:ess. In addition to Article 73 and other 

provisions of the U.N. Charter relating to termination of the non-self-governing status of people in 

territories governed by administering powers, Resolution 2625 (XXV) of October 24, 1970 is the most 

recent relevant General Assembly measure comprehensively addressing the framework for completing the 

transition from a previous colonial status to a recognized form of full self-government. Preceding 

measures included G.A. Res. 1541 and G.A. Res. 1514 of 1960. The three status options of 

independence, integration or free association set forth in Section 4 of H.R. 3024 are consistent with these 

U.N. measures and previous U.S. practices relating to decolonization. 

Although the U.N. General Assembly adopted Res. 748 (VIII) in 1953, recognizing that Puerto 

Rico had achieved a new constitutional status, and accepting the U.S. determination to stop transmitting 

information to the U.N. regarding Puerto Rico, in 1996 it is clear that the new constitutional status 

instituted in 1953 has not led to full self-government consistent with integration, independence or free 

association. As an unincorporated territory Puerto Rico has not been integrated into the United States, 

including citizenship with. equal civil and political rights or full participation in the constitutional process 

of government. The legislative history of the 1950 revisions of the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act 

authorizing a commonwealth constitution make it clear that full integration was not contemplated or 

intended. 

For example, Congressional policy documents included in the Historical and Statutory Notes at 48 

U.S.C. 73 1b explicitly state that establishment of a local constitution and commonwealth structure of 

government • ... would not change Puerto Rico's fundamental political, social, and economic relationship to 

the United States." Notwithstanding the language in 48 U.S.C. 73lb " ... fully recognizing the principle 

of consent" and adopting a federal-territorial relationship " .. .in the nature of a compact," House Report 

No. 2275 cited at48 U.S. C. 731b states that the Congress retains authority over Puerto Rico's political, 

social, and economic relationsh.ip to the U.S., including application of laws enacted by Congress and 

Federal judicial jurisdiction in Puerto Rico, and the point is driven home by the statement that the 

provisions of the earlier organic laws governing the territory repealed upon the establishment of the 

commonwealth were limited to " ... matters of purely local concern" (48 U.S. C. 731b Historical and 

Statutory Notes) 

It is difficult to reconcile the contents of the Congressional measures defining the nature of the 

commonwealth structure for local government with the representations made by U.S. diplomats in the 

United Nations in 1953, except to note again that G.A. Res. 748 was adopted in 1953 prior to the 

establishment of recognized criteria for full self-government under the later relevant U.N. resolutions 

adopted in 1960 and 1970, as discussed above. Nevertheless, the conclusion seems inescapable that the 

U.S. representatives in the U.N. and the foreign government representatives who accepted the U.S. 

decision to stop reporting on Puerto Rico did not have a meeting of the minds on the nature of the internal 

U.S. constitutional law governing the status of unincorporated territories subject to the Territorial Clause, 

even after local constitutional government is established. 

Perhaps the only explanation based on the assumption that all parties were acting in good faith is 

that the U.N. accepted that with the establishment of constitutional self-government Puerto Rico no longer 

was in the category of completely non-self-governing peoples, and that the general expressions regarding 

adherence to the principle of consent satisfied all concerned at the time that Puerto Rico actually had 

achieved a post<nlonial status. With the blush still on the new constitutional arrangement, the parties 

may sincerely have believed it to be true. 

6 
152 

This also ex-plains why the U.N. has accepted the U.S. position to suspend reporting on the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands based on establishment of an unincorporated territory 

status consistent with the Puerto Rico commonwealth model. This suggests that once the people of an 

unincorporated territory have freely expressed a preference to be integrated into the U.S. and a new local 

constitutional status has been established, the U.N. will accept suspension of reporting by the 

Administering Power with sovereignty over the previously non-self-governing area. It really does appear 

that the U.N. is not overly concerned about the reserved authority of Congress under the Territorial 

Clause, or the fact that as long as the Territorial Clause is in effect the formal process of full integration 

leading to full self-government has not been completed. 

Perversely, the fact that the U.N. accepted the U.S. decision to suspend reporting in 1953 based on 

the establishment oflocal constitutional government is cited by supporters of the current "commonwealtll" 

status as evidence that Puerto Rico is fully self-governing. To the contrary, if the U.S. were to adopt th( 

position that the current unincorporated "commonwealth" status has become permanent, then there 

arguably would be a basis for the U.N. to request the U.S. to resume reporting on Puerto Rico due to the 

fact that equal legal and political rights have not been extended to the people of Puerto Rico. Certainly, if 

the Clinton Administration were to assert that unincorporated "commonwealth" status constitutes full sel'-

government and that the deeolonization process has been completed on the basis of the status quo, that 

would fall short of U.N. standards for terminating the non-self-governing status of previously colonial 

areas. 

It is precisely for this reason that the March 11 White House statement reiterated the U.S. position 

that the people of Puerto Rico still have a right to self-determination. If the U.S. could sustain the 

argument that unincorporated "commonwealth" status constitutes full and complete integration, or that 

the people of an unincorporated territory can be viewed as fully self-governing and decolonized, there 

would be no requirement to recognize the right of the people to change their status through an additional 

self -determination process. 

Still, there are those who suggest Puerto Rico has achieved a degree of "distinct" sovereignty, quasi .. 

nationality or de facto free association under the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act. But this view is 

predicated only on ambiguities associated with the establishment of local constitutional government, and 

is categorically nullified by the fact that U.S. sovereignty and constitutional supremacy continues. In 

addition, under U.N. and international legal practice to which the U.S. has adhered in its free association 

treaties with Pacific island nations a free association status must be terminable by both governments part} 

to the treaty on the same terms (See, J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 

University of Adelaide, Australia ( 1979)). Since the constitutional government of "Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico" does not have the authority to terminate or "dispose" of its relationship with the U.S. in the 

same manner that Congress may do so under the Territorial Clause, this is just one of the several criteria 

for free association which are not satisfied by the existing "commonwealth" arrangements. Thus, there i.: 

no plausible argument that Puerto Rico acquired sufficient sovereignty under the Puerto Rico Federal 

Relations Act or the local constitution to consider the current status as the result of a 'bilateral pact" to 

which the U.S. Congress is bound, or which is unalterable without consent by Puerto Rico. The current 

Spanish language translation for "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" may imply "free association," but that 

is just a symptom of the pathology of the current colonial status. 

There have been some highly irresponsible and ntisleading statements made recently about the 

nature of free association between the U.S. and the three Pacific island ntini-nations, the Federated States 

of Micronesia. the Republic of the Marshall islands and the Republic of Palau. Specifically, it has been 

asserted that the citizens of these nations have dual U.S. citizenship. This is false. Under Section 141 o ' 

U.S. Public Law 99-239 the citizens of the free associated states under the Compact of Free Association 

have separate nationality and citizenship. These free associated states citizens are treated as aliens undec 

U.S. imntigration and nationality laws. The Compact of Free Association grants a lintited and 

temporary waiver of visa requirements to enable Micronesian citizens to enter the U.S. for fifteen years. 

However, this waiver expires in five years and Congress has discretion to renew or terminate the ability of 

7 
153 

this class of aliens to enter without a business or visitor visa, and any time spent in the U.S. during the 

ftfteen year waiver period does not count for naturalization purposes. 

After 200 I, the citizens of the Pacific island free associated states can be required by Congress to be 

treated the same for travel and immigration purposes as citizens from every other foreign nation. This 

clarifies that U.S. legal practice relating to free association is based on the determination by Congress that 

separate sovereignty requires separate nationality and citizenship. The formulation of nationality and 

citizenship options under the separate sovereignty scenario defined in Section 3(1) of H.R. 3024 is 

consistent with the Micronesian free association legal precedent, and the practical requirements of U.S. 

immigration and nationality law which make this approach an inevitable result of separate sovereignty. 

This would not be something the U.S. would be doing to the people of Puerto Rico. It is something 

the people would be doing to themselves if they chose separate sovereignty, and it is imperative that this 

be made very clear so that the misinformation that has been disseminated in the past does not mislead the 

voters abcul what the real consequences will be if they vote to separate form the United States. For 

under a separate sovereignty scenario the allegiance, nationality and citizenship of the inhabitants of the 

territory and those whose U.S. citizenship is based on birth in the territory during the colonial period will 

be transferred to the new sovereign, just as it transferred from Spain to the United States under Article IX 

of the Treaty of Paris. This is by operation of international law and U.S. legal and historical precedent, 

including the transition regarding U.S. nationality held by citizens of the Philippines when separate 

sovereignty was proclaimed by President Truman in 1946 (See, 22 U.S.C. 1394). 

Of course. the prospect of losing U.S nationality and citizenship only arises if the voters decide they 

do not want to be under U.S. nationality. Renouncing U.S. nationality and citizenship and demanding 

to keep that status is an absurd notion. Those who want to have it beth ways need to recognize that H.R. 

3024 is entirely consistent with the legal practice of the U.S. and the international community in these 

mailers (See, American Insurance Companv v. Canter, 26 U.S. (I Pet.) 511 , 542 (1828); United States ex 

rei Schwarzkopfv. Uhl, 137 F. 2d 898, 902 (2d Cir. 1943); O'Connell, The Law of State Succession 246 

(1956). 

In addition to the clear legal precedents on citizenship, one of the clearly established requirements 

of a status consistent with free association is that the neither sovereign government may have undue power 

or ability to interfere in the other's internal affairs. As the Department of Justice noted in its February 

1991 testimony on S. 244, the "Puerto Rico Status Act," mass dual citizenship under a separate 

sovereignty scenario, including free association or independence, " ... potentially could lead to significant 

United States intervention in Puerto Rican affairs in the exercise of the President's responsibility to protect 

the safety, rights, and welfare of U.S. citizens abroad." No doubt current Administration officials would 

dismiss the idea that the President would ever act in a manner inconsistent "ith Puerto Rican national 

sovereignty if Pueno Rico were to become independent or enter into a free association status, but Puerto 

Rican willingness in 1996 to leave these mailers within the discretion of the U.S. President and Congress 

may have consequences in 2075 which can not be imagined at this time. 

If Puerto Ricans arc serious abcut independence or separate sovereignty, then they owe it to their 

grandchildren to ensure that Puerto Rican nationality will be respected as a matter of right under 

international law rather left to the discretion of other nations, including the U.S. as the nation which 

would be the former colonial power if the voters choose a separate sovereignty option. If Pueno Ricans 

are not ready to go down that road, then the only other way to secure human rights and dignity is through 

a sovereign act of the people through which the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico takes its place alongside 

the other commonwealths and states which are full and equal sovereign states permanent in the union 

under the constitution, with guaranteed and permanent U.S. nationality and citizenship. 

Those who continue to suggest that the Covenant to Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (U.S. Public Law 94-241) somehow sets a precedent for a bilateral pact which is 

enforceable on a government-to-government basis need to understand that the international law and 

8 
154 

constitutional basis for the CNMI Covenant is fundamentally different than that which governs 

Congressional measures relating to Puerto Rico. For the U.S. adopted a negotiating procedure and 

entered into the agreement with the Northern Mariana Islands in a manner consistent with the fact that 

the U.S. did not have sovereignty over the Northern Mariana Islands during the period of U.N. trusteeship 

prior to implementation of the CNMI Covenant. The Territorial Clause did not apply in the case of the 

Northern Mariana Islands until the CNMI Covenant entered into force based on a U.N. observed act of 

self-detennination in which the non-U.S. citizens approved entering into the status of an unincorporated 

territory. Because U.S. sovereignty and the Territorial Clause were to be extended to the CNMI under 

the agreement, it was approved by the U.S. Congress in the form of a joint resolution passed by a majority 

vote in both Houses of Congress instead of being ratified by the Senate in the conventional treaty approval 

procedure. 

The meaning of these significant legal and constitutional factors has been recognized by the Federal 

courts, including the U.S. Claims Court which observed that: 

"The United States has not administered the Trust Territory (including the Northern Mariana 

Islands] under the authority conferred in Article IV, Section 3, concerning regulation by 

Congress of territories or other property belonging to the United States. • 6 Cl. Ct. 441 , 456 

(1984) 

When the voters in the Northern Mariana Islands approved the CNMI Covenant that act of selfdetcnnination process was accepted by the U.N. as a basis for the U.S. to stop transmitting information 

about the CNMI as part of the former Trust Territory. This was because the choice of the voters in favor 

of integration into the U.S. was understood to be a choice in favor of U.S. sovereignty. However, as in 

the case of Puerto Rico, the vote for integration and establishment of local constitutional government has 

not resulted in completion of the process of integration for the CNMI. The CNMI has the same basic 

model of unincorporated "commonwealth" territory status as Puerto Rico, except that the CNMI mutual 

consent provision is far stronger than the "principle of consent" language in the Puerto Rico Federal 

Relations Act. As discussed below, that arrangement is subject to the authority and discretion of 

Congress under the Territorial Clause. 

The preceding discussion makes it clear that Puerto Rico has not achieved a recognized form of full 

self-government consistent with integration, free association or independence. It therefore is ironic that 

H.R. 30H has become a lightening rod for criticism in Puerto Rico precisely because it comes closer than 

any previously proposed federal or territorial government measure to defining the bedrock legal and 

political realities facing the U.S. and Puerto Rico with respect to self-government and the future political 

status issue. After nearly a century of mutual U.S. and Puerto Rican acquiescence in an impermanent, 

imperfect and incomplete political relationship based on legal ambiguities, the gates to the only real paths 

to full self-government have been thrown open by H.R. 3024. 

II. Tiffi NATURE OF COMMONWEALTH UNDER THE TERRITORlAL CLAUSE 

To understand why the straightforward approach ofH.R. 3024 has generated so much debate, it is 

important to realize that for over forty years inventive but unsustainable status theories have been 

advanced by those federal officials, Puerto Rican leaders and corporate interests who have benefited from 

preservation of the present order. Too often Puerto Ricans have been asked to pretend that tax 

exemptions justify separate and unequal treatment in the U.S. legal, political and economic system. Too 

often residents of the territory have allowed themselves to pretend that their status is "special" and 

"unique," when it actually is just colonialism dressed up and masquerading as local autonomy. Too 

many of us have been seduced into believing we should be grateful for what we have, and that this is the 

best of both worlds, when it actually is the most insidious form of colonialism for the very reason that it 

has been made to seem comfortable, permanent and safe when it is not. 

9 
155 

The view which idealizes the current status is nothing more than a collective shared fantasy that 

Puerto Rico's colonial condition and the second-class citizenship status established in 1917 actually 

constitutes a permanent status based on mutual consent. Our current status exists at the discretion of 

Congress. After four decades of being subject to laws passed by a national legislature in which we have 

no voting representation, we know that there is no real mutuality or permanence in the "Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico" territorial status. 

This reality was already obvious, but it has been confirmed once again by a July 28, 1994 U.S. 

government legal opinion. In a memorandum of law and policy from the Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General of the United States in the Federal Department of Justice to the Clinton Administration's Special 

Representative on Guam Commonwealth negotiations, the following statement is made regarding 

mutuality and the principle of consent in the case of Puerto Rico: 

"The Department [of Justice] revisited this issue in the early 1990's in connection 

with the Puerto Rico Status Referendum Bill in light of Bowen v. Agencies 

Opoosed to Soc. Sec. Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41 (1986), and concluded that there 

could not be an enforceable vested right in a political status; hence the mutual 

consent clauses were ineffective because they would not bind a subsequent 

Congress." DOJ Memo, footnote 2, p. 2. 

The Department of Justice memo goes on to stale that inclusion of a ballot option in a political status 

plebiscite in the form of an unalterable pact predicated on the principles of consent and mutuality 

" ... would be misleading," and that " ... honesty and fair dealing forbid the inclusion of such illusory and 

deceptive provisions ... " in a statute or agreement creating a commonwealth structure for constitutional 

government in an unincorporated territory. The memo also states that unalterable mutual consent pacts 

" ... raise serious constitutional issues and are legally unenforceable." Finally, the Justice Department 

memo opposes formulation of a status option in a self-determination process sponsored by the Congress 

based on the notion of unalterable mutuality or a binding consent requirement " ... unless their 

unenforceability (or precatory nature) is clearly stated in the document itself." 

Curiously, the Department of Justice memo states that it intends to honor the principles of consent 

and mutuality in the case of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) as a maHer of 

policy since the CNMI Commonwealth Covenant contains an express mutual consent clause. Even if 

Department of Justice officials had the authority to honor a provision it has determined to be "legally 

unenforceable," this meaningless gesture is irrelevant because the Federal courts already have ruled in 

U.S. ex rei. Richards v. De Leon Guerrero, C. A. 9 (N. Mariana Islands) 1993, 4 F. 3d 749, that Congress 

can intrude into local CNMJ affairs in a manner inconsistent "ith the plain language of the CNMI 

Commonwealth Covenant. Even though the CNMI is internally self-governing under the terms of the 

Commonwealth Covenant and Congress agreed in I 976 not to act inconsistent with that staiUS without 

consent, in the Guerrero case the Court of Appeals ruled that a Department of the Interior audit of local 

government lax returns and regulation of purely local budget mailers did not unduly affect the right of 

local self-government. 

Instead of respecting the CNMJ Commonwealth Covenant as an unalterable bilateral pact in 

accordance with its terms, the court treated the 1976 CNMJ status agreement as a statute enacted by 

Congress pursuant to the Territorial Clause. While recognizing that the statute defines the relationship 

between the "commonwealth" and the Congress and provides limits on the ability of Congress to change 

the relationship, instead of treating these limits as unalterable and enforceable, the court adopted a 

balancing test between the right of mutual consent with the authority of Congress to protect and promote 

Federal interests. The words of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can best tell the story: 

"Even if the Territorial Clause provides the constitutional basis for the Congress' legislative 

\0 
156 

authority in the commonwealth, it is solely by the Covenant that we measure the limits of 

Congress' legislative power ... the United States must have an identifiable federal interest that 

will be served by the relevant legislation ... At the center of this dispute, however, is 

the ... sentence .. .lintiting the United States' legislative authority 'so that the fundamental 

provisions of this Covenant... may be modified only with the consent of the ... Government of 

the Northern Mariana Islands.' The Governor asks us to read this provision .. . as carving out 

an area of 'local affairs' immune from federal legislation. We decline to adopt such an 

expansive interpretation of the ... mutual consent provision ... we think it is appropriate to 

balance the federal interest to be served by the legislation at issue against the degree of 

intrusion into local affairs." U.S. v. De Leon Guerrero, 4 F. 3d 749 (1993) 

Translation: Congress can not bind a future Congress to an unalterable pact based on mutual 

consent. Pedantic ideologues pretending to be constitutional and international legal scholars can delude 

themselves and the public by playing clever word games about these issues, but the result will be the same 

as long as the Territorial Clause applies. 

The same result applies to Puerto Rico under the Supreme Court case Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 65 I 

(1980). The legal and political meaning of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Harris was followed and 

more fully revealed in the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case of U.S, 

v. Sanchez, 992 F. 2d 1143. Describing the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" structure for local self· 

government under the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act as merely a lintited and discretionary delegation 

of Congressional authority under the Territorial Clause, the Court, quoting from 831 F. 2d at 1176, found 

that: 

"'With each new organic act, first the Foraker Act in 1900, then the Jones Act in 1917, and then 

the Federal Relations Act in 1950 and later amendments, Congress has simply delegated more 

authority to Puerto Rico over local matters. But this has not changed in any way Puerto Rico's 

constitutional status as a 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 unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican Constitution or the 

Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules and regulations of its 

choice." U.S. v. Sanchez, 992 F. 2d 1143 (1993) 

Just as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recogrtized in the Guerrero case that the Territorial 

Clause is the constitutional basis for the CNMJ commonwealth pact, the Eleventh Circuit opinion in 

Sanchez makes it clear that the notion of an unalterable bilateral pact based on an enforceable principle of 

consent and mutuality for Puerto Rico will and ultimately must fail. There is no reason to believe that 

the "fiscal autonomy" element in the "Definition of Commonwealth" on the 1993 plebiscite ballot in 

Puerto Rico would fare any better under the "unalterable bilateral pact" which was proposed in that ballot 

option than "internal self-government" has under the CNMI pact. As long as the "commonwealth" 

remains an unincorporated territory, the Federal courts be hard pressed to overturn any act of Congress 

which arc consistent with a legitimate federal purpose. 

During inconclusive Congressional consideration of Puerto Rico status legislation in 1991, the 

former Secretary of Justice of Puerto Rico attempted to argue that random language in the case of U.S. v. 

Quinones, 758 F. 2d 40, (1st Cir. 1985) supports the expansive view of commonwealth as something more 

than unincorporated territory status. In response the Department of Justice subntitted written statements 

to the GAO rejecting the court's comments in Quinones as "dictum" which was not part of the actual 

ruling in the case. It was also pointed out that the court in the Quinones case upheld a statute which 

altered the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act without mutual consent. See, Appendix IV, GAO/HRD9 1-18, The U.S. Constitution and the Insular Areas, Aprill2, 1991letter to GAO from Assistant Attorney 

General of the United States. Thus, reading the Quinones case as a defining or authoritative case with 

respect to the nature of the current "commonwealth" status is just another attempt to perpetuate ambiguity 

and deny the colonial nature of the status quo. 

II 
157 

Puerto Ricans know this by now. For even though they have a measure of local constitutional selfgovernment, it has been modified by federal Jaw to which they did not consent. The status and rights of 

Puerto Ricans under federal laws and policies regulating local economic and social affairs are determined 

by a Congress in which they should have seven voting members, and by a President who should need the 

vote of the residents of the island to be elected. Those who have sought to advance Puerto Rico's political 

evolution by pretending that Puerto Ricans have justice, equality, mutuality and self-government when 

they do not have these rights are merely the defenders of an anti-democratic status quo. 

The more hysterical the cries of opposition to this bill, the more shrill, absurd and hyper-technical 

the arguments against the definitions of full self-government under the bill, the more clear it becomes that 

this proposal has shattered the myth that full self-government was achieved in 1952 by a sleight-of-hand. 

Liberty and equality under a system of full self-government is not something a people can misappropriate 

through cleverness, it is not something that can be stolen when the colonial power is not looking, it is not 

something we achieve without effort and pain. 

The genie is now out of the bottle, all the world can see that the Emperor has no clothes. H.R. 302~ 

exposes the naked truth that Puerto Rico can not have separate sovereignty and nationality and at the same 

time enjoy permanent union and guaranteed citizenship. Puerto Rico can not be a nation-within-anation. The honor and dignity of the Puerto Rican people as individuals rather than a body politic 

demands that the people do the hard work and make the difficult choices required to achieve full selfgovernment in the second century since monarchy was ended in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rican selfdetermination must be understood as a collective act of individuals seeking freedom, equality and 

democracy, not a rally or celebration of unity by members of a political party. 

If Puerto Ricans are to become a separate nation they need to separate from the U.S. and establish a 

government-to-government relationship based on real mutuality and autonomous authority and 

responsibility the same way other societies in our region have separated from former colonial powers. If 

Puerto Ricans are to achieve a permanent and equal status as a sovereign state in union with the U.S. 

under the national constitution, then they need to rise to the occasion offered by H.R. 3024. 

Either way, Puerto Ricans need to take control of their destiny and commit themselves to the legal, 

political, economic and cultural imperative of becoming fully self-governing. This is not a drill, this is 

not a game. This is for real, the time for pretending is over. The people of this island homeland need 

to set aside party affiliation and stand up as individuals to redeem their sacred honor by ending the 

colonial regime. 

12 

24-926 - 96 - 6 
Oflk..-olftho: 

Oc:put,\ A:-~ ~~lft: tt Alhlrllc:\ Gem:r•l 

MEMORANDUM FOR 

THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE 

FOR GUA.l\1 COMMONWEALTH 

From: Teresa Wynn Roseborough W 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Re: Mutual Consent Provisions in 

The Guam Commonwealth Legislation 

158 

l . S . Ut-p;tr1lllt'lll ol Ju,ltn· 

Office of Legal Counsd 

Wo.~.daill ftmr. o. c :o53t' 

July 28. 1994 

The Guam Commonwealth Bill, H.R. 1521 , 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) contains 

two sections requiring the mutual consent of the Government of the United States and the 

Government of Guam. Section 103 provides that the Commonwealth Act could be amended 

only with mutual consent of the two governments. Section 202 provides that no Federal 

laws, ru les. and regulations passed after the enactment of the Commonwealth Act would 

apply to Guam without the mutual consent of the two governments. The Representatives of 

Guam insist that these two sections are crucial for the autonomy and economy of Guam. 1l1c 

fanner 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. ~ areas under the sovereignty of the United States that are not States, ' have 

1 Territories that have developed from the stage of a classical territory to that of 3 Commonwealth with a 

constitution of their own adoption and an elective governor. resent bei.ng called Territories and claim thai thai 

legal term and its implications are not applicable to them. We therefore shall refer to all Territories and 

Commonwealths as non-state areas under the sovereignly of the United States or briefly a.s non·state areas. 
159 

nnt been consistent. ' We therefore have carefully reexamined this issue. Our cundusion " 

that these clauses !<lise serious constitutional issues and are legally unenforceable :' 

In our view. it is imponant that the text of the Guam Commonwealth Act not create 

any illusory expectations that might to mislead the electorate of Guam about the 

consequences of the legislation. We must therefore oppose the inclusion in the 

Commonwealth Act of any provisions, such as mutual consent clauses, that are legally 

unenforceable, unless their unenforceability (or precatory nature) is clearly stated in the 

document itself. 

I. 

The Power of Congress to Govern the Non-State 

Areas under the Sovereignty of the United States 

is Plenary within Constitutional Limitations 

All territory under the sovereignty of the United States falls into two groups: the 

States and the areas that are not States. The latter, whether called territories, possessions, or 

commonwealths, are governed by and under the authority of Congress. As to those areas, 

Congress exercises the combined powers of the federal and of a state government. These 

basic considerations were set out in the leading case of National Bank v. County of Yankton, 

101 U.S. !29, 132-33 (1880). There the Court held: 

' To our knowledge the fir.;t considention of the validity of mutual consent clauses occurred in 1959 in 

connection with proposals to amend the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act. At that time the Department took 

the position that the answer to this question was doubtful but that such clauses should not be opposed on the 

ground that tbey go beyond the constitutional power of Congress. In 1963 the Department of Justice opined that 

such clauses were legally effective because Congress could create vested rights in the status of a territory that 

could not be revoked unilaterally. The Department adhered to this position in 1973 in connection with then 

pending Micronesians status negotiations in a memorandum approved by then Assistant Attorney General 

Rehnquist. On the basis of this advice. a mutual consent clause was insened in Section 105 of the Covenant 

witb 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 th" Guam Commonwealth Bill. The Department 

revisited this issue in the early 1990's in connection with the Puerto Rico Status Referendum Bill in light of 

Bowen v. Agencies Opposed to Soc. Sec. Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41 , 55 (1986), and concluded that there could 

not be an enforceable vested right in a political status: hence that mutual consent clauses were ineffective 

because they would not bind a subsequent Congress. We took the same position in the Second Guam Task 

Force Report issued during the last days of the Bush Administration in January t993 . 

3 Mutual consent clauses are not a novel phenomenon; indeed they antedate the Constitution. Section 14 of 

the Northwest Ordinance contained six "articles of compact, between the original States and the people and 

States in the said territory . and [shall] forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent." These articles 

were incorporated either expressly or by reference into many early territorial organic acts. Clinton v . 

Englebrecht, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 434, 442 (1872). The copious litigation under these "unalterable articles" 

focussed largely on the question whether the territories' obligations under them were superseded by the 

Constitution. or when the territory became a State. as the result of the equal footing doctrine. We have, 

however, not found any cases dealing with the question whether the Congress had the power to modify any duty 

imposed on the United States by tbosc articles. 

- 2 -
160 

II is certainly now too late to doubt the powt:r of Congress to ~ovem 

tht: Territories. There have been some differences of opinion as to the 

particular clause of the Constitution from which the power is derived. but that 

it exists has always been conceded.' 

All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States not included in 

any State must necessarily be governed by or under the authority of Congress. 

The Territories are but political subdivisions of th~ outlying dominion of the 

United States. Their relation to the general government is much the same as 

that which counties bear to the respective States, and Congress may legislate 

for them as a State does for its municipal organizations. The organic law of a 

Territory takes the place of a constitution as the fundamental law of the local 

government. It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but 

Congress is supreme, and for the purposes of this department of its 

governmental authority has all the powers of the people of the United States, 

except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the 

prohibitions of the Constitution. 

Yankton was anticipated in Chief Justice Marshall's seminal opinion in American 

Insurance Co. v. Canter, 26 U.S. (I Pet.) 511, 542-43, 546 (1828). The Chief Justice 

explained: 

In the mean time lib the interval berween acquisition and statehood], 

Florida continues to be a territory of the United States; governed by virtue of 

that clause in the Constitution, which empowers Congress "to make all needful 

rules and regulations, respecting the territory, or other property belonging to 

the United States." 

Perhaps the power of governing a territory belonging to the United 

States, which has not, by becoming a state, acquired the means of self-

~Some derived that power from the authority of the United States to acquire territory , others from the mere 

fact of sovereignty, others from the Territory Clause of the Constitution of tbe United States (Art. IV, Sec. 3. 

Cl. 2) pursuant to which Congress bas "Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations 

respecting Lhe Territory or other Property belonging to the United States" . See£:.&.:, American Insurance Co. v. 

Canter. 26 U.S. (I Pet.) 511 , 542 (1828): Monnon Church v. United State5, 136 U.S. I, 42-44 (1890); 

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 290 (1901). 

At present. the Territory Clause of the Constitution is generally considered to be the source of the 

power of Congress to govern the non-state areas. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 673~74 

(1945): Examining Board v. Flores de Otero. 426 U.S. 572, 586 (1976); Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 

( 1980): ~also Wabol v. Villacrusis. 958 F.2d 1450, 1459 (9th Cir. 1992), denied sub .!l.Q!!). Philippine 

Goods Inc . v. Wabol , __ U.S. _ . 11 3 S.Ct. 675 (1992). (Footnote supplied.) 

- 3 -
161 

g\wernment. may result necessarily from tht' facts. that it is not within the 

jurisdiction of any panicular state. and is within the power and jurisdiction of 

the United States. 

"In legislating for them [the Territories]. Congress exercises the combined 

powers of the general, and of a state government." 

!_d. at 542-43, 546. 

The power of Congress to govern the non-state areas is plenary like every other 

legislative power of Congress but it is nevertheless subject to the applicable provisions of the 

Constirution. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) I. 

196 (1824), with respect to the Commerce Power: 

This power [the Commerce Power], like all others vested in Congress is 

complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no 

limitations other than are prescribed in the constirution. (Emphasis added.) 

This limitation on the plenary legislative power of Congress is self-evident. It 

necessarily follows from the supremacy of the Constirution. See u., Hodel v. Virginia 

Surface Mining and Reclamation Assoc., 452 U.S. 264, 276 (1981). That the power of 

Congress under the Territory Clause is subject to constirutional limitations has been 

recognized in County of Yankton, 101 U.S. at 133; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 290-

91 (1901); District of Columbia v. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109 (1953). 

Finally, the power of Congress over the non-state areas persists "so long as they 

remain in a territorial condition." Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. I, 48 (1894). See also , 

Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 675 (1945) (recognizing that during the 

intermediary period between the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippine 

Islands and the fmal withdrawal of United States sovereignty from those islands "Congress 

retains plenary power over the territorial government"). 

The plenary Congressional authority over a non-state area thus lasts as long as the 

area retains that status. It terminates when the area loses that starus either by virrue of its 

admission as a State, or by the termination of the sovereignty of the United States over the 

area by the grant of independence. or by its surrender to the sovereignty of another country. 

- 4 -
162 

II. 

The Revocable Nature of Congressional Legi~lation 

Relatjno to the Government of Non-State Areas 

While Congress has the power to govern the non-state areas it need not exercise that 

power itself. Congress can delegate to the inhabitants of non-state areas fuU powers of selfgovernment and an autonomy similar to that of States and has done so since the beginning of 

the Republic . Such delegation. however, must be "consistent with the supremacy and 

supervision of National authority" . Clinton v. Englebrecht, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 434. +41 

(1872); Puerto Rico v. ~. 302 U.S. 253, 260, 261-62 (1937). The requirement that 

the delegation of governmental authority to the non-state areas be subject to federal 

supremacy and federal supervision means that such delegation is necessarily subject to the 

right of Congress to revise, alter, or revoke the authority granted. District of Columbia v. 

Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100, 106, 109 (1953).

5 See ;iliQ, United States v. Sharpnack, 355 

U.S. 286, 296 (1958), Harris v. Boreham, 233 F.2d 110, 113 (3rd Cir. 1956), Firemen's 

Insurance Co. v. Washington, 483 F.2d 1323, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1973). The power of 

Congress to delegate governmental powers to non-state areas thus is contingent on the 

retention by Congress of its power to revise, alter, and revoke that legislation.• Congress 

therefore cannot subject the amendment or repeal of such legislation to the consent of the 

non-state area. 

This consideration also disposes of the argument that the power of Congress under the 

Territory Clause to give up its sovereignty over a non-state area includes the power to make 

a partial disposition of that authority, hence that Congress could give up its power to amend 

or repeal statutes relating to the governance of non-state areas. But, as shown above, the 

retention of the power to amend or repeal legislation delegating governmental powers to a 

non-state area is an integral element of the delegation power. Congress therefore has no 

' Thompson dealt with the District of Columbia's government wbicb is provided for by Art. I. Sec. 8. Cl. 

17 of the Constitution. rather than with the non·state areas as to whom the Congressional power is derived frorr. 

the Territory Clause. The Court. however. held that in this area the rules relating to the Congressional power 

to govern the District of Columbia and the non·state areas are identical. Indeed. tbe Court relied on cases 

dealing with non-state areas, y .. Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 648, 655 (1874), aDd 

Christianson v. Kin• Counrv, 239 U.S. 365 (t915), where it held that Congress cau delegate its legislative 

authority under Art. I. Sec. 8. Cl. 17 of the Constitution to the District, subject to the power of Congress at any 

titne to revise. aJter, or revoke that authority. 

' Congress has exercised this power with respect to the District of Columbia. The Act of February 21. 

1871. 16 Stat. 419 gave the District of Columbia virtual territorial status, with a a governor appointed by the 

President, a legislative assembly that included an elected house of delegates, and a delegate in Congress. The 

1871 Act was repealed by the Act of June 20, 1874, 18 Stat. 116, which abrogated among others the provisions 

for the legislative assembly and a delegate in Congress, and established a government by a Conunission 

appointed by the P=ident. 

- 5 -
163 

authority to enact lc!gislation under th.: Territory Clause that would limit the unft:n.:red 

exercise of its power to amend or repeal. 

The same result flows from the consideration that all non-state ar.:as are subject to the 

authority of Congress. which. as shown above, is plenary. This basic rule does not penn it 

the creation of non-state areas that are only partially subject to Congressional authority. The 

plenary power of Congress over a non-state area persists as long as the area remains in that 

condition and tenninates only when the area becomes a State or ceases to be under United 

States sovereignty. There is no imennediary 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. 

ill. 

The rule that legislation delegating governmental powers to a non-state area 

must be subject to amendment and repeal is but a manifestation of the general 

rule that one Congress cannot bind a subseouent Congress. except where it 

creates vested rights enforceable under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 

Amendment. 

The rule that Congress cannot surrender its power to amend or repeal legislation 

relating to the government of non-state areas is but a specific application of the maxim that 

one Congress cannot bind a subsequent Congress and the case law developed under it. 

The rationale underlying that principle is the consideration that if one Congress could 

prevent the subsequent amendment or repeal of legislation enacted by it, such legislation 

would be frozen pennanently and would acquire virtually constitutional status. Justice 

Brennan expressed this thought in his dissenting opinion in United States Trust Co. v. New 

Jersey, 431 U .S. I , 45 (1977), a case involving the Impairment of the Obligation of 

Contracts Clause of the Constitution (Art. 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 represent. Crucial to this end is the assurance that 

new legislators will not automatically be bound by the policies and 

undertakings of earlier days.... The Framers fully recognized that nothing 

would so jeopardize the legitimacy of a system of government that relies upon 

the ebbs and flows of politics to "clean out the rascals" than the possibility that 

those same rascals might perpetuate their policies simply by locking them into 

binding contracts. 

- 6-
164 

Nonetheless. the maxim that one Congress cannot hind future Congn:ss. like ever} 

lt:gal mk. has its limits. As early as 1810. Chief Justice Marshall explained in Fletcher ' 

Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87. 135 (1810): 

The principle asserted is that one legislature is competent to repeal any 

act which a former legislature was competent to pass; and that one legislature 

cannot abridge the powers of a succeeding legislature. 

The correctness of this principle, so far as respects generaJ legislation. 

can never be controverted. But. if an act be done under a law , a succeeding 

legislature cannot undo it. The past cannot be recalled by the most absolute 

power. Conveyances have been made. those conveyances have vested legal 

estates, and if those estates may be seized by the sovereign authority , still, that 

they originally vested is a fact, and cannot cease to be a fact. 

When, then , a law is in its nature a contract, when absolute rights have 

vested under that contract, a repeal of the law cannot devest (sic) those rights. 

The powers of one legislature to repeal or amend the acts of the preceding one are 

limited in the case of States by the Obligation of Contracts Clause (Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. I) of 

the Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and in the case 

of CongressionaJ legislation by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This 

principle was recognized in the Sinking-Fund Cases, 98 U.S. 700, 718-19 (1879): 

The United States cannot any more than a State interfere with private 

rights, except for legitimate govemmentaJ pu!poses. They are not included 

within the constitutionaJ prohibition which prevents States from passing laws 

impairing the obligation of contracts, but equaJJy with the States they are 

prohibited from depriving persons or cor:porations of property without due 

process of law . They cannot legislate back to themselves, without making 

compensation. the lands they have given this COI]JOration to aid in the 

construction of its railroad. Neither can they by legislation compel the 

co!poration to discharge its obligations in respect to the subsidy bonds 

otherwise than according to the terms of the contract already made in that 

connection. The United States are as much bound by their contracts as are 

individuaJs. (emphasis supplied.) 

See ;illQ Bowen v. Agencies Opposed to Soc. Sec . Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41 , 54-56 (1986). 

- 7-
165 

IV 

The Due Process Clause does not Preclude Congress from 

Amending or Repealing the two Mutual Consent Clauses 

The question therefore is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendm.:nt 

precludes a. subsequent Congress from repealing legislation for the governance of non-state 

areas enacted by an earlier Congress under the Territory Clause. This question must be 

answered in the negative. 

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: 

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due 

process of law. (emphasis supplied.) 

This Clause is inapplicable to the repeal or amendment of the two mutual consent 

clauses here involved for two reasons. First, a non-state area is not a "person" within the 

meaning of the Fifth Amendment, and, second, such repeal or amendment would not deprive 

the non-state area of a property right within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. 

A. 

A non-state area is not a person in the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 

Fifth Amendment. 

In South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 323-24 (1966), the Court held that a 

State is not a person within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

See also, Alabama v. EPA, 871 F.2d 1548, 1554 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 991 

(1989) ("The State of Alabama is not included among the entities protected by the due 

process clause of the fifth amendment"); and State of Oklahoma v. Federal Energy 

Regulatory Comm., 494 F.Supp. 636, 661 (W.D. Old. 1980), affd, 661 F.2d 832 (lOth Cir. 

1981), cert. denied, sub. nom. Texas v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm., 457 U.S. 1105 

(1982). 

Similarly it has been held that creatures or instrumentalities of a State, such as cities 

or water improvement districts, are not persons within the meaning of the Due Process 

Clause of the Fifth Amendment. City of Sault Ste. Marie. Mich. v. Andrus, 532 F. Supp. 

157, 167 (D.D.C. 1980); El Paso. County Water Improvement District v. IDWC/US, 701 F. 

Supp. 121, 123-24 (W.D. Tex 1988). 

The non-state areas, concededly, are not States or instrumentalities of States, and we 

have not found any case holding directly that they are not persons within the meaning of the 

Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They are, however, governmental bodies, and 

- 8 -
166 

the rationale of South Carolina v. Katzenhach . 3!D U.S. at 301. app.:ars t'' he that such 

hodies·are not protected by tht Due Proc.:ss Claust! of the Fifth Amt!ndmt!nt. Mon:ov.:r. it 1' 

well established that the political subdivisions of a State are not considert!d pt!rsons prott!Cted 

as against the State by the provisions of the Founttnth Amendment. See ~. Newark v. 

New Jersey, 262 U.S. 192 , 19o (1923): Williams v. Mayor of Baltimore. 289 U.S . 36. 40 

( 1933): South Macomb Disposal Authority v. Township of Washington. 790 F.2d 500. 505 . 

507 (6th Cir. 1986) and the authorities there cit.:d. The relationship of the non-state areas t•J 

the Federal Government has been analogized to that of a city or county to a State. As stated. 

supra , the Court held in National Bank v. County ofYan!qon, 101 U.S. 129, 133 (1880): 

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 .. . 

More recently, the Court explained that a non-state area is entirely the creation of 

Congress and compared the relationship between the Nation and a non-state area to that 

between a State and a city. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 321 (1978). It follows 

that, since States are not persons within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment and since the 

political subdivisions of States are not persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth 

Amendment, the non-state areas are not persons within the meaning of the Due Process 

Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

B. 

Legislation relating to the governance of non-state areas does not create any rights or 

status protected by the Due Process Clause against repeal or amendment by subsequent 

legislation. 

As explained earlier, a subsequent Congress cannot amend or repeal earlier legislation 

if such repeal or amendment would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

i.&,, if such amending or repealing legislation would deprive a person of property without 

due process of law. It has been shown in the preceding part of this memorandum, that a 

non-state area is not a person with the meaning of the Due Process Clause. Here it will be 

shown that mutual consent provisions in legislation, such as the ones envisaged in the Guam 

Commonwealth Act, would not create property rights within the meaning of that Clause. 

Legislation concerning the governance of a non-state area, whether called organic act . 

federal relations act, or commonwealth act, that does not contain a mutual consent clause is 

clearly subject to amendment or repeal by subsequent legislation. A non-state area does not 

acquire a vested interest in a particular stage of self government that subsequent legislation 

could not diminish or abrogate. While such legislation has not been frequent, it has occu!T'ell 

in connection with the District of Columbia. See District of Columbia v. Thompson Co., 

346 U.S . 100, 104-05 (1953): supra n.6. Hence, in the absence of a mutual consent clause. 

- 9-
167 

lt:!!islation concerning the !!llvemment nf a non-stat~ area is subject ll> amem.hnt.:nt llr n:p.:al 

hy subsequent legislation. 

This leads to the question whether the addition of a mutual consent clause. ~ of a 

provision that the legislation shall not be modified or rep.:aled without the consent of the 

Government of the United States and the Government of the non-state area. has the dfect of 

creating in the non-state areas a specific status amounting to a property right within the 

meaning of. the Due Process Clause. It is our conclusion that this question must be answered 

in the negative because (I) sovereign governmental powers cannot be contracted away. and 

(2) because a specific political relationship does not constitute "property" within the meaning 

of the Fifth Amendment. 

I. As a body politic the Government of the United States has the general capacity to 

enter into contracts. United States v. Tingey, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 115 , 128 (1831). This 

power, however, is generally limited to those types of contracts in which private persons or 

corporations can engage. By contrast [sovereign] "governmental powers cannot be 

contracted away," North American Coml. Co. v. United States, 171 U.S. 110, 137 (1898). 

More recently the Supreme Court held in connection with legislation arising under the 

Contract Clause (Art. I, Sec. 10, CL 1) of the Constitution that "the Contract Clause does 

not require a State to adhere to a contract that surrenders an essential attribute of its 

sovereignty." Unite£! States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. I, 23 (1977).

7 In a similar 

context Mr. Justice Holmes state£!: 

One whose rights, such as they are, are subject to state restriction, 

cannot remove them from the power of the State by making a contract about 

them. Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 357 (1908).8 

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 ferleral 

legislation shall not apply to Guam unless consented to by the Government of Guam would 

unquestionably purport to surrender essential powers of the federal government. They are 

~ Cases arising under the Contract Clause holding that a State cannot contract away a sovcr:ign power are 

also applicable to the contracts made by the federal government because the Contract Clause imposes more 

rigorous restrictions on the States than the Fifth Amendment imposes on the federal government. Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Coro. v. R.A. Grav Co., 467 U.S. 717. 733 (1984); National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. 

A.T. & S.F. R.,_470 U.S. 451 , 472-73 n.25 (1985). Hence. when state legislation does not violate the 

Contract Clause. analogous federal legislation is all the more pennissible under the Due Process Clause of tbe 

Fifth Amendment. 

' Cited with approval with respect to federal legislation in Norman v. B. & 0. R .. 294 L.S. 240. 308 

(1'135). 

- 10-
168 

tht:refnrc· not hindin)! on the United Statt!' and ..:;umnt ..:nnfcr a prupcny inter.:st protcc t~d IH 

the Fifth Amendment." 

More generally. the Supreme Coun held in Bowen,._ Agencies Opp0sed to So<.:. Sec. 

Entrapment. 477 U.S. 41. 55 (1986). that the contractual propeny rights protected by the 

Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment are the traditional private contractual rights. 

such as those arising from bonds or insurance contracts. but not arrangements that arc pan 1f 

a regulatory program such as a State's privilege to withdraw its participation in the Social 

Security system with respect to its employees. Specifically. the Coun stated : 

But the "contractual right" at issue in this case bears little. if any. 

resemblance to rights held to constitute "property" within the meaning of the 

Fifth Amendment. The tennination provision in the Agreement exactly 

tracked the language of the statute. conferring no right on the State beyond 

that contained in § 418 itself. The provision constituted neither a debt of the 

United States, ~ ~ v. United States, supra, nor an obligation of the 

United States to provide benefits under a contract for which the obligee paid a 

monetary premium, see Lynch v. United States, supra. The tennination clause 

was not unique to this Agreement; nor was it a tenn over which the State had 

any bargaining power or for which the State provided independent 

consideration. Rather, the provision simply was pan of a regulatory program 

over which Congress retained authority to amend in the exercise of its power 

to provide for the general welfare. 

Agreements that the Guam Commonwealth Act may not be amended without the consent of 

the Government of Guam, or that future federal statutes and regulations shall not apply to 

Guam without the consent of the Government of Guam clearly do not constitute conventional 

private contracts; they are elements of a regulatory system. 

In the past the Department of Justice at times has concluded that a non-State area may 

ha ve a vested interest in a specific status which would be immune from unilaterial 

Congressional amendment or repeal. 10 We cannot continue to adhere to that position in 

"Cases such as Lvnch v. United Stales. 29Z C.S. 571 (1934). and Perrv v. United States. 294 t.: .S. 330 

( 1935). are not contrary to this conclusion . Both cases involved commercial agreements (Lynch: insurance: 

Perrv: Government bonds) In Lynch the Court held that Congress could not amend the contract merely to savt: 

money "unless. indeed the action falls w ithin the federal police police power or some other paramouflt power." 

:!92 U.S. at 579. Perrv involved bonds issued by the United States under the authority of Art. I. Sec. 8, C'l. 2 

of the Constitution. to borrow money on the credit of the United States. The Court held that Congress did not 

have the power to destroy the credit of the United States or to render it illusory by unilaterally abrogating on~ 

of the pivotal tenns of the hoods to save money . While the Court held that the United States had broken the 

agreement. it nevenheless held that plaintiff could not recover because. as the result of regulations validly issu(d 

by the United States. he had not suffered any monet3ry damages. 

"'cr. n.: . 

-II-
169 

view of tht! rulings of the Supreme Court that legislation concerning the governance of a nonstate area is necessarily suoject to CongressiOnal amendment and repeal: that govemmental 

bodies are not persons within the meaning of the Due Process Clause: that governmental 

powers cannot be contracted away . and espec13lly the exposition in the recent Bowen case. 

that the property rights protected by the Due Process Clause are those arising from private 

law or commercial contracts and not those arising from governmental relations. 

11 

Sections I 03 and 202 therefore do not create vested property rights protected by the 

Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Congress thus retains the power to amend 

the Guam Commonwealth Act unilaterally or to provide that its legislation shaU apply to 

Guam without the consent of the govenunent of the Commonwealth. The inclusion of such 

provisions, therefore, in the Commonwealth Act would be misleading. Honesty and fair 

dealing forbid the inclusion of such illusory and deceptive provisions in the Guam 

Commonwealth Act. 13 

Finally, the Department of Justice has indicated that it would honor past commitments 

with respect to the mutual consent issue, such as Section 105 of the Covenant with the 

Northern Mariana Islands, in spite of its reevaluation of this problem. The question whether 

the 1989 Task force proposal to amend Section 103 of the Guam Commonwealth Act so as to 

limit the mutual consent requirement to Sections 101, 103, 201, and 301 constitutes such 

prior commitment appears to have been rendered moot by the rejection of that proposal by 

the Guam Commission. 

11 It is significant that the circumstances in which Congress can effectively agree not to repeal or amend 

legislation were discussed in the context of corrunercial contracts. Bowen, 477 U.S. at 52. 

~ Bowen , it is true. dealt with legislation lhat expressly reserved the right of Coogress to amend. wbiJe the 

proposed Guam Commonwealth Act would expressly preclude the right of Congress to amend without the 

consent of the Government of Guam. The underlying agreements. however, are not of a private contractual 

nature, and. hence, are not property within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. We cannot perceive how 

they can be converted into "property" by the addition of a provision that Congress foregoes the right of 

amendment. 

" The conclusion that Section 202 of the Guam Conunonwealth Act (inapplicability of future federal 

legislation to GUam without the consent of Guam) would not bind a future Congress obviates tbc: need to 

examine the constitutionality of Section 202. In Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. I. 15-16 (1939). and United 

States v. Rock Royal Co-op. 307 U.S. 533, 577-78 (1939), the Court upheld legislation that made the 

effectiveness of regulations dependent on the approval of tobacco fanners or milk producers affected by them. 

The Court held that this approval was a legitimate condition for making the legislation applicable. Similarly, it 

could be argued that the approval of federal legislation by the Government of Guam is a legitimate condition for 

making that legislation applicable to Guam. Since, as stated above, a future Congress would not be bound by 

Section 202. we need not decide the question whether the requirement of approval by the Government of Guam 

fo r ~ future: federal statute and regulation is excessive and inconsistent with the federal sovereignty over 

Guam. 

- 12 -
170 

APPENDIX TO THE TESTIMONY OF HERBERT BROWN, III 

CITIZENS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION 

Historical record of the debate on P.L. 600 and the Puerto Rico Constitution between 1950-

!952: the record clearly indicates that the intent of Congress was not to create a unique 

status for Commonwealth, a position on which its advocates in Puerto Rico agreed. 

• Hon. Luis Munoz Marin, Governor of Puerto Rico, (1948- 1964): 

'"You know, of course, if the people of Puerto Rico should go crazy, Congress can 

always get around and legislate again. But, I am confident that the Puerto Ricans will not do that, 

and invite congressional legislation that would take back something that was given to the people 

of Puerto Rico as good United States citizens." Hearings before the Committee on Public Lands, 

House of Representatives, Eighty First Congress, 2"d, page 33. 

Hon. Antonio Fern6s- Jsern, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico in Washington: 

"As already pointed out, H.R. 7674 would not change the status of the island of Puerto 

Ri co relative to the United States: It would not commit the United States for or against any 

specific future form of political formula for Puerto Rico. It would not alter the powers of 

so' ereignty acquired by the United States over Puerto Rico under the Treaty of Paris." Hearings 

Berure the Committee on Public Lands, House of Representatives, Eighty First Congress. 2"d., 

page 63. 

• Hon. Antonio Fem6s- Jsem, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico in Washington: 

"This bill does not change the fundamental situation of non- incorporation in which 

Puerto Rico is now, but it allows Puerto Rico to develop along the lines of self- government in a 

parallel line with a Territory that attains statehood. That would be the situation under this bill. 

'"In other words, it is development into self- government on the part of a nonincorporated area of the United States, without virtually changing its position relative to the 

United States.'' Hearings Before the Committee on Public Lands of the U.S., Eighty First 

Congress. Second Session on H.R. 7674 ""A bill to provide for the organization of a 

constitutional government by the people of Puerto Rico." March 14, 1950. Serial No. 26. 

Hon. Luis Munoz Marin, Governor of Puerto Rico (1948- 1964): 

"This bill does not change the fundamental situation of non-incorporation in which 

Pue:co Rico is now. but it allows Puerto Rico to develop along the lines of self- government in a 

para;lel line with a territory that attains statehood. That would be the situation under the bill. In 

othe: words. it is development into self-government on the part of a non- incorporated area of the 

United States, without virtually changing its position relative to the U.S." Hearings Before the 

Committee on Public Lands, House of Representatives, House of Representatives, on H.R. 7674, 

81 st Congress, March 14, Washington Government Printing Office, 1950, page 17. 

Congressman Crawford of Michigan: 

·· ... and the people of Puerto Rico are still definitely tied in under the supervision ofthe 

Congress and under the protection of the provisions of the Federal Relations Act." Coneressional 

Recc'rd, \1ay 28, 1952, page 6180. 

• Cungressman Meader of Michigan: 
171 

"We are creating a Commonwealth. That has never been done in U.S. history before. 

We have admitted 35 states into the union. The legal effect of that is clear. The legal effect of 

creating a Commonwealth is not clear. 

Under the Organic Act now in effect it is clear that that Congress retains full power to 

amend or repeal that act. The delegation of authority for local self- government is clearly 

revocable. 

The questions in my mind are these: May the Congress amend or repeal the Constitution 

of Puerto Rico or laws enacted pursuant thereto? If the Congress in the future passes laws 

applicable either to territories and possessions generally, which are inconsistent with the Puerto 

Rican Constitution or laws enacted pursuant thereto, which law shall take precedence? Is the 

delegation of authority irrevocable? That is the question. 

The legislative counsel was unable and unwilling to give me a written opinion on the 

subject. The Library of Congress opinion which I obtained says that: \Vhile the adoption of this 

Constitution, with the approval of Congress, may create a moral obligation not to override the 

compact made with the people of Puerto Rico pursuant to Public Law 600. Eighty- First 

Congress, it would not diminish the constitutional power to deal with this territory as it deems 

best. 

This seems the consensus of the legal opinion I was able to assemble within the limited 

period I had namely, that the approva l of the Puerto Rico Constitution does not constitute an 

irrevocable delegation of the authority of the Congress under article IV. section 3, of the Sates 

Constitution.'' Congressional Record. May 28, 1952. page 6183. 

• Congressman Homer H. Budge ofldaho: 

"A better approach might have been to have the people of Puerto Rico to write their own 

Constitution without limitations and looking towards either independence , or at least, 

incorporation in the U.S. in a higher plane than that of a Commonwealth which under the 

proposed Constitution seems to be a mere colonialism.'' Congressional Record, May !3, 1952, 

page 5 127. 

Senator 0' Mahoney, chairman of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee: 

'·It will be easy to assume that in granting this authority the Congress has placed no 

restraints upon the action of the people of the island. Such is not the case however. The 

authority granted in Public Law 600 was carefully drawn to make it apply only to 

matters of local self- government. .. Those sections not repealed (of the Jones Act) by 

specific legislation remain in full force and are to be known as the Puerto Rican Federal 

Relations Act. So the whole purpose of this authorization was to extend to the people of 

Puerto Rico the opportunity of drawing a charter of local sel ~ government within the 

scope of the Constitution and the laws of the U.S .. .'' Congressional Record, June 3, 

1952. page 7832. 
172 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT Bt:SO ABOY 

In the past half century our Institution has approved and issued more than I 8 

reports on this issue: 

-On the Political Problem of Puerto Rico (1944); 

- On the Minimum Substantive Requirements for each of the Three Formulas to Be Considered in 

a Plebiscite ( 1963); 

- On the Juridical Relations Between Puerto Rico and the United States ( 1972); 

--On the Decolonization of Puerto Rico ( 1973); 

--On a New Compact Between Puerto Rico and the United States ( 1975); 

--On the Essential Procedural Requirements for the Decolonization of Puerto Rico ( 1977); 

- On the Decolonization and Self-Determination of the People of Puerto Rico ( 1978) and ( 1979); 

- On the Decolonization of Puerto Rico ( 1980); 

-On the Present Stage of the Process of Decolonization of Puerto Rico and on the Inclusion of the 

Case of Puerto Rico in the Agenda of the General Assembly of the United Nations ( 1981 and 1982 

and 1983); 

-To Recommend that the Voters in Puerto Rico Be Consulted on the Desirability of Convening a 

Constitutional Convention and on the Desirability of Revising the Terms of the Existing Relations 

between Puerto Rico and the United States ( 1985); . 

- On the Compact of Free Association of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of 

Micronesia with the United States of America (1985); and; 

-On Two New Constitutional Initiatives (1985). 
Memorandum on the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

November 30, 1992 

Meml)randumfarthe Heads of Executive 

Departments and Agencies 

Puerto Rico is a self-governing territory of 

the United States whose residents have been 

United States citizens since 1917 and have 

fought valorously in five wars in the defense 

of our Nation and the liberty of others. 

On July 25, 1952, as a consequence of 

steps taken by both the United States Government and the people of Puerto Rico voting in a referendum, a new constitution was 

promulgated establishing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth 

structure provides for self-government in respect of internal affairs and administration, 

subject to relevant portions of the Constitution and the laws of the United States. As 

long as Puerto Rico is a territory, however, 

the will of its people regarding their political 

status should be ascertained periodically by 

means of a general right of referendum or 

specific referenda sponsored either by the 

United States Government or the Legislature 

of Puerto Rico. 

Because Puerto Rico's degree of constitutional self-government, population, and size 

set it apart from other areas also subject to 

Federal jurisdiction under Article N, section 

3, clause 2 of the Constitution, I hereby direct all Federal departments, agencies, and 

officials, to the extent consistent with the 

Constitution and the laws of the United 

States. henceforward to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a State, except insofar as doing so with respect to an existing 

Federal program or activity would increase 

or decrease Federal receipts or expenditures. 

or would seriously disrupt the operation of 

such program or activity. With respect to a 

Federal program or activity for which no fiscal baseline has been established, this memorandum shall not be construed to require that 

such program or activity be conducted in a 

way that increases or decreases Federal receipts or expenditures relative to the level 

that would obtain if Puerto Rico were treated 

other than as a State. 

173 

If any matters arise involving the fundamentals of Puerto Rico's status, they shall 

be referred to the Office of the President. 

This guidance shall remain in effect until 

Federal legislation is enacted altering the 

current status of Puerto Rico in accordance 

v.ith the freely expressed wishes of the people of Puerto Rico. 

The memorandum for the heads of executiv~ departments and agencies on this subjec't. issued July 25, 1961, is hereby rescinded. 

This memorandum shall be published in 

the Federal Register. 

George Bush 

Note: This memorandum u:as released by the 

Office of the Press Secretary on December 

1. 
DoN You P-o~ G. (k.Oo.li'INAN 

174 

U.S. 1iouse nf Eepresentatiues 

q[ommitttt on l\tlioumli 

~asbington,JI~ 20515 

February 29, 1996 

The Honorable Roberto Rexach-Benitez 

President of the Senate 

The Honorable Zaida Hernandez-Torres 

Speaker of the House 

of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901 

Dear Mr. Rexach-Benitez and Ms. Hernandez-Torres: 

The Committee on Resources and the Committee on International Relations are 

working cooperatively to establish an official record which we believe will enable the 

House to address the subject-matter of Concurrent Resolution 62, adopted by the 

Legislature·ofPuerto Rico on December 14, 1994. While the specific measures 

addressing Puerto Rico's status which the 104th Congress will consider are still 

being developed, we believe the history of the self-determination process in Puerto 

Rico, as well as the record of the Joint Hearing conducted on October 17, 1995 by 

the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs and the Subcommittee 

on Western Hemisphere, lead to the following conclusions witlt respect to the 

plebiscite conducted in Puerto Rico on November 14, 1993: 

I. The plebiscite was conducted under local law by local authorities, and the 

voting process appears to have been orderly and consistent with recognized 

standards for lawful and democratic elections. This locally organized selfdetermination process was undertaken within the authority of the constitutional 

government of Puerto Rico, and is consistent with the right of the people of Puerto 

Rico freely to express their wishes regarding their political status and the form of 

government under which they Jive. The United States recognizes the right of the 

people of Puerto Rico to self-determination, including the right to approve any 

permanent political status which will be established upon termination of the current 

unincorporated territory status. Congress will take cognizance of the 1993 

plebiscite results in determining future Federal policy toward Puerto Rico. 

2. The content of each of the three status options on the ballot was determined by 

the three major political parties in Puerto Rico identified with those options, 
175 

2 

respectively. The U.S. Congress did not adopt a formal position as to the feasibility 

of any of the options prior to presentation to the voters. Consequently, the results 

of the vote necessarily must be viewed as an expression of the preferences of those 

who voted as between the proposals and advocacy of the three major political 

parties for the status option espoused by each such party. 

3. None of the status options presented on the ballot received a majority of the 

votes cast. While the commonwealth option on the ballot received a plurality of 

votes, this result is difficult to interpret because that option contained proposals to 

profoundly change rather than continue the current Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

government structure. Certain elements of the commonwealth option, including 

permanent union with the United States and guaranteed U.S. citizenship, can only 

be achieved through full integration into the U.S. leading to statehood. Other 

elements of the commonwealth option on the ballot, including a government-togovernment bilateral pact which cannot be altered, either are not possible or could 

only be partially accomplished through treaty arrangements based on separate 

sovereignty. While the statehood and independence options are more clearly 

defined, neither of these options can be fully understood on the merits, unless 

viewed in the context of clear Congressional policy regarding the terms under which 

either option could be implemented if approved in a future plebiscite recognized by 

the federal government. Thus, there is a need for Congress to define the real options 

for change and the true legal and political nature of the status quo, so that the 

people can know what the actual choices will be in the future. 

4. Although there is a history of confusion and ambiguity on the part of some in 

the U.S. and Puerto Rico regarding the legal and political nature of the current 

"commonwealth" local government structure and territorial status, it is 

incontrovertible that Puerto Rico's present status is 'that of an unincorporated 

territory subject in all respects to the authority of the United States Congress under 

the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As such, the current status does 

not provide guaranteed permanent union or guaranteed citizenship to the 

inhabitants of the territory of Puerto Rico, nor does the current status provide the 

basis for recognition of a separate Puerto Rican sovereignty or a binding 

government-to-government status pact. 

5. In light of the foregoing, the results the November 14, 1993 vote indicates that 

it is the preference of those who cast ballots to change the present impermanent 

status in favor of a permanent political status based on full self-government. The 

only options for a permanent and fully self-governing status are: 1) separate 

sovereignly and full national independence, 2) separate sovereignly in free 

association with the United States; 3) full integration into the United States 

politicel system ending unincorporated territory status and leading to statehood. 
176 

3 

6. Because each ballot option in the 1993 plebiscite addressed citizenship, we want 

to clarify this issue. First, under separate sovereignty Puerto Ricans will have their 

own nationality and citizenship. The U.S. political status, nationality, and 

citizenship provided by Congress under statues implementing the Treaty of Paris 

during the unincorporated territory period will be replaced by the new Puerto 

Rican nationhood and citizenship status that comes with separate sovereignty. To 

prevent hardship or unfairness in individual cases, the U.S. Congress may determine 

the requirements for eligible persons to continue U.S. nationality and citizenship, or 

be naturalized, and this will be governed by U.S. law, not Puerto Rican law. If the 

voters freely choose separate sovereignty, only those born in Puerto Rico who have 

acquired U.S. citizenship on some other legal basis outside the scope of the Treaty of 

Paris citizenship statutes enacted by Congress during the territorial period will not 

be affected. Thus, the automatic combined Puerto Rican and U.S. citizenship 

described under the definition of independence on the 1993 plebiscite ballot was a 

proposal which is misleading and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of 

separate nationality and non-interference by two sovereign countries in each other's 

internal affairs, which includes regulation of citizenship. Under statehood, 

guaranteed equal U.S. citizenship status will become a permanent right. Under the 

present Commonwealth of Puerto Rico government structure, the current limited 

U.S. citizenship status and rights will be continued under Federal law enacted under 

the Territorial Clause and the Treaty of Paris, protected to the extent of partial 

application of the U.S. Constitution during the period in which Puerto Rico remains 

an unincorporated territory. 

7. The alternative to full integration into the United States or a status based on 

separate sovereignty is continuation of the current unincorporated territory status. 

In that event, the present status quo, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

structure for local self-government, presumably could continue for some period of 

time, until Congress in its discretion otherwise determines the permanent 

disposition of the territory of Puerto Rico and the status of its inhabitants through 

the exercise of its authority under the Territorial Clause and the provisions of the 

Treaty of Paris. Congress may consider proposals regarding changes in the 

current local government structure, including those set forth in the "Definition of 

Commonwealth" on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. However, in our view serious 

consideration of proposals for equal treatment for residents of Puerto Rico under 

Federal programs will not be provided unless there is an end to certain exemptions 

from federal tax laws and other non-taxation in Puerto Rico, so tbat individuals and 

corporations in Puerto Rico have the same responsibilities and obligations in this 

regard as the states. Since the "commonwealth" option on the 1993 plebiscite 

ballot called for "fiscal autonomy," which is understood to mean, among other 

things, continuation of the current exemptions from federal taxation for the 

territory, this constitutes another major political, legal and economic obstacle to 
177 

4 

implementing the changes in Federal law and policy required to fulfill the terms of 

the "Definition of Commonwealth." 

8. In addition, it is important to recognize that the existing Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico structure for local self-government, and any other measures which 

Congress may approve while Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory, are 

not unalterable in a sense that is constitutionally binding upon a future Congress. 

Any provision, agreement or pact to the contrary is legally unenforceable. Thus, 

the current Federal laws and policies applicable to Puerto Rico are not unalterable, 

nor can they be made unalterable, and the current status of the inhabitants is not 

irrevocable, as proposed under the "commonwealth" option on the 1993 plebiscite 

ballot. Congress will continue to respect the principle of self-determination in its 

exercise of Territorial Clause powers, but that authority must be exercised within 

the framework of the U.S. Constitution and in a manner deemed by Congress to 

best serve the U.S. national interest. In our view, promoting the goal of full selfgovernment for the people of Puerto Rico, rather than remaining in a separate and 

unequal status, is in the best interests of the United States. This is particularly 

true due to the large population of Puerto Rico, the approach of a new century in 

which a protracted status debate will interfere with Puerto Rico's economic and 

social development, and the domestic and international interest in determining a 

path to full self-government for all territories with a colonial history before the end 

of this century. 

9. The record of the October 17, 1995 hearing referred to above makes it clear 

that the realities regarding constitutional, legal and political obstacles to 

implementing the changes required to fulfill the core elements of the 

"commonwealth" option on the ballot were not made clear and understandable in 

the public discussion and political debate leading up to the vote. Consequently, 

Congress must determine what steps the Federal government should take in order to 

help move the self-determination process to the next stage, so that the political status 

aspirations of the people can be ascertained through a truly informed vote in which 

the wishes of the people are freely expressed within a framework approved by 

Congress. Only through such a process will Congress then have a clear basis for 

determining and resolving the question of Puerto Rico's future political status in a 

manner consistent with the national interest. 

Ultimately, Congress alone can determine Federal policy with respect to selfgovernment and self-determination for the residents of Puerto Rico. It will not be 

possible for the local government or the people to advance further in the selfdetermination process until the U.S. Congress meets its moral and governmental 

responsibility to clarify Federal requirements regarding termination of the present 

unincorporated territory status of Puerto Rico in favor of one of the options for full 

self-government. 
178 

5 

The results of the locally administered 1993 vote are useful in this regard, but 

in our view are not definitive beyond what has been stated above. The question of 

Puerto Rico's political status remains open and unresolved. 

~ .. n--"11 

Elton G•llegly 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Nath·e American 

and Insular AlTa irs 

cc: Hon. Hector Luis Acevedo 

Hon. Ruben Berrios 

Hon. Pedro Rossello 

Sincerely, 

n Gilman 

Chairman 

Committee on International 

Citt~ Dan Burton 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on the Western 

Hemisphere 
Dear Colleague: 

179 

Jl . .,. lluu.&t nf Etprt.&tntatiuts 

€ommitttt on 1\~ouru~ 

ala!!l)ington, Jl~ 20515 March 4, 1996 

Under the "United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act" which we are sponsoring, for 

the first time in nearly a century of U.S. administration there will be a Congressionally recognized 

framework for the inhabitants of Puerto Rico to freely express their wishes regarding the options 

for full self-government. If this self-detennination process does not result in voter approval of 

one of the recognized options fo r full self-government, then by democratic choice of the voters --

instead of by Federal mandate -- the status quo will continue and Puerto Rico will remain a locally 

self-governing unincorporated territory under Congressional administration. 

Under the U.S. Constitution and applicable principles of international law, the three 

recognized options for full self-government are independence, separate sovereignty in free 

association with the U.S. and full integration into the U.S. leading to statehood. In order for 

Congress to detennine how to respond to the aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico regarding a 

pennanent, future political status in a manner which promotes and preserves the U.S. long-tenn 

national interest, we need to address the status question based on clearly defined principles and 

standards. This is what our bill does. 

Locally conducted plebiscites have been inconclusive, and were unduly influenced by 

vested interests exploiting the status quo. It is time for the U.S. Congress to meet its 

responsibility under the Constitution to provide for a self-determination procedure in which the 

U.S. national interest in resolving the status issue is taken into account, rather than allowing the 

issue to be dominated by local political rivalries and interference from those who thrive 

opportunistically on the present territorial staiUs. The United States also has a right of selfdetermination, and this process requires action by both the U.S. and Puerto Rico in order to 

advance towards a full self-government relationship. 

After 400 years of colonial rule by Spain ended in 1898, it should not have taken another 

100 years of American administration for the U.S. Congress to define the options for full and 

pennanent self-government. The Governor of Puerto Rico and our colleague Resident 

Commissioner Romeo-Barcelo support this bill. We hope you will co-sponsor the measure and 

support its early enactment. 

Enclosed is a copy of the bill and summary. To co-sponsor, call226-7393 . 

c;1~ DON 

Chai an 

OUNG u1 Co ittee on Resources 

Sincerely, f1 ~ . Chainnan 

E~LEGLY~~ Subcommittee on Native American 

and Insular Affairs 
180 

~ongrrssional 1Rrcord Unirrd Sra[c5 

of Am~rica PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 1 04 th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 

Vol. 142 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MARCil 6: 1996 No. 29 

UNJTE:D ST.\TES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT 

HON. DON YOUNG OF AL,\SKA 

IN THE HOUS E OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Wednesday, March 6, 1996 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today, 

the introduction of the United States-Puerto 

Rico Political Status Act will, lor the first time 

in nearly a century of U.S. administration, proOOe a congressionally re(:ognized lramewor1t 

for U1e inhabitants of Puerto Rico to freely express their wishes regarding the options lor 

lull sell-government. I want to acknowledge 

the ins19ht1ul leadership of Speaker NEWT 

G tNGRICH in working with the committee to formulale a process to advance the United 

States-Puerto Rico relationship 1oward a conclusive one of lull sell-govemmenl. A number 

of Members have been supportive and instrumental in lhe development of the legislation, 

including ELTON GALLEGL V, chairman of the 

Subcomm1ttee on Native American and Insular 

Affairs of the Committee on Resources. BEN 

GILM-'N, chairman of lhe Committee on Inter· 

national Relallons. and DAN BURTON, chaitman 

of the Subcomminee on the Western Hemisphere who cochaired with Mr. GAll£GL Y the 

October 17, 1995, joint hearing on the 1993 

Puerto Rico status plebiscite. There also has 

been substantial input from Members on the 

other side ol the aisle. 

This matter of tremendous importance to the 

United States and the nearly 4 million United 

States citizens in Puerto Rico can only be re--

solved by adhering to constitutionally and 

internationally based principles and standards 

roc lull sell-government. While many may misconstrue this legislation to be designed to ben· 

efit one local Puerto Rico political party over 

another, it is. in fact, a serious bipartisan enort 

to enact into law a pragmatic process with the 

long-term objective of resolving the Pueno 

Rico status dilemma. The legislation divides 

the process into lhtee manageable stages 

which follow hislorical pre<:edenl set by the 

Congress in PfOViding for final political 

statuses of territories and trust territories dur· 

ing this century. 

The first step in the process is the initial decision stage in which voters are asked which 

fundamental relationship they prefer with the 

United States-one of separate sovereignty 

leading to Independence or free association or 

under United Stales sovereignty leading to statehood. 

The second and final steps are the transition and implementation stages which follow 

the historical patterns of enabling and admission acts for territories becoming States and 

similar measures lor insular areas becoming 

separate sovereigns. 

If this sell·determination process does not 

result in voter app10val of one of the rcogni2ed 

options lor lull self-government then by democratiC choice of !he voters-instead of by federal mandate-the status quo will continue 

and Puerto Rico will rem011n a locally sell-gov· 

erning unincorporated tem!ory under congres· 

sionat admtnistrahon. 

Under the u .S. Constitution and applicable 

principles of interrotional law, the three recog -

nized options lor full sell government are independence. separate sovereignty in free assor.iation with the United Stutes, and lull integra· 

lion into the Untied States leading to statehood. In orcter lor Congress to determine how 

to respond to the aspirations of the people of 

Puerto Rico regarding a permanent, future po· 

lltical status m a manner which promotes and 

preserves the U.S. tong-term national interest. 

we need to address tne status question based 

on clearly defined principles and standards. 

This is precisely what the bill does. 

Locally conducted plebiscites have been in· 

conclusive, and were unduly inOuenced by 

vested interests exploiting the status quo. II is 

time foe the U.S. Congress to meet its responsibility under the Constitution to provide for a 

self-determination procedure in whk:h the U.S. 

natiOnal interest in resolving the status issue is 

taken into account, rather than allowing the 

issue to be dominated by local politicaf rivalries and inlerierence !rom those who thrive 

opportunistically on the pt"esent territorial sta· 

Ius. The United States also has a right of sell· 

determination and this process requires action 

by both the United States and Puerto Rico in 

order to advance toward a lull self-government 

relationship. 

After 400 years ol colonial rule by Spain 

ended in 1898, it should not ha\le taken another 100 years ol American administration lor 

the U.S. Congress to deline the oplions lor lull 

and permanent sell-government. The United 

States-Puerto Rico Status Act permits full sell· 

government to be realized in Puerto Rico in 

definitive step5, with a smooth transition to 

whatever form of lull self-government the people choose: independence. separate sovereignty in free association with the United 

States, or statehood. 

There is an important event which tQOI( 

place recently which is relevant to the introduction of this legislation. On February 29, 

1996, I joined three other House comrrvttee 

and subcomm1ttee chai1men from the Commit· 

tees on Resources and International Relations 

in responding to Concurrent Resolution 62 of 

the Puerto Rico Legislature. 

tn ihe Concurrent ResOlution the legislature 

asks the 104th Congress to respond to the results ol the November 14, 1993, status plebi· 

scito in Puerto Rico. wherein the Commonwealth ballot proposilion received a plurality of 

48.6 percent votes cas!, and to indicate the 

next steps in resolving Puerto Rico's political 

status. After extensive research, oversigl'll, 

and a joint hearing, a substantial record was 

developed enabling a concise response to 

Coocunent Resolution 62. 

Following is the text of the response to the 

President ol the Senate and Speaker ol the 

House or the Puerto Rico Legislature· 

H OUSE OF' R £PRF.5£NTATIVES, 

CO).IMI'M'F.'F: ON RESOUHCES.. 

ll'aslun.oton, DC, Fcbruar]l29, 1996. 

Jton. R OBERTO REXACH·BENITEZ. 

President of tlu s~na . 

Hon. ZAI OA II ERNANOF:Z·ToRRES, 

Speak~r of the Hou se ot Commonu.'fillth of Puerto R1co. Sa11 Juan , Puerto Rico. 

DEAR M R. RI':XACH -BF.tlllTEZ ANO Ms. Ht:Rf>IASllEZ·ToRRES: The Commlt.t.ee on Res.ourccs aod the Cotnmlttee on International 

Relations are work ing cooperative ly to el- tAbllsh an o f(J clll.l record whh;h we belle,·e 

wil l enable to llouse to atld re::~:!ll tbe liUbJect- matt.er of Concurrent Resolution 62, ado pttd 

by tho Lcglslo.ture of Puerto R.lco on December u. 1994 . Wh ile the spectrlc measures &.• !-

dressing Puerto Rico's st.atus which tbe 104th 

Congress wil l consider are 11t!ll being deveiOt>ed. we believe the hls1.0ry or the setr-dete :- mlnatlon proccs~ In Puerto Rh:o, as well t.s 

the record of r.he Jolr~t Hnring conducted e n 

Octooer 17. 1995 IJ)· the Subcommittee on N~<

t h'c Amcri c.:ln A.nd Insula r Affairs and tt e Subcommt t.te(' on Western lleml5phere. lead 

to the following conclusions with re:!llpect t o 

the plebisc ite conducted In Pertr o Rico o o Novemberl4,1993: L The plebisci te was conducted und er loct.l 

law by local authoriti es. and the voting prot:-

ess appears to have be en orderly and comlls1.- eot wi th reco~tnlzed standards !or lawfu l and democra ti c elections. This locally orga olzej 

self·detcrm! natlon process was un dertA e~ 

wltltln t.be a.uLhorlty or the connltuttoo( I 

i'OVeroment of Puerto Rico. and 15 consisten t with the right of the people of Puerto Rtc:» - Creely to express their wishes r egarding their political status and the form of government. 

under which they u ... e. The Un ited States recogolzn the right or the people of Puert) 

Rico to !tlf·deurmlna.tlon, Including tbe right to approve any permanent polttlcsl 

statiHI wbl ch will be e!\tO.bllsbed upon t ermination of t he current uni ncorporated terri· tory status. Coogreall will take cott nlzaoce c r 

t he 1993 plebiscite resuiU to determining fu- ture Federal polic y tOward Puerto Rico. 2. The content or each of the three statu:. 

options on the ballot wa.s determined by t h ! 

three maJor political partie:~ lo Puerto Rlc•l ldeotlfled with those options. re.!lpectl..,ely. The U.S. CongTus did not adoot a ronnal PO -

si tion u to t.he feasibili t y o r aoy or t he op- tions prior to ~sentatlon to t he voters. 

Cooseq uently, the re-sults of the vote oec - essRrlly must be ..,!ewed as a an expression of tba preference-s or th o~~~ who voted 8.8 between the proposal~ and advocacy of Lhn three major polltlr:a l pA.rtles for the statU:! 

option espo used hy r.ach such va.rty . 3. None of the et.a.tus optlon.s vresented 011 

the ballot rectl\'ed a maJority o! tb.e vote:l cast. While the commoowu.lth option on th1• ballot recelvel'! a plurnllty or vote.!l. t hl.!l re · su it Is diHicult to lntero~t bec .. u5e that OD-· 

tlon contained proponls to profound!}· 

chan~te rather tbao continue th e current. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico go..,ernmeol. 

strucLure. CertAin elements of the common wealth option, Including permaor:nt uotor 

w!t.h tbe Un!Led St.atc.s and guaraoteed U.S citizenship, can onl y be achieved througl: 

ru1l Integr ation Into the U.S. lndiDJ:" U: 

st.a.t ehood. Other e lements or t he t:ommon 

wealth ovtton on the ballot. Inc luding a gover nment-to-gO\'ernment bllate n .l p:o..:t whlcl:: 

cannot be a ltered. either are not po.sslble or 

cou ld on ly be partially accomplished 

through trel\ly a rrBnlj'ements based o n separate soverC!Ignty. While the statehood and 

Independence option:. are more clearly defined , neither of the!le options can be fully 

understood on the merits. unless viewed In 

t.he coo text of clear ConR:rellslonal pottcy re· 

gardlnJ:" t he terms under which e ltber option 

could be Jmptementel'f If approved ln a future 

plebiscite re co~tn!ted by the federa l gove rn · 

ment. Thu~. there Is a need for Congres!l to define the real options !or change and the 

true le~ta l and political nature of the statue 

Quo. so that tb.e people can know what the 

actual choices w ll} be In the future. 4. Although there Is a history of confusion 

and KmbiR:ulty on the part of some In the 

U.S. aJut Puerto Rico rf!gardlng the fecal and 

po litical nat ure or the t:urrent "commonweal th"' local go\·ernment structure and terr!Lorln.l st..'l.tu5. It Is ln<:ontrovertlble that 
181 

E300 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- Extensions of Remarks March 6, 1996 

Puerto Rico's present status Is that of a.n unJncorpora.ted territory subject In &11 respects 

to the authority or the United States Congress under the Territorial Clause or tbe U.S. Constttutlon. A!l such, the current status does not provide guaranteed permanent union or guaranteed c1t1zenshlp to the InhabItant! of the territory of Puerto Rico, nor 

does the cutTent. status provide the basts for recogoitloD of a sepua.t.e Puerto Ric&n sov· eretgnty or a biDding government-to-government status pact. 5. In light or the foregoing. the ruults the 

November H, 1993 vote lndJcates that lt la 

the prefen~nce or those who cast b&llota to 

ch&nge the present Impermanent status In 

favor of a pennanent SX~lJtical status ba.sed on ruu sell-government. The only options for 

& pennanent a.nd fully self-governing atatua 

are: (1) sepe.rate sovereignty and full na.~ 

tion&l independence, (2) sepua.te sovereignty 

In Cree a.ssocla.tlon with the United States: 

(3) Cull Integration Into the United States polltlca.l system ~ndlng unincorporat-ed territory status and ie&dlng to statehood. 6. Because each b&.llot option In the 1993 

plebiscite addressed ciUunshtp, we want to 

clarl~ thls tuue. First. under sepe,.n.te sovereignty Puerto Ric&ns wm have their own 

nattonalJty a.nd cltl:z:ensbl p. The U.S. poUt!· 

cal status. na.tlonallty, a.nd cltlz:enshlp provided by CongTess under statutes ImplementIng the Treaty or Parts during the unincorporated territory period. will be replaced by 

the new Puerto ruca.o nationhood and cttizenshJp status that comes with separate aoveretgnty. To prevent ha.rdshlp or unfairness 

In tndlvtdual cues, the u.s. Congress may 

detenntne the requirements for eligible persons to contJnue U.S. natlooallty and cltJ· 

zenshlp, or be natun.Uzed, and thls wUl be 

governed by U.S. law, not Puert.o Rican law. 

If the voten Creely choose ·separate ao•· 

erelguty, only those born In Puerto Ri co who 

ha•e acquired U.S. citizenship on some other 

legal basts outside the scope of the. Treaty o! 

Parts cJtl:z:enshJp statutes enacted by Congress during the territorial period wUl not be 

affected. Thus. the automatic combined 

Puerto Rican and U.S. clUzenshtp described 

under the def1n1tlon of Independence on the 

1993 plebtscit.e ballot was a proposal wb.lch Is 

misleading and Inconsistent with the fundamental principles of separate nationality 

and non-Interference by. two sovereign coun· 

tries to each other's internal affairs. which 

Includes regulation of cltlzenshtp. Under 

statehood. lrU&ra.Oteed equal U.S. cttl:z:enshJ p sta.tus will become a permanent right. Under 

tbe present Commonwea.ltb of Puerto RICO 

government structure, the curreilt ltmtr..ed 

U.S. clttzensh.lp status and rights wJli be 

continued under Federal Jaw enacted under 

the Territorial Clause and the Treaty or 

Parts, protected to the extent of partial a~ 

plication of the U.S. Constitution during the 

period in whJch Puerto Rico remains an unIncorporated terTitory. 7. The alternative to full integration Into 

the United States or a status bRSed on separate sovereignty Is continuation or the current unincorporated territory status. In that 

event, the present stAtus quo, Including the 

Commonwealth or Puerto Rico structure ror 

local self-go•ernment, presumably could 

conttnae for some period of ttme. until Congress In Its discretion otherwise detennines 

tbe permanent disposition of the territory of 

Puerto JUco and the status or its tnh.a,blta.nts 

through the exercise of Its authority under 

the Tern to rial Clause and the provisions of 

the 'l'reaty or Paris. Congress may consider 

proposals regarding changes to the current 

loca.l government structure, lnclud.Jng those 

1et forth 1n the "Dennition of Commonwealth" on the 1993 plebiscite ballot. Howe•er, in our view serious consideration or 

proposals for eQual treatment for residents 

of Puerto Rico under Federal programs will 

not be provided unleas there Is an end to cer· 

taJn exemptions from federal tax laws and 

other non-ta.xa.tlon In Puerto RJco, so that 

lndlvldua.ls and corporatloos In Puert..O Rico 

have the u.rne responslbiUt.lea and obiJga. 

t1ons 1n tbJs regard as tbe states. Since the 

"commonwealth" optton on the 1993 plebleclte ballot called for " tl&ca.l autonomy," 

which 11 understood to mean, among other 

things, conttnuat.ion of the current ea:emptloos £rom federal taution for the teiTitory , 

thls conatltutes another major polltlca.l, 

legal and economic obstacle to Implementing 

the ch&..oges ln. Federal law and poUcy te· 

qutred to fUlfill the tenns of the "Definition 

or Commonwealth." 

8. In addltlon, lt Is important to recogniz-e 

that the existing Commonwealth of Puerto 

RJco structure Cor local self-government, and 

any other measures wblcb Congress may approve while Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated terTitory, are not unalterable In a 

sense tha t Ia constitutionally binding upon a 

future CoD.gTess. Any provision, agreement 

or pact to the contrary is legally unen!orce· 

able. Thus. the cWTent Federa.J laws and 

poUcles applicable to Puerto Rlco are not 

unalterable, nor e&n they be made unalterable, and the cu..rrent status or the tnhabltanta Is not lrrevoca.ble, a.s proposed under 

the "commonwealth" option on the l993 

plebiscite ballot. Congress wt11 continue to 

respect the prtnctple of aelC-detennlnatlon In 

Its exercise of Terr1tori&J Cla.use powers, but 

that authority must be exercised within the rrarnewor k of tbe U.S. Constitution and ID a 

mannet deemed by Congress to best serve the 

U.S. national interest. ln our view, promov 

Jog the goal of full self-government for the 

people of Puerto Rico, rather than remaining 

in a. separate a.nd unequal status. is Jn tbe 

best interesUJ of tbe United States. This Is particularly true due to the large populatJon 

of Puerto Ri co. the approach of o ne""· century In whJ ch a protracted s~tus debatE- vdli 

Interfere with Puen.o Ri co's economic and 

social development. nod the domestic and 

international interest In determining a path 

to fu ll seJf.government for all terT1tor1es 

wl th a colonial history before the end or this 

century. 

9. The record or the October 17, 1995 bea ring referred to above makes It clear that the 

realltles regarding constitutional, legal and 

political obstacles to Implementing the 

c hanges required to fulnll the core elements 

or t.be "commonwealth .. option on the ballot 

were not made clear and understandable in 

the public discussion a.nd political debate 

leading up to tbe vote. Consequently, Con· 

gres.s must determine what eteps the Federal 

ro•ernment should take ln order to help 

move t.be self-detennlnatton process to tbe 

next stage, eo that the pollt1cal status a.splrat1ons or the people can be ascertained 

through a truly informed vote Jn whJch the 

wJsbes of the people are Creely expressed 

wttbJo a framework approved by Congreu. 

Only through such a proc.esa will Congresa 

then ba•e a clear basts for detenntolng and 

resolving the question or Puerto Rico's fUture political status to a manner consistent 

with the natlona.llntereat. 

Ultimately, Congress alone can determine 

Federal policy with respect to self-government and self-detennlnatlon for the r estdents or Puerto Rico. It wJll not be possible 

for the local government or the people to adnnce further In the self-determination JlfQCes.s until tbe U.S. CoDgress meets its moral 

and governmental responsibility to clarify 

Federal requirements regarding term1na.t1on 

of the present unJncorporated territory status of Puerto Rico In favor of one o! the options for full setr·government. 

The results of the locally administered 1993 

vote are useful In thJs regard, but In our 

vJew are not definitive beyond wba.t bas been 

stated above. The question or Puerto Rico's 

polit ical status remains open a.od unresolved. Sincerely, 

DoN YOUNG, 

Chairman. Committee on Resource.r. 

ELTON GALLECLY. 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Nattue American and lnsutar Af-

[aiu. 

BEN GJLMAN, 

Chainnan, Committee on International Relations. 

DAN BURTON, 

Chainnon. Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. 
DoN VOUNG, CHAJRMAN 

182 

11l.S. 1fnu.st nf Etprt.stntatiut.s 

€ommitttt on 1\tsoums 

UalifJington, J)C 20515 

Chronology for Implementing the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act 

Action by Cona:ress, the President. or the people of Puerto Rico 

Congressional enactment of the United States-Puerto Rico 

Political Status Act before the end of .. 

Initial Decision Referendum by the people of Puerto Rico 

on the question of which path toward full self-government, 

to be held no later than .. 

President submits Transition Plan legislation for full selfgovernment to Congress within 180 days of referendum 

Congressional enactment ofTransition Act to full 

self-government within 180 days of receipt ofPresident's 

proposal. 

Transition Act Referendum by the people of Puerto Rico 

on approval of Transition Act within 180 days of referendum .. 

Presidential proclamation begins the Transition toward full 

Projected Dat•: 

. ....... 1996 

. ......... 12/31/98 

....... 6/30/99 

. .... 12/31/99 

. .... .. .. 6/30/0(• 

self-government. ... . ............ · ...... ..........•... . ....... .July, 2000 

President submits Implementation legislation to Congress 

2 years prior to end of Transition period ... . ........ ...... ... ... ................. July, 2008 

Congressional enactment of Implementation Act for 

full self-government for Puerto Rico within 180 days of 

receipt of President's proposal.. . ................... . 

Implementation Act Referendum by the people of Puerto Rico 

on approval oflmplementation Act within 180 days of enactment. . 

Presidential proclamation implementing full self-government 

for Puerto Rico ... 

. ..... .......... ...... ........ 6/30/09 

. .............. .......... 12/31/09 

. ...... .July, 2010 
183 

~i.far ~ar6osa be ~'\os~ri.o Historiadora Oficial de Puerto RICO 

Condominia El Ponce 

Suite 404 

Z74 Canal Street j) ~ ~ "i-'" ~ • 

Santurce, PR 00907 ,1:i~-:, ~ ~ \J' ___ _,cY::I 

'\1\..~ ~~ ~ t>~ ~~~· 

-f~~~~~L 

G~~~~~~~ 

, ___ ~ '1..'\-> \ '=t q '. ~ ~ t:o ~~ ~ 

~·~~ 1::\~ ~ ~c-L..J~~~ 

~~~~~~ 

~~t-11.- -c. ~R}~ c;t..J ~~ '1-- ~ ~-t"'J 5-t-~. 

F\sci~~r-~ ~\~~~ 

~~~~~~~~i­

~~R.·~~~~~~ ~4~c:u.u\ 

~ ~ ~~ ~. f!;J~ 

'\~ ~~c{Zf~ ~~~ 

~~~~~~ 

~--\-~'(\-~~ ~ ~ 'L..\-t.'=\~r.) ~ ~~ 
184 

~ifar ~ar6osa be Q:\osario 

Historiadora Oficial de Puerto Rico ,. ?-.., 

Condominio El Ponce ...t.. ~ ~ b ~ \.... .. U ,•_ D ,•j n 

Suite404 -~-------- ,~~-----.::... ~} 

274 Canal Street · l- . 

Santurce, PR 00907 ....v'1 -L.i \~ ~~ l;. 

r»L~~~~~~ 

~~~a.J.·~. 

~ ~· .. -·~.., ~~ ~~j 

a.....-_~~ cc"i)u_~ ~~ ~ ~ 

~~~:~0-~~~ 

~~~~~~~~~1 

--t~ \t1:L/ )~~~~~ 

~ ~~ '\Cf"Ch... ~ ~D~ 

~~~~ 

~~~.~~~-

~~~~\~ 

~l 

~~~~ 

-\~ · ~ ~ ~ t:k.e_ 

~~~~~'1~ 

~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~~ 
185 

Cf>iCar <t>ar6osa be ~osario 

Historiadora Oficial de Puerto Rico 

~ondominio El Ponce ~ t-'l:....J- ~~ ~ ~4 

274 

Suite404 

Canal Street • • ~ .J ~ D • :f o 

~ 

1 \.. 

Santurce, PR 00907 .:...\..M.... ~ \) ........---r 

~ ~ ~-t::tu__ ~ ~ ..__ ~ 

~ 1\...k.L. ~4 -----t-~ ~ ~ t;; da.. 

~~~·~-t~ 

~.Q.d . .._ ~~ ~ 

tM~-~j~~~ 

\::\, ~a..M-.- o..U-~ ~ . ~ Ju_ 

~~~~~~ 

~~~~~ ~Q~c..vt_ 

:.'" t'~ Q._~ ~~ ~ ~ 

~~~~ . .£~~ 

~\~ ~~ a_<;t,,~~ 

~.~d ~~c~~~ 

~~~~d~~ 

~ 

~~cn...~+~~ts, ::!~ 

~~~4J.,u_~ ~~~~~~~t~. 
186 

Cf'ifar ct3ar6osa be 1\os~rio Y 

Historiadora Oficial de Puerto Rtco ~ 

_, 

Condominia El Ponce ~' '!:;" -{... . _ t_ ~~ ·_ ~-

Suite 404 ~ "\..A..-d..A ~ct.. l r--~ ~Vl... 

274 Canal Street 

Santurce, PR 00907 a....... .l ~ \ <t "!l "1, ~ ~-···'· \-\;.A .. 1..~ 

~ ~ ~ ~\ ~~ "k~L J......_ 

\n-£~~~ >· u~ 

~~~J. ~ J ~ l ~ T'!j:.} ? 1. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~o.,..J- ~ 

~~~~\'~~~~· 

~~~;~t.-x~ 

'>:\ ~ .....,__~ <v._J. 'i ~ ~ 

~~ ~ ~ ~~"'-~ ~ ~ ~~­

··· ~~~~ ~"0\..J._ ~~)~ ktr. 

:r~~~~-Ro 

~ ~ ..... ~ b~ o...~~~ P+-4-

W'~--t~~~ 

~'M.A~~~~~~l 

~~~~~~. 
187 

~i(ar ~ar6osa ~e ~os~rio Historiadora Oficial de Puerto R1co !3'/ 

Condominia El Ponce 

274Cana1Street 

Suite 404 \ 

- ~ ~ 

"""~ ~c-~~ .. r- S' _ t>-:- ~ 

Santurce, PR 00907 

~~~~~~ 

,~~~.~~~~~ 

~b~~ ~-t:La. ~~~ 

~)~~p~~~ 

~~~ex..~ 

"lc....,.__ '....}-'~ ~ ~~ -u... 

~~ t\;~~~rif~ 

<Y~A~·~~~~ 

==:\~ ~~ ~"~ 

t; ~ ~ ~Q_~ ;_c:l~. 

~~~~~~~~ 

~~u,s ~ct_~J. tb 

~~~-M(~,~ 

~U-~~~-r-~ 

c~~~bo\--s•\~fo-~ 

~·~. 
188 

<:pi far <±>ar6osa be ~osario Historiadora Oficial de Puerto RICO 

c,./ 

. ~ t{....~ -tlJ ~ Condominia El Ponce :t:o ~ r:,.. 

Suite 404 \ .1-- +-

274 

Santurce, 

canal 

PR 

Street 

009°7 

~~ ('l...u_A.M.~ · -- - ,-- · ~ IS AI\.M l::?> ~ 

~ ~ \)..~·) ~) ..... ~ 

Q~¢0.... ;J::J ~ u-:..~-LL~ 

\'\ __ ~.--..~ ~~t­ ~~ V, ~..., I "-"--- .------ --- -0 

~7~~~J.~~ 

~\_r~-~~.1~ 

~ ~- ~~ ~CLLQ_ 

~~~~~~ 

~ --LA-';:JAI ~) ~ ~ 

~~-- ~v, e. ~ d~~~, 

t.~~ ~~~~\~~ 

~~-~~~~'-.d. ------ ~.1 

r;~-t},_~-
189 

~ifar C!)ar6osa be ~os~rio !1 / 

Historiadora Olicial de Puerto Rico 

Condominio El Ponce Cl.t Q \) ~ r 

Suite 404 Q ~ t;" tl'-vV'-~ ~ : _ 274 Canal Street 

Santurce, PR 00907 

\- ~ ~~~q_f..(. ~-~ ~ 

~~-~~~~-~~ 

~ ~ ~~~ tluJ-- ~ 

-i~ ~ ~ .\.s...;t.t.d .. 'cc.~ 

t;;"-\~~· 

1. .. 9r~~~~~~ 

<2.LPt~~~ ~v~~ 

"""=\ ~ ~ GL4 ) ~ ~ I 'f9~ 

~-~r~~'2LA 

~ .vt -SL~~ r;_g ~ ~-

~~· 

3-~~~~~~ 

c..~..L_~~~\~ 

t-:\~~ ~~ev4 ~~ 

~~.~~~ 

~~~~~ 

24-926 - 96 - 7 
190 

~i(ar CI)ar6osa be ~osario 

Historiadora Oficial de Puerto R1co ® 

Condominia El Ponce ~ _\:l ~ l ........, 0 ... •J) 

Suite404 -.~\ ~~ h~"" 

27 4 Canal Street -

Santurce,PR00907 ~ ~~ \~. 

~~~~~~~~ 

~~~-k-:K~D 

~;-~~~~~~~ 

~~ h"'--~~~~-

~~~u:~~~ 

~~~ ~~~ ~'"'w~~ 

rtA ~~~~~- U-tq_~ 

~ ~-~~ ~--~ d~ 

~~~ -t~~o-J~ 

~~~~~~ 

..--,~ 1..4 ~~~~ 

~~-lv~~ 

QJ.).~~J;lcrcr~ ~ 

4 ~ ~ 'vt--L. ~ ~-­ ~~~ ' 

~IJ-~~~ 
191 

cpifar Cl)ar6osa bt ~os~rio Historiadora Olicial de Puerto RICO 

9' ...... 

.t_1l ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ 

':\~~~~~. 

~~~~~~~~­

~cL-----~ 1; ~ ~ 

~~~J;J~ 

~~~~~~~ 

~ ~~~\Q..~~<.~ ~~s~.;~.P~ 
192 

PREPARED STATEMENT Of' DR. MIRIAM J. RAMlru:z DE FERRER 

Puerto Ricans in Civic Action 

Puertorriqueiios En Accion Ciudadana 

PO BOX 3225, MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO , 00681 (787) 8.34-0726 

TESTIMONY OF MIRIAM J. RAMIREZ de FERRER, MD* 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

US. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON H.R. 3024 

"UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT 

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 

MARCH 23, 1996 

• Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer is president and founder of Puerto Ricans in Civic Action, a non-partisan 

organization who delivered 350,000 individually signed petitions for statehood to Congress and works to 

secure political and economic equality for the 3. 7 million United States citizens resident on the island. Since 

1982, Dr. Ramirez has spearheaded the lobbying efforts of the group in the US. Congress. 

Dr. Ramirez maintains a gynecological medical practice in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. 
200 

1993: Plebiscite Ballot: Governor Rossello calls for a plebiscite in Puerto Rico and has 

admitted publicly that he made the mistake of asking the three political parties to define their 

options. Commonwealth is again defined with all the benefits of statehood and no obligations. 

(Exhibit R) 

Note : Outrageous publications against statehood were placed as inserts in local newspapers and 

shopping brochures. Some of these seem to have been influenced by Section 936 beneficiaries. 

(ExhibitS) 

1996: HR 3024: The Chairmen offour Congressional committees send an official reply the Puerto 

Rico Legislature regarding the results of the 1993 plebiscite. The Commonwealth option is found 

unacceptable. As a result, Congressman Don Young, Mr. Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the 

House and their colleagues, have assumed their responsibilities to help their fellow citizens in 

Puerto Rico and introduced a bill for the self determination of the people of Puerto Rico. 

We believe that the alteration of the historical facts regarding the political relationship of 

Puerto Rico with the United States has created the turbule~t atmosphere from where we stand 

now to solve this status question and has created confusion on what is Commonwealth. We 

need your help. Our people depend on you, and the authority vested upon you by the United 

States Constitution and the Treaty of Paris to help sort this out. 

Puerto Rico's status has not changed since 1898 regardless of how our island today may be called. 

Yet for some forty plus years, commonwealth proponents have insisted that their status was 

legitimate, a status that sought all the benefits of statehood without its burdens. They preached no 

taxation but full US benefits, sovereignty without responsibility and American citizenship without 

integration into the American system. 

That is why this bill is so important. The options are honestly and clearly defmed, and will lead the 

way for the people of Puerto Rico to be well informed so as to be able to choose a path for self 

determination. Besides, it also constitutes a classical document in the sense that no matter what 

happens with this bill, its contents will serve as a model for all future discussion on status. However, 

already some of our higher ranking politicians are trying very hard to steer this process the wrong 

way, as they and their predecessors have done in the past. We fmd no logical reason to explain why 

Puerto Rico's highest ranking statehood politician is asking that our present territorial relationship be 

included in a process of self determination, when that possibility has been addressed by this bill. That 

will remain if we carmot make up our minds on a fmal status. We urge our friends in Congress not to 

allow this fo happen and to please give us a hand so that this effort will not end up becoming another 

futile attempt towards self determination, such as those in the past. 

For this reason your committee was well advised to find that the commonwealth option on the 1993 

plebiscite was not entitled to full credence, given that these promises including guaranteed AmericaR 

citizenship and permanent union with the United States, could only be achieved under statehood. 

Your decision to enumerate the status choices which are constitutionally permissible shows your 

rectitude. The choices you have made in this bill are the only ones comporting with both the 

Constitution and international law, the only ones that can definitively achieve a process of self 

9 
199 

of a state of the Union, and the statehooders boycotted the process, statehood received a good 

number of votes, it won easily although statehood 

• 1967 Plebiscite BaUot: To stop these efforts, and thus control the self determination of the US 

citizens in Puerto Rico, a plebiscite was called by Gov. Muiioz Marin. ,He and his party, the 

PPD, described the Commonwealth option with US citizenship and Pem1anent Union with the 

United States. It was described in the ballot in 4 full sentences. Statehood and independence 

were described with one line. The Republican party boycotted the plebiscite. (Exhibit P) 

When the Republicans are in power, not many mischievous events take place to culminate 

commonwealth. President Ford submitted a project for statehood as he left office. 

During Reagan's administration, the PPD governed Puerto Rico and Hernandez Colon was the 

governor. His administration was characterized by attempts to have Puerto Rico act de facto as if it 

were an independent country. Hernandez Colon even attempted to sign a tax sparing treaty with 

Japan. The argument used with the United States agencies to get authorization to do these thing was 

the Kennedy Memorandum. Without the vote of the people, they were making Puerto Rico a 

sovereign country step by step. It became necessary to revise the Kennedy Memorandum to prevent 

this from happening behind the people's backs. 

• 1989- Just as Muiioz pre-empted Garcia Mendez, hiistory repeated itself. Gov. Hernandez 

Colon initiated a plebiscite process in the Senate with Sen.Bennett Johnson to pre-empt 

President George Bush from taking an initiative for self-detem1ination. That process was also 

aborted. 

• January 1, 1989 : Governor Hernandez Colon invites the leaders of the three parties to begin 

a plebiscite process in the Senate under the leadership of Sen. Bennett Johnson, preventing 

President George Bush from initiating the process, thus keeping tight control. This process 

was also aborted. 

• January, 1989 President Bush mentions statehood for Puerto Rico in his State of the Union 

message at our request. 

• 1992 : Bush Memorandum: President Bush sent a Memorandum to all the Federal Agencies, 

where he specifies that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States and should be treated as 

such in decision made by the Executive branch. (Exhibit Q) 

8 
198 

1 6:.EISENHOWER ADMINIS~TION: (~53-60) 

Puerto Rico's Resident Commissioner, at Muiioz' urging, introduces the Fernos-Murray bill to 

culminate Commonwealth. Its pretentious demands were so outrageous that it was defeated in 

Congress. 

Note: Muiioz's clout with a Republicans President was limited since there was a Pro-Statehood 

Republican party in Puerto Rico that kept an eye on him. 

I 7. KENNEDY.ADMINISTRATION: U961-63) 

• Muiioz and his party pushed for a "new compact" with greater powers for Puerto Rico. when 

this was proposed to the Kennedy Administration, Harold F. Reiss, a member of Robert 

Kennedy's staff said: "If that's what you want, ask forindependence and we 'II favor iL" 

(Puerto Rico " Whither Commonwealth? J.Garcia Pasalacqua, Orbis, Vol 15 #3, 1971) 

According to Pasalacqua, all efforts between 1959 and 1969, to make permanent the creation 

of Commonwealth permanent, failed. (ExWbit 0) 

1961: The political relationship of the Muiioz administration with President Kennedy paid off. 

He issued a Presidential Memorandum in 1961, based on information given to him by Muiioz, 

which called Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States "unique" and in the nature of a 

"compact." 

Note : From that moment on, the information on Puerto Rico became very confusing, both for 

members of the United States Congress and for the Executive branch. 

Is. JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION (1964-68) 

• September, 1966: Under the leadership of Statehood Republican Party ofPR leader, Miguel 

A. Garcia Mendez, many bills for the admission of Puerto Rico in the Union, were 

introduced in the House of Representatives. Among them .... 

H.R.l79l7- Mr. O'Brien H.R.17920- Mr. Craley H.R.l8009- Mr. Rivers 

H.R.179l8 - Mr. Saylor H.R.17944 - Mr. Morton H.R. 18096 - Mr. Mosher 

H.R.17919 - Mr. Carey H.R.l797l - Mr. Wright H.R.18277 - Mr. Halpern 

• As a result, Muiioz used his influence in Washington to have a Commission on Status created 

to look into the status issue. This Commission was composed of members of Congress and 

appointed individuals from Puerto Rico. 

Note: During the Commission's work, the Congressmen noted in their fmdings, that PR Law 95 

would be a safety net for the people since it provided for a plebiscite by petitions from the people, 

if the people wanted a change in status. when the Law calling for a plebiscite in 1967 was passed 

by the local legislature, they derogated Law 95 so as to take away that right from the United States 

citizens in Puerto Rico. All our efforts to have the law reintroduced and passed have failed. A 

plebiscite was held in 1967 where even though commonwealth was defmed with all the privileges 

7 
197 

Note: The facts on Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States are totally misconstrued in 

Gov. Muiloz' letter. His purpose was to mislead the President on what Puerto Rico had become, so 

as to move forward with his agenda on "commonwealth" at the United Nations . Among other 

things he said ...... (Exhibit N) 

"On July 25, I952, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico wasfonnally installed in response to 

the wish of an overwhelming majority of the people of Puerto Rico pursuant to a compact 

between them and the Government of the United States. Puerto Rico became a 

Commonwealth' in free and voluntary association with the United States, ... " 

False: The United States did not create a status punuant to a compact with Law 600. 

"In the I 948 elections the three alternatives were folly presented to the electorate by the three 

main political parties". The preference of the people, expressed in an election which was as 

democratic as any in the world, was unmistakably expressed in favor of the third alternative: 

a free commonwealth associated with the United States on the basis of mutual consent. 

False: -No plebiscite on the status formulas was ever held in Puerto Rico unti11967. The 

1948 election was a general election, authorized by Congress, where the people were 

given for the frrst lime the opportunity to elect a governor in Puerto Rico. 

" Their choice is aptly summed up in the Spanish name for the new body politic, "Estado 

Libre Asociado ". "On July 3, I950, the 8Ist. Congress enacted Public Law 600. This was in 

effect, an offer by the Congress to the people of Puerto Rico, which we might accept or reject, 

to enter into a compact defining the status of Puerto Rico and the relationship between the 

respective communities. ·: 

False: The Constitutional Convention specified that Free Associated State would signify 

Commonwealth, not a compact of free association. No pubUc hearings were held for Law 

600, and the House and Senate Reports on Law 600 specifically say that Puerto Rico's 

status would not change. 

"Our status and the terms of our association with the united States cannot be changed without 

our full consent" 

False: Law 600 in no way preduded a future detennination by the Congress of Puerto 

Rico's ultimate status 

"The government of the Commonyvealth of Puerto Rico will be ready at all times to cooperate 

with the United States in seeking to advance the purposes and principles of the United 

Nations." 

False: The United States citizens in Puerto Rico do not" Cooperate with the United 

States" we are part of the United States and as such, have fought in all wars since World 

War I. 

Note: As you can see, it is no wonder that people in Washington and in Puerto Rico are confused 

about the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. Governor Muiloz Marin, having 

administered the funds and federal programs from Roosevelt's New Deal, was too powerful among 

the people of Puerto Rico for anyone to doubt his words and statements. 

6 
196 

Governor was the next step, and now the adoption of the Constitution which gives Puerto Rico 

the status of a state in the Union is a wonderfUl step in the right direction. " 

Note: This seem to show Truman's inclination towards statehood. (Exhibit J) 

• 1952- Resolution 22: The Puerto Rico Constitutional Convention approves the erroneous 

translation of Commonwealth into " Associated Free State" (Estado Libre Asociado ). 

(Exhibit K) 

Note: This continues to be a confusing issue of since many in Washington are led to believe that 

we actually are a Free Associated State, just by this erroneous translation. 

• March 4, 1952: Munoz sent a telegram to President Truman "Once more the heartfelt thanks 

of Puerto Rican people for your support and leadership in achieving this new form of political 

freedom and equality within the American Union. " : He celebrates the relationship of Puerto 

Rico within the American Union. (Exhibit L) 

• January 16, 1953 : Gov. Munoz sent a telegram to put pressure on President Truman, before 

he leaves the Presidency on January 19, 1953, to inform the United Nations that Puerto Rico 

should not be included among the non-self governing areas. Truman does this a few hours 

before leaving The White House, on the eve of Eisenhower's swearing in ceremony. (Exhibits 

M) 

1952-54: Foreign Relations of the United States: Vol III- UNITED NATIONS AFFAIRS 

(pg. 1429)- October 9, 1952 "/am pleased to report that with the establishment of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on July 25.1952, the people of Puerto Rico have attained a foil 

measure of self-government, consistent with Puerto Rico's status as a tenitory of the United 

States. " (Northrop, Acting Secretary of State) 

(pg.l431) "The Constitution of the Commonwealth is markedly similar to that of a State." 

(pg.l432) "All public officials must take an oath to support the Constitution of the US. " 

(pg.1433) "Puerto Rico has not become an independent nation: neither has it become a 

State of the Union. It remains a territory of the United States." 

Note: These things were being monitored from Puerto Rico during the days before the 1952 elections 

and continued after the elections when Eisenhower took office. Personal experience tells us that those 

times in Washington are usually very confusing since a Democrat administration was leaving office 

and a Republican is entering on January 19,1953 

• January 17, 1953: Governor Munoz Marin sent a letter to the President of the United States: 

(Was it meant for President Truman, who received it a few hours before he left office, or 

for President Elect Dwight Eisenhower, who swore office on January 19th.) 

5 
195 

Note: By now Mufioz Marin is the man with good ties to Washington. He succeeds in convincing 

President Truman that the people of Puerto Rico be allowed to adopt a Constitution. 

1949 - Mufioz Marin became the first elected governor of Puerto Rico. (Exhibit G) 

• A bill, S.3336, was introduced in Congress to authorize the people of Puerto Rico to adopt 

their own Constitution and to organize a local government. 

• Senate Report No. 1779 and the House Report No. 2275 of S.3336 : said the following: 

(pg.2682-2683) "It is important that the nature and general scope ofS.3336 be made 

absolutely clear. The bill under consideration would not change Puerto Rico's 

fundamentaL political. social and economical relationshiP to the United States. Those 

sections of the Organic Act of Puerto Rico pertaining to the political, social, and economic 

relatiof!Ship of the United States and Puerto Rico concerning such matters as the applicability 

of United States laws, customs, internal revenue, Federal judicial jurisdiction in Puerto Rico, 

Puerto Rican representation by a 'Resident Commissioner, etc .. would remain in force and 

effect, and upon enactment ofS.3336 would be reforred to as the Puerto Rican Federal 

Relations Act. The sections of the Organic Act which section 5 of the bill would repeal are the 

provisions of the act concerned primarily with the organization of the local executive, 

legislative, and judicial branches of the government of Puerto Rico and other matters of 

purely local concern ". (Exhibit H) 

(pg. 2684) "Puerto Rico is unincorporated territory" The report in Law 600 specifies that the 

present commonwealth is an unincorporated territory. (Exhibit H) 

(pg. 2684) Sen. Joseph C.O'Mahoney said : "Nor will it in any way preclude afoture 

determination by the Congress of Puerto Rico 's ultimate status. The bill merely authorizes the 

people of Puerto Rico to adopt their own constitution and to organize a local government". 

(Exhibit H) 

Note: This clearly states that Puerto Rico continues to be an unincorporated territory of the United 

States after Law 600. 

1950- Public Law 600- Approved by the 8lst. Congress July 3, 1950 

• 1951 -President Truman writes Governor Muiioz: "It gives me great pleasure to receive 

word .from you that the overwhelming majority of the voters of Puerto Rico desire to draft their 

own constitution. " .. "It seems to me in fairness to the people of Puerto Rico, that only when 

these economic and social goals are clearly in sight can they decide as to what·ultimate 

relationship with the United States they desire." (fruman recognizes that Puerto Rico had not 

achieved a fmal status.) (Exhibit I) 

"The appointment of the .first Puerto Rican Governor was the .first step and the election of the 

··-1 

4 
194 

the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to 

preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced 

it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which the may reside. The civil rights 

and political status o(the native inhabitants of the territories herebv ceded to the United 

States shall be determined bv the Congress." 

)2.FIRSTQRGANICACfOFPUERTORIC0-1900-1917 (ExhibitB) ,' 

The United States said this act was meant to "Temporarily to provide revenues and civil government 

for Puerto Rico, and for other purposes." for the inhabitants of Puerto Rico. 

• Section 7: "That all inhabitants continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the 

eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine (April 11, 1 899) and then resided in 

Puerto Rico, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be 

citizens of Puerto Rico, and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except such 

as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain on or before the 

eleventh day of April nineteen hundred, in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace 

between the United States and Spain entered into on the eleventh day of April, eighteen 

hundred and ninety nine;" 

)3. ORGANIC ACf OF 1917;As Amended (Jones Act) (Exhibit C)• ~ 

• SectionS: "That all citizens of Puerto Rico, as defined by section seven of the Act of April 

12th, nineteen hundred. ..... and are not citizens of any foreign country, are hereby declared. 

and shall be deemed and held to be, citizens of the United States. " 

NOTE: This section of the Jones Act would prohibit Congress from allowing Puerto Ricans 

to remain citizens ofthe United States ifthey are citizens of another country. So how could 

dual citizenship be awarded under separate sovereignty if the Jones Act prevails? 

I 4. ROOSEVEL 1' ADMINISTRATION: (1933 - 45) 

As a result of a personal relationship berween then Senator Munoz Marin (the "creator'' of 

Commonwealth) and a reporter by the name of Ruby Black, and in turn through this reporter's 

close relationship with Mrs. Roosevelt, they convinced President Roosevelt back in the 40's, that 

Puerto Rico was on the verge of a revolution. Mui\oz enlisted the support of then Secretary of 

Interior, Harold Ickes to influence the President. (Exhibit D) 

• March 3, 1943, Harold Ickes sent President Roosevelt a memo urging him to announce the 

decision to order a revision of the Organic Act so as to provide for the election of a governor 

and recommended Muiioz Marin as the leader of the Puerto Rican group.(Exhibit E) 

• March 5,1943, President Roosevelt sends a letter to Congress urging the revision of the 

Organic Act. (Exhibit F) 

In 1947, Congress authorized the people of Puerto Rico to elect their own governor. 

3 
193 

Mr. Chairman, committee members and staff, welcome to Puerto Rico and thank you for the honor 

of inviting me to present our organization's views on this historic legislation. While you are here, we 

hope you have the opportunity to visit with your fellow United States citizens in Puerto Rico, and 

see the historic sights and modem dynamic society we have created here in the Caribbean, truly 

making our island its Shining Star. 

All this progress has been possible with our nearly 100 year old relationship with the United States. 

A relationship that now must be taken one fmal step beyond territorial links to one another and unites 

our two destinies together forever, eternally preserving our cherished American citizenship, or 

creates an independent Puerto Rico with its own sovereignty, nationality and distinct citizenship. 

Your courageous efforts to resolve our mutual relationship dilemma is highly appreciated. You have 

exercised your responsibility under the Territorial Clause of the US Constitution and so have defmed 

the status options available to Puerto Ricans who, through the process of self-determination, will 

chd'Ose a fmal status for Puerto Rico. 

It's sad that we need to place in your hands this issue of status choices, rather than to resolve it 

ourselves, due in part to our own political leaders who have failed over the past almost I 00 years to 

candidly address the realities of the options available under the US Constitution. it's not that we did 

not have appropriate guidelines to help us present the permitted choices but rather for political 

expediency most of our leaders have opted to maintain the fiction of the status quo in order to 

preserve their own power, and assure their elections. 

As you have so eloquently stated, Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory of the United 

States. You reached this conclusion after careful research and examination of the historical records 

as well as your own extensive hearings last October 17, 1995. At those hearings proponents of all the 

status options were heard and their arguments weighed. 

Through the last 12 years, our organization has acquined many historical documents dealing with the 

political relationship of Puerto Rico with the United States. Our group delivered 350,000 individually 

signed petitions to Congress for statehood and has worked hard with Congress to solve the status 

problem of Puerto Rico. We hope these historical documents and our years of research will help 

clarifY many misconceptions regarding the present relationship of Puerto Rico and the United States. 

The following facts, supported by official documents included at the end of my testimony, will be 

useful to set the record straight on what the present relationship between Puerto Rico and the United 

States is. In other words what is this thing called "Commonwealth". 

The Treaty signed by Spain and the United States after the Spanish-American War. 

Article II - Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States. 

Article IX - "In case they (Spanish subjects) they remain in the tenitory they may preserve 

their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making before a court of record, within a year from 

2 
201 

determination for Puerto Rico, the only ones the people of Puerto Rico can choose from, and the only 

ones that Congress can act on. 

First, I wish to make some comments concerning independence or free association. You rightfully 

recognize that any relationship between a sovereign Puerto Rico and a sovereign United States must 

be the product of negotiations between the two, which would be formalized in a pact between the 

two nations. Similarly, replacing the US Constitution and its laws with a Puerto Rican Constitution, 

is a natural consequence if Puerto Ricans vote for either full independence or free association. 

Finally, the matter of US citizenship being replaced by Puerto Rican citizenship is verv simple 

to solve. We refer you to the Jones Act which gave us US citizenship, <Exhibit Q. It specifies 

clearly that this type of US citizenship cannot be given to any Puerto Rican who already has 

another citizenship. 

Second, how could the United States allow for an independent Puerto Rico to be inhabited by nearly 

4 million residents with American citizenship? How independent would Puerto Rico truly be if the 

United States, is obliged to protect Americans wherever situated? Of course, it's hypocritical that 

independence proponents would want their Puerto Rican citizens to also be American citizens. 

This brings me to something else on the question of US citizenship. Just what are the motives or 

intentions of supporters of the status quo and independence, when they fight to have US citizenship 

for all Puerto Ricans regardless of the relationship ofPuerto Rico with the United States? 

Perhaps they want to retain dual American and Puerto Rican citizenship as a means to obtain 

American aid and funding of federal programs here in Puerto Rico ? 

The drafters ofH.R. 3024 ably dealt with this issue .. Your bill makes it abundantly clear that the 

price of independence is, among other things, both the loss of American citizenship and the attendant 

federal aid and funding that such an honor bestows on citizens, who must bear, in return, the price of 

government through federal taxation. ' 

In conclusion, let me say that by your courageous act and faith in the process of self-determination, 

you have presented us with an opportunity to finally fulfill our destiny. 

10 
202 

PREPARI<~D STJ\'I'EMEKT OF Prr..A.R B ARBOSA m; ROSARIO 

Puerto Rico's Litmus Test 

in Colonialism: 

Formerly and Presently 

Puerto Rico has been and still is a trial and error test in colonialism. It 

was so under Spain and it is so under the United States of America. Until 

1898 we looked up to Madrid in order to solve our problems. Today we 

look up to Washington. 

In order to understand our present we must learn about our past 

struggles for political equality. Under the Spanish monarchy this was called 

Colonial or Provincial Autonomy. Under America and her Federal Republican Union it is called Statehood. 

As any other people, our history has continuity and we may state that 

our main effort -politically, economically and socially- has been the struggle 

to attain our sovereignty. It was so under Spain, during the XIX century, 

and it is so under the United States of America since 1900. Political equality as Spanish subjects was our goal until 1898, political equality as American citizens has been our goal since the outcome of the Spanish American 

War. 

Our XIX century leaders never accepted an inferior relationship to 

Spain, they fought to obtain what monarchial Spain could not grant: popular and representative democracy. (Spain could not grant that which she 

herself lacked). 

If Colonial or Provincial Autonomy was a valid option under the Kingdom of Spain, only through Statehood may we be fully integrated into the 

United States of America at present. The only other option is for Puerto 

Rico to become a republic, be it as an independent or associated one, under 
203 

a protectorate or fully on its own. 

Under Spain our struggle was settled in November 1897, with the 

Moret Decree granting autonomy (although partially and belatedly as a 

desperate effort to avoid the American intervention in Cuba and the Spanish American War). 

The 1898 Spanish American War was the last expansionist war fought 

by the United States of America and it brought the Manifest Destiny to a 

close. 

Colonial or Provincial Autonomy failed both in Cuba and Puerto Rico, 

although under different circumstances. Spain lost the war, Cuba was declared a republic under the American protectorate (Platt Amendment) and 

Pueno Rico was relinquished to the United States of America by the Treaty 

of Paris. Congress, ever since, has had the power to determine its native 

inhabitants' civil and political rights 

Close to a century under American sovereignty we are still under Article 9 of the Paris Treaty. We are a territory that belongs to but is not a part 

of the United States of America. We are, in sum, an unincorporated territory under the American Constitution. 

Nevertheless, our struggle for political equality has been easier under 

the American sovereignty. Yet, we are still a trial and error test in colonialism. 

The 1952 Commonwealth ("in the nature of a compact") is a territorial form of government. It is the most advanced organic law given by 

Congress ever to an unincorporated territory but it is still colonial in nature. 

Its uniqueness is dependent upon its peculiarity. It has given all that it 

is capable of giving. It has outlived its usefulness. It can not be enhanced. 

After November 14, 1993, reacting to the status' consultation about 

our reality as a people, former local Supreme Court Chief Justice J. Jose 

2 
204 

Trias Monge, one of Commonwealth's founders said: "Puerto Rico is among 

the longest colonial societies in the world. A sad distinction, which has left 

indeJ.ible traces upon our values and attitudes." 

The eleventh hour has come for Congress and for the Federal Government to face their responsibility and express inequivocally if Commonwealth is "a status of full political dignity, based upon Puerto Rico's permanent union to the United States America, joined by a bilateral compact, 

which can not be ammended unless done so by mutual consent, granting 

irrevocably American citizenship to the Puerto Ricans" or if the 1950 Federal Relations Law and the 1898 Paris Treaty's 9th Article are still in effect. 

The quoted Commonwealth definition was touted -and voted- as the best 

of both worlds by the Popular Democratic Party and its followers on November 14, 1993. 

Lately, a proposition to extend the United States of America Constitution has been floated. It tantamounts to make an Incorporated Territory of 

the island. That is better than Commonwealth, but after close to a 100 

years under the American flag (in which Puerto Rico has demonstrated 

fully her capacity for democratic self-government, it sounds as too little, 

too I late. Besides, the republics of Texas and California plus the Nevada 

territory were admitted as states into the Union, without having been incorporated previously. National interest was the deciding factor in the aforementioned cases. 

Fellow Puerto Ricans: let's not wait for Congress to decide for us. 

Those of us that believe in statehood should unite ourselves, so that in the 

next status consultation (the centennial of our being a colonial test under 

Old Glory) we could liquidate our inferior political status before the XX 

century comes to an end. Let us join the Union as partners in full equality, 

something which we deserve after having shown America our loyalty. 

On June 11, 1993, the Atlanta District Court of Appeals, ruled: 

3 
205 

"Puerto Rico is still a territory constitutionally. Congress is still the source 

of power under the United States Constitution's Territorial Clause" (U.S. 

vs. Rafael and Luis Sanchez). 

The-Atlanta Court based its judgement upon an opinion by Puerto 

Rican born Judge Juan Torruellas (Boston District Court of Appeals). 

Torruellas had ruled in U.S. vs. Andino (1987) that: "Congress simply delegated additional authority in local matters to Puerto Rico by the Foraker 

Law (1900), the Jones Law (1917) and the Federal Relations Law (1950) 

but in no way did Congress alter or change Puerto Rico's constitutional 

status as a territory, nor Congress relinquished any of its sovereign power 

over Puerto Rico." 

Should we add anything else? 

My last question is: if Judge Torruellas' definition is our juridical reality what are we going to commemorate in 1998? That's TI-lE question! 

Fellow Puerto Ricans, I address you free from any partisanship, urg1 

ing you to think about our less fortunate societ's members; I address you A 

free from any social constraint and ask you: How come are we not to liquidate Colonialism in the light of the global transformation we see looming 

as the XXI century approaches our planet? 

Crime, drug addiction, health and education, main concerns of our 

times will not fade away as if by magic in the next ten or fifteen years. All 

we have to do is look around to sec that mere political independence is not 

the cure it all for everything. It doesn't even guarantee a better life nor does 

it guarantee democracy and freedom! 

No matter the tribulations Puerto Rico has endured as a trial and error 

test in colonialism under Congress' tutelage, we have enjoyed democratic 

rights and freedom under the American flag and we have developed our 

own institutions patterned after those of the Federal Union. 

The New Progressive Party is the only political party that toils toward 

4 
206 

full political equality under statehood. Its innovative program is totally 

geared to full participation by the people, the true power in a real democracy. 

Fellow Puerto Ricans, let's solve our status problem in the next four 

years. Our goal has been always political equality. It was so under Spain 

(until 1898) and it has been so under the United States of America (after 

1898). 

Fellow Puerto Ricans: "Forward, always forward" as Dr. Barbosa used 

to say! Let's not forget Martinez Nadal's words: "So long as Puerto Ricans 

remain true to their own personality, traditions and language the Puerto 

Rican soul will not fade away." To end let me quote the beloved Baldorioty's 

thought: 

I hate colonialism because it embodies the death of 

spirituality, being the degradation of man by man himself. 

English version by: 

Rene Torres Delgado 

Associate Professor of Fine Arts 

University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras 

FINAL PUBLICATION BY 

LA OBRA DE JOSE CELSO BARBOSA 

5 
~ 
208 

2 

purpoae to openly begin the struggle for Independence. Only MufiOZ Marin, Esqrs. Geiget Polanco, 

Samuel R. Quitl6nes, Emesto Ramos Antonini, Dr. Fem6s lsem, Mr. J. Font Saldalla, Mr. Antonio 

Cololado. Esq. Jaime BeniWz, ~ others, continued the Slluggle for lndepet Ide! 1e11 without 

the consent of the people of Puerto Rico. 

The following actions are the most signilicant cluas of the struggle for H ldepet ldet 108 as per 

my i1letpi l!talion: 

! .They eslablilhed a policy to make Spanish the only medium of Instruction in an schools 

In Puerto Rico. English became a second language. 

2 The Resident Cornmlsloner by that tine, Dr. Femos lsem, of the Popular Democratic 

Party, joined efforts with Congressman Munay to ~ the Ferno&-Murray 811 which had the 

pulpOSe to determine the llnal political destiny of Puerto Rico, Alaslc:a and HawaU. 

Refonns of this nature dealing with the Agenda on the SO¥erelgnky of Puerto Rico like the 

Mulloz-Femos Bill priMlbd Senator Johnson's mqnsslon, and I quote "That If Puerto Rico tNotr 

acl1iiM!s an idependent status, l wil t.w to face It& political rwsponsibllly honorably eilhers under 

Slllletlood or lndependetl08. Arrt other status would .-laclc of self niSji8Ct or else -nd be 

deceitful to its people". 

3. In order to keep the ideal of lndepelldetl08 alive, the Popular Democratic Party passed 

and apprtMid the Minority Participation Ad. It aimed at earmarking public fWids to minority parties. 

There was and still is only one mlncxlly party we know of which has existed for ~years In Puerto 

Rico. the hldepet Ide! 108 Party. 

In 1956, the Congnlss agreed to grant the Puerto Rican colony the opportunity to selfgoYerMiefll under the CCIIIIIIIOI'I-' status. The leaders of the Popular Party tniiiSiated this 

concept as Free Associated Stale, in Spanish "Estado Ubre Asaciado". E• since this date the 

Popular Democratic Party leaders clained that there Is a bilateral pact '*-t the CorniiiOI"'WWIaiih 

Puerto Rico and the United States of America. They also guaranteed at this line that this status would paw the way to Puerto Rico's future polltlcal dellelopment, either as a State or as an 

Independent counlly. HC1W11118r, as of this date the Popular Democratic Party leaders'- made 

no effort along this line although they '-been In powl!f for over forty -,-s and lhey '-had 

mandllles to do so. 

On the CO!irwy, they t.w sustained the fartle of the Free Associated state. 

Naturally, we are no state, tu with the appllcallon of the tenn "state" In this concept they 

t.w kllpt statehoodels In their nll'lk and lies. Lllcl!wlse they '-done the same with the 

lndepelldetl08 advocates when they lnaillt on using the term "fnne". In Spanish "free" Is equivalent 

to "'bre". "Ubre" also n.na "no strings atlached" and this concept is ~ to the follawers of 

the hldepllldet~ee miM!IIIIIIII on the lsllnd. Thllis wtrt wllnd stal8hoodln as Willi as 

lndepetldetiCII Party folawers casting balols In fawr of the Popular llemoaallc Party. We must 

jQ an end to this play-upon- wards. We must also !U an end to subllmal messages which cany 

the anlblvalence which makes us l'lllilher a Stale nor a fnle ClOI.Rry. It Is this arniiHalence which 

klleps us standincl stil when l COIMS to IWlMiilng ow pollical status. Haw long wil Puerto Rico 

stand this polllcai1'1181181N111k1 

In the 80's a MW indepellderl movement delieloped In the Unlvarsly of Puerto Rico. It was 

better known as the "Twenty two" (22) lndepenclalt UrWerslly studerds". 1..-iers and members of 

this organiz;lllon Mill~ others Rafael tiemjndliE Col6n (former (JCMimOI' of Puerto Rico), 

r.b. V1c11oria Mulloz Mendoza (dlughler of Mulloz Mlrln), Eaq. Cdolado (Fonner Resident 

Cammlsaioner), Esq.Marcoa Rlgau (stl a nwnber of the Serae), Esq. JUitl Garcia Passalacqua 

(former specillllide to Robelto S6nchez lllllllla •-GcNemor of Puerto Rico), Henneneglldo Ortiz 
209 

3 

Quill6nes (former Secratary of Transportlllan & Nile Depnnenl), Samuel De II Rosa, Esq. 

Luis F. Camacho (former President of the Lawyers As&ocllllon), Esq. Noel Col6n Maltlnez (wellknown Socia1i!1t Party Leeder), Samuel Siva Galay and Full Salmi (v.no ~rejected the 

American cilizenshlp), and othels. 

In 1970, the l9a. Duenas Doc:unwC was enlded by Celeste Benitez, Resident 

Comrnisioner Candidale nning • .,.. for the Poptar Oemocrallc Party, also favoring 

E.L.A.(Ihe free associated state for Puerto Rico). 

In ten Rafael Hemindl!z Col6n was elected GcMmor of Puerto Rico. He kept his brain 

washing strategy in fawr of an lndependn aseoclelecl republc. From that moment on, he began 

to use the tenn "nallonar' In al aspecls of the Puerto Rican endeavor especially In sports ac1iYties 

when he referred to Pue!lo Rican teams repiiiS8I'dlng the colony In ~ parts of the World 

whent they Plfllcipated. 

Dl.rtng the giMmOIShlp of Esq. Carlos Romero Barcel6, !here was an cUpouring of 

Willen .ticles Uhonld by lnclependeN Party advac;M& and also fobM!s of the Popular 

Democratic Party- of them l1lfer to • The New n-Il" by Rafael Hemindllz Col6n in 1980 Is 

nothing IU e description and~ loan As8ocilted Republc for PUIIIo Rico. 

Poptar Demacnltlc Party Senator MaR:o Rlgau'elllsllmony In fawr of the Associated 

Republic before the U.S.A. Congr.ss on the" Campact of Assoclltlon, Defining the As8oclated 

RepAIIic of Puerto Rlco"s relationship will the Unlled S1ale "Is a shlnnlne 8'lt3II1Pie of this 

natlonallltic feeling. 

According to the Puerto Rican Eleclonll Law the valdily of the chalenged wtes is 

determined by the Supreme Cowl If they decide an . So k happened In 1980 and the 

Popular Oemocnltic Party obtained conlnll of the Houae of Rep-*"-. 

When HeiMndllz Col6n came back to pov;er In 1984 as GcMmor of Puerto Rico he 

continued his indactrlnatlon pniCIISSIGMrd the lndependert __.._ He _, Intended to 

establish commercill CCll'lllada wilh Jllplllllu raaullrG In • rwprtnwld IeGer from the Secratary 

of State of the Uniled State of America advising~ that Puerto Rico was stll a terTitory of the 

U.S.A. and bilateral pacts could only tab place ~ ~ldepelldel~ nlllons and this was not the case of Puerto Rico. 

To further- f1¥RY from the American_,.,;., he cid nat allended the meetings held by 

the National Asaociallon of GcMmors ~the varloua S1a111s of the U.S.A. Instead he 

ealabllshed re1a11ons wilh Cemal and ScUll Amellcl and Spain gD't'III'IVIIIn. A Far was held In 

Sellilla, Spain and a Pavilion was ill* to~ Puerto Rico • a COli of~ thirty man 

dolllls {$30,000,000) and was Iller sold for fotr mllon doln ($4,000,000). The IQng of Spain 

¥isiled Puerto Rico on an lmrilallon of the gcMmor of Puerto Rico, r-. the "-~den~ of the 

United Stiles was newr equaly liMed. 

He eliminated the use of English as an olllclallanguage of Puei!O Rico with the approval 

of the l..egislature comolled by the Poptar Oemocrallc Party leaving only the Spanish as the 

olllcialllnguage of Puerto Rico. 

In 1988 the Supreme Cowl of Puerto Rico~ In fawr of the actual Mayor of San Juan 

l*clor Luis AaNedo aa a result of the challenged - on the gerwal elections. 

In tOOt GcNemor Hemllndllz Col6n oonducled a re1en1n11wn which only hinted llloading 

the people of Pue!lo Rico to a Republic &talUs. ft hlghlldlled the folowing: 

t- The inalienable right to delennine our pollical &talUs on a free and democratic basis. 
210 

4 

2· The right to c:hoolle a status with ful political dignity wilhout any colonial or territorial 

Sllborl.hlion to the full pciWIIIIS of Congr.&. 

3- The right to wte for the line status allemaiMis E. L.A., Statehood or lndepelldet a 

4- The winning fonnula In a status consullallon to the people of Puerto Rico --..ld require 

0\lel" fifty (50) peroent of the wtes casted by registered YOters. 

5- To guarantee under any slalus formula our right to malnlaln our cullure,our language, 

self ideriity, including our 1n1ema11ona1 representa11on In sports. 

S. The right to our American cllmnshlp under any sta1us fonnulae. 

As you can infer from the af01anll!l1tiolllld , none of the rights offered by the Popular 

Democnlllc Party established the option of permanent union with the U.S.A. This by Itself was the basis for their defeat In the reftnndum. The Puerto Rican people haw always SIIUggled on 

behalf of their American Clllzenshlp and Permanent Union wllh the U.S.A. Evidence of this 

struggle is clearly depicted In the draftilg of many Puerto Ricans who haw joined and glwn their 

lives along with other U.S. lllllnland soldlels In the baltleflelds of EI.I"Opll, C«ea, VIetnam, Middle 

East and others. 

In 1993 during the plebiscile process, the Popular Democratic Party indoctrinated the 

American citizens of Puerto Rico with the slogan " E.L.A. Is the best of two worlds" The best of 

statehood? Must ft be because what else lllUlepl Statehood can guarantee the people of Puerto 

Rico: 

1- American clllzenshlp 

2- Permanent union wllh the U.S.A. 

3- Parity of Fedelal funds wllh!U fling tax rasponsabllly. E._ wllh Statehood you 

must pay taxes. 

4- Extension of the supplementary Social Security benefit. 

The best of the lndepelldeuce: 

1- Bllatlnl pact with the U.S.A. to guarantee fiscal autonomy for Puerto Rico. 

2- Protecllon to the agriculural products of Puerto Rico. 

3- Restablishment of fultax ~ beneftls to 936 enterprises. 

Pd this moment I haw to ask : Are these offerings of the Popular Party possible? Urlder 

what relation wllh the U.S.A. this play wllh words wlllead us to? Is ft possible that the people of 

Puerto Rico can wte for the President of the U.S.A. with the best of two worlds? 

FailhfuR to their !Jadilion after obtaining the best of two worlds an special E. L.A. 

48 percent of the wtes in contrast to the 48 peroent obtained by the stalehooders the leaders of 

the Popular Demoaallc Party such as Ms. Celeste Benitez, Senator Anlbal AciNedD VIlA, Senator 

Faz Alzamonl, Congressman s-o Colberg, Mayor of Ponce Churumbe Conlero among others 

haw '*-ly fofgotten what they haw offered to the good people of Puerto Rico during their 

campalnlng actlvilles for the best of two worlds arid switched to their recunent play-upon- words 

strategy, with the same repetltNe cliches arid political jargon lila! culure,language,self-ldenllty. 

They haw not taken in considefatlon !hal !here are YOters among their rank arid file who are 

statehooders. 
211 

5 

Once again the status agenda remains standing stllln the '-til and rnilds d the P\BID 

Rican people. From the~ point d view, I dlalurbs o..- collociMt self Image and Ill the 

same time k consllules our .-rending problem. Furthennore ft Is part of our daily or ever)'day 

agenda at home , at wort, in our leisure time. II enshrowds us in a cor4lnuous division as brolhels 

and sisters d this Enchanted pieced land. 

1n order to stop aU this continuous l11al1ipWation or cin:lmitances lllld people, I believe 

lhallheno is <rif one~ to finnlly cope wiltlthe PtBID Rico smtua problem, I suggest that the 

plebisdle process which cons11u1es the pwpose or this heari1g 1a1c11 inlo consideralian Statehood. 

lnde!!e! ode! IC!1 or the Assoc!ated Republic as the only options or unique alternatives In the process. 

The last option Is the so much PIOI8Cted 01111 by leaders of the stdunl or Mrs. Celeste Benllllz 

(President of the Natlonal Democratic Party), Mr. H6ctor Luis Acew!do (Mayor of the Capital 

city), Esq. Rafael Hem4ndez Col6n (Fonner governor of Puerto Rico), Mr. Hermenegildo Ortiz 

(Fonner Transpo!lation Admlnlslration ~ Dlnlclar), Mr. Mlrcoa Rlgau (SenatorlalleU!r), 

Mr. Rafael (Churumba) Cordero (Present Ponce clly mayor) lllld Olhers. Besides In 1900 at the 

Popular Democratic Party CorNention held at Ponce, P\BID Rico II was appnM!d the Amendment 

presenled by present Congressman Carlos Vil.camlndo; in time days Plll&idlnl or PRH:.LA, to 

withdraw Puerto Rico from the oolonial and territorial subordination to the U.S.A. Congress In Cllher 

words the Associated Republic. 

Since 1938the Popular Demoaatic Party has been Wlll1dng at fist towanls h ldepel Ide! ICe 

and from 1952 Ill today for the Associated Republic, as had been demostlated In this Historical 

Baclcgtound of the PtB1D Rico's Stalus MhcU the ccnsenl d the Puerto Rican people. The leaders 

of the Popular Democratic Party are saying they won the 1993 plebiscite which cannot be true. In the 

ballot they promised ONLY what they consider the best of bclh the Statehood lllld the lndepellde!IC& 

this is nat only unreal but also unconslllutlona. 

I strongly be11ew that the ~ ELA cannot be Included In the decolalolzilllon process. 

Since there is no way to benefit from the slalehood MhcU accepllng our responsibiiMies as fullfledged citizens, like our fellow americans In the mainland do when they pay their dues and taxes 

eveiY year. 1 can neither undersland American cilirenshlp on1er any or u-two formula-the 

Associated Republic or !he Independence. 

I respectfully suggest that the formula which oblains IMII' folly percent (50'11.) of the votas in 

the polling places In the 1998 Plebiscita become the winning folmula and that k be accepled as the 

wilt of the Puerto Rican people. 

Finally, I respectfuHy recommend the United Statea Congreaa to makllthe petition a reality 

for the sake of this already polillcally IIXhausted colony. Otherwi&e the U.S.A. will ccntnue to be 

Immersed and entangled with the oo1onia1 status d Puerto Rico the only exisllng colony In the v.ortd; 

where three miUion U.S.A. citizens are Jiving, in spite of the fact that the U.S.A. Is the finest 

Democracy presendy In existence 'MllktMde. 

I hope that this Historical Background of the Status of Puerto Rico Will help the Commission 

to prepare a Bil that is constiutional and also just for aU oplions so in the 1998 plebiscile we Puerto 

Ricans will vote for the kind of government that to our believe will be beUer for our bekM!d Island. 

~leo deserlles a beller future. 

· sh. /;~. '.\ ·:-( ~c'f ( W1ls~n M. Loubriel 

Presldent 

Pro-statehood Engineers Assoc iation 
212 

PH~:f'l\1{!-;ll STA'fEME?-;T ot' AMtt-:L 1:->RM:I. RIVERA 0HTIZ 

My name is Angel Israel Rivera Ortiz, university professor having a PhD. in 

Political Science, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1976. Although I 

currently chair the Department of Political Science of the Faculty of Social Sciences 

of the University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras, I am submitting this statement on 

my own name and, therefore, it should not be taken as representing the views of 

other faculty members in the Political Science Department. 

First of all, I wish to express my overall support to the initiative of the House of 

Representatives Subcommittee on Native Americans and Insular Affairs to begin a 

new process for Congressional discussion and for consultation to the people of 

Puerto Rico regarding the future political and juridical status of the Puerto Rican 

nation. On my view, however, Bill H.R. 3024 needs important amendments in 

order to secure a fair play for all political options and groupings concerned. 

Similarly, some revisions are needed in order to guarantee a high probability oi 

success in its aim to propitiate full self government for Puerto Rico through a 

process of free self-determination in accordance with US and international law. 

On Sovereign Free Association 

In the first place, the wording referring to the option of free association should bt" 

amended and clarified. In its present form, H.R. 3024 conveys the idea that free 

association and independence are two forms of separation from the United States. 

Although such language is based upon the reality that each of these options entails a 

distinct sovereignty and an international status for the Puerto Rican nation, it fails 

to incarnate their full socio-political and economic implications within the context 

of globalization and free trade agreements. 

In fact, in the coming 21st Century both, free association and independence, will 

be framed within the context of ample interdependence between sovereign entities. 

Therefore, even what has been labeled <<complete independence>> will not 

exclude close economic and political associations among certain states. These 

relationships constitute, in reality, the opposite of separation. Unfortunately, 

therefore, H .R. 3024, in its original form, adopts a separatist language more 

compatible with international relations prevalent in the 19th Century and the early 

20th Century than with the international climate of the 1990's. 

Such language does not seem to be neither realistic nor appropriate in view of 

present international conditions or of those that might probably develop 

throughout the first decades of the 21st Century. Even nowadays, for example, 

although Mexico is legally defined as an independent country it is not, by all means, 

separated from the United States. Rather, the Mexican State is now moving 

continuously in the direction of close economic interdependence and association 

with the United States, a process which brings about important political 

implications regarding the actual content of so-called separate sovereignh;. 

2 
213 

In order to confer to the bill a more contemporary and realistic language, it 

should refer, in my view, to <<a distinct sovereignty for Puerto Rico>> under both, 

independence and free association, instead of using the phrase <<separate 

sovereignty>>. This may also be expressed by declaring that under any of these two 

options Puerto Rico would be a <<distinct autonomous political unit with 

international recognition as a sovereign State>>. It may be further clarified that the 

relations of the new Puerto Rican State with the United States shall be conceived 

<<as those of an entity which is not within the internal political system of the 

U.S.A.>> Federal statehood, on the other hand, will be differentiated from the other 

two by conveying the idea that it shall be the only option within the US internal 

political system. 

There is another critical reason for excluding from the bill a separatist language. 

As any one having in-depth knowledge about the political culture of most Puerto 

Ricans will confirm, the labeling of free association as a form of <<separation from 

the United States>> is bound to produce the political miscarriage of that formula. 

Free association, defined as a form of separation, will not be adequately 

differentiated in the minds of most Puerto Ricans from the status of 

<<independence>>. This will be particularly so if free association is presented as 

devoid of any mechanism to permit Puerto Ricans who desire to continue being 

citizens of the United States to do so after free association is implemented, either 

through exceptional procedures or by means of a dual or reciprocal citizenship 

clause to be included in the Bilateral Compact of Sovereign Free Association 

Between Puerto Rico and the United States of America. 

I have participated, together with Professor Ana Irma Seijo, from the Political 

Science Department, in a national Puerto Rican survey on the political culture of 

Puerto Ricans conducted during the late 1980's. I have also been codirector of the 

Puerto Rican component of the World Values Study together with Jorge Benitez 

Nazario, another faculty member. The latter study was conducted late in 1995 under 

the coordination of Ronald Inglehart, Program Director the Center for Political 

Studies of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. From my knowledge about the 

analyses prepared so far on the basis of survey data related to political status 

questions on both studies, I would expect that free association, if defined as a form of 

separation or of <<independence>>, will most probably be derailed ab initio, 

impeding its serious and objective consideration as a realistic alternative for the 

Puerto Rican people. 

On the other hand, however, if free association is defined as a sort of improved 

Commonwealth, u11 Estado Libre Asociado culminado, it might be a significant 

formula in any status related referendum. <<Estado Libre Asociado>>, the official 

name in Spanish for the current non-sovereign Commonwealth status, is, in fact, a 

more appropriate denomination for Sovereign Free Association than for a nonincorporated and non-sovereign Commonwealth of the United States under the 

jurisdiction of the territorial clause of the US Constitution. Hence, to retain the 

name Estado Libre Asociado under sovereign free association is not only reasonable 

3 
214 

but also will secure fair play for the formula, distinguishing it from independence. 

Of course, the wording utilized in the final law approved by Congress should 

distinguish free association -the real Estado Libre Asociado- from the current 

non-incorporated territory to avoid other confusions. 

As you know, the pro-statehood New Progressive Party succeeded in defeating a 

referendum on Puerto Rico's Democratic Rights supported by the Popular 

Democratic Party in 1991 with the slogan: Dile no a Ia separaci6n (<<say no to 

separation>> from the United States). Therefore, to retain the separatist language in 

H.R. 3024 may probably result in accusations that the bill was worded in that fashion 

with the malicious intention of structurally castigating Free Association through 

metropolitan steering of its political failure in any referendum. The proposed law 

would then lose legitimacy in the view of many Puerto Ricans who would claim 

that it impairs fair play and is biased in favor of the statehood option. Whether 

those supposed intentions have been actually present or not will not be as 

important as the fact that the bill might be denounced as illegitimate in the United 

Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS), an occurrence which does 

not seem to be, of course, in the U.S. national interest. My concrete proposal is to 

offer in the bill three distinct paths: one leading to full independence, one leading to 

sovereign free association with a specific wording that distinguishes it clearly both 

from current Commonwealth status and independence, and one leading to 

statehood. 

In order to prevent political groupings in Puerto Rico to misrepresent lhe 

content of any formula during the pre-referenda election campaigns, it should be 

made clear that rights earned as US citizens by individual Puerto Ricans, notably 

veterans' benefits and Social Security benefits, to which we are entitled because we 

have contributed to the US Social Security System througlz compulsory salary 

deductions, shall be preserved and protected under any one of the three formula s. 

On Independence: 

Regarding the independence formula, I think that H.R. 3024 might be 

significantly improved if its definition is placed within the context of regional free 

trade and economic integration processes. If international processes ripen during the 

21st Century as they now promise to evolve, independence for Puerto Rico shall 

definitely mean a separate or distinct sovereignty with reference to the US interual 

political system but not separation regarding the external economic and political 

system that may develop in America if the United States leads an effort to create an 

hemispheric free trade zone or American Common Market, something that shall 

behoove US interests vis-a-vis the new economic competition with Asia and 

Europe. Particularly, I think Puerto Rico could play an interesting role as an actor 

propitiating the integration of the whole Caribbean Basin zone to a Western 

Hemisphere Free Trade association (WHFTA) led by the US. Although this could 

happen under any of the three political status scenarios, it would be easier under 

independence or free association because, then, as a distinct sovereign, Puerto Rico 

4 
215 

could be a member of NAFT A on its own right and could also belong to other 

regional integration international organizations such as the Organization of 

Caribbean States. As a distinct sovereign entity, Puerto Rico would be accepted by 

Caribbean and Latin American countries as an actor in itself, not as a US official 

representative. This will not be possible under federal statehood for obvious 

reasons, as federated states do not have an international status allowing them 

separate membership in international organizations and in free trade agreements. 

Hence, my suggestion is that descriptions about the status of independence in the 

Bill H.R. 3024, besides other clarifications, should make explicitly open the notion 

that the United States might contribute to the process of admission of the new 

republic to the NAFTA agreement. Of course, the same elucidation may be included 

with reference to the free association option. 

Both under independence and free association bilateral US-Puerto Rico free trade 

should be maintained even if Puerto Rico is excluded from a customs union with 

the United States. But a customs union might be desirable and practicable, however, 

under both free association and independence. This could be left to be worked out 

between both sovereign entities (the US and Puerto Rico) rather than specifically 

describing Puerto Rico, both under independence and free association, as being 

outside the US customs territory, as is presently done in H.R. 3024 Section 4.a.l.G. 

On the Path Towards Statehood: 

Some people in Puerto Rico -perhaps many- think that H.R. 3024, in its 

original version, is a sort of dream bill for statehooders. As it is now, the only 

political status in which Puerto Ricans may retain US citizenship is statehood. In 

stipulating this, the bill completely ignores that, as an international status, free 

association is flexible enough as to permit dual and reciprocal citizenship accords 

between any two associated sovereigns. Furthermore, the bill in its present form 

defines both independence and free association as forms of separation, thus 

contributing to ignite inveterate fears and psychological conditionings which could 

negatively affect the probabilities for massive voting in Puerto Rico favoring any of 

the two alternatives, as already mentioned above. Moreover the "path within the 

sovereignty of the United States leading to statehood'' is too flexible, ambiguous and 

imprecise enough as to grant credence to the suspicion that the bill is quite biased in 

favor of statehood. If this scenario is maintained, Puerto Rican society is bound to 

polarize itself with the consequent instability, something which is undesirable for 

all parts involved, particularly if viewed within the context of the insecure political 

situations prevailing in Cuba, Haiti and the Domican Republic. 

Ambiguity concerning statehood is particularly evident regarding Section 4.a.2.G 

which states that <<Puerto Rico shall adhere to the same language requisite as the 

other states>>. This phrase may be read as having the following different meanings 

in Puerto Rico: 

5 
216 

1. Puerto Rico shall adhere to the same language requisite that Congress in the past 

has demanded from other states, i.e. that English should be the principal 

language for conducting government proceedings in the slate and recording 

public documents and trials in state courts, as well as the main vehicle for public 

education, public broadcasting and the like. 

2. Puerto Rico shall adhere to the same language requisite that Congress is inclined 

to demand nowadays from a new state: none. Because there is no official 

language at the federal level, the state of Puerto Rico, or any other new state, 

may adopt whatever official language the majority of the people wish to adopt as 

the main means of communication in government, the state courts, public 

schools, universities and public broadcasting on radio and TV stations. 

3. Puerto Rico as a state could have the right to determine its own official language, 

but if the US English movement subsequently succeeds in having the federal 

government adopt English as the only official language for all public activities 

throughout the United States, then Puerto Rico shall adhere to the same 

language requisite as the other states; i.e. English only. 

Given the ambiguity of this section in H.R. 3024 everyone should expect that, if 

not amended, during the referenda campaigns the New Progressive Party (prostatehood) will claim that Puerto Rico shall have full powers to determine that both 

English and Spanish will be official languages and that Spanish may be adopted as 

the main vehicle for education. The Popular Democratic Party and the Pro 

Independence Party will for sure claim that this is not true and that Puerto Rico 

shall have to adhere to English. Confusion is bound to reign supreme. 

My recommendation is, therefore, that H.R. 3024 be amended so that section 

4.a.2.G. includes a clear definition on this issue. Among the many pos~ ible 

wordings, I propose the following two. Which of them better reflects the intentions 

of H.R. 3024? 

G. The U.S. Congress recognizes the Puerto Rican People as a distinct Hispanic 

nationality and a distinct society with a cultural background which differs from the 

dominant culture in the other fifty states. Hence, as a sovereign federated state in 

the American Union, Puerto Rico shall have the right to adopt Spanish as the main 

vehicle for state government proceedings and for public education at all Ieveb. Of 

course, English will be required as a second official language in the state and a~. the 

legal means of communication between the state government and the federal 

government. The federal district court will continue to use English as the main 

language for all trials and proceedings. State courts may either use English or 

Spanish but English should be used in civil cases in which one of the parts is not 

conversant in the Spanish language. Of course, citizens shall enjoy the same 

freedom they enjoy in the other fifty states to conduct private communications, 

public broadcasting and family life in the language of their preference. 

6 
217 

or 

G. The U.S. Congress recognizes the Puerto Rican People as a distinct Hispanic 

nationality and a distinct society with a cultural background that differs from the 

dominant culture in the other fifty states. However, because the English language is 

the main vehicle for official communications of the federal government and of the 

other fifty state governments, the Puerto Rican state shall adhere to the use of 

English as the main official language for all state governmental proceedings, 

including the state legislature, state courts, and public schools and universities. This 

shall not impair the freedom of the Puerto Rican People to use the Spanish 

language or any other language besides English in conducting private activities, in 

oral communications in the work-site in both public and private jobs not related to 

classroom teaching, or as the principal language in mass media broadcasting and in 

family life. State laws shall also protect this same right to all residents of Puerto Rico 

who do not speak Spanish as their main language. 

As you may easily deduct from the above alternative propositions, I am 

convinced that, to be workable in practice, and to avoid the sort of problems facing 

Canada in its relations with Quebec, any statehood scenario for Puerto Rico should 

assume that U.S. federal structures must be flexible enough as to admit into the 

American Union a state whose population constitutes a distinct -though not so far 

sovereign- nation, and a distinct society different from American society. The 

quebecois secessionist movement has been stimulated precisely because the national 

government in Canada has denied Quebec official governmental recognition as a 

distinct, different society within the Canadian federation. Any serious consideration 

of statehood for Puerto Rico would have to be viewed within the context of a U.S. 

Federal System which is not opposed in principle nor practice to multiculturalism 

or plurinationalism. Within that framework, however, the US Congress should 

formulate ven; clearly what are the specific language or culture-sharing 

requirements that the Union wishes to request of Puerto Ricans if they really want 

their Island to be incorporated to the United States as the fifty-first state of the 

Union. Solving the Puerto Rico status problem is, therefore, an exercise in free-selfdetermination not only for Puerto Rico but also for the United States, for the 

American People. The latter must have the right to decide whether or not they want 

to open-up -at least theoretically- their Federal Union to American nations of 

Hispanic language and culture by establishing an important precedent in that sense 

in the case of Puerto Rico. On the other hand, whether statehood within the U.S. 

federal system presupposes or not that a different nation must abandon its own 

essential traits in order to assimilate to the U.S. mainstream cultural milieu prior to 

admission into the Union, should be made known with optimal clarity and fairness 

to the Puerto Rican people if the U.S. wishes to prevent future predicaments such as 

an after-statehood massive secession movement. 

We have collected in the University of Puerto Rico some survey data which 

clearly demonstrate how most Puerto Ricans do cherish their Puerto Rican distinct 

national identity. 

7 
218 

In a question asking for group identity in the Puerto Rican national survey of the 

World Values Study (N= 1,164 respondents) the alternatives that were most 

frequently mentioned were: "Puerto Rican, and that's all, first, second and third," 

and "Latin American and Puerto Rican." 

Another alternative labeled as "North American of the Puerto Rican Ethnic 

Group" was only chosen by a very small minority, even among pro-statehood 

Puerto Ricans. Among the latter, 51.2% identified themselves as "Puerto Ricans and 

that's all," and 20.4% identified themselves al "Latin American-Puerto Ricans." 

Only an additional 6% of them chose to identify themselves as "North American of 

the Puerto Rican ethnic group" and 4.4% chose the "Caribbean and Puerto Rican" 

reference-group. The rest distributed themselves among different categories with 

racial or ethnic preponderance ("white and Puerto Rican," "black and Puerto Rican," 

"mulatto and Puerto Rican"). Among respondents saying they support 

Commonwealth status, 60.5% identified themselves as "Puerto Ricans and that's 

all," and 18.2% recognized themselves as "Latin American-Puerto Ricans." Only 

3.8% were self-identified as Caribbean-Puerto Rican and 3.8% as "North Americans 

of the Puerto Rican Ethnic Group." Among pro-independence respondents 56% 

identified themselves as "Puerto Ricans and that's all, " 16% as "Latin AmericanPuerto Ricans," 6.6% as "Caribbean-Puerto Ricans," and 0.0% as North Americans of 

the Puerto Rican ethnic group." 

When asked whether they value more their national identity (being Puerto 

Rican) or their citizenship (being a U.S. citizen) responses were distributed among 

pro-statehood, pro-commonwealth, and pro-independence respondents as shown in 

Table 1. The Table excludes those not identifying themselves with any one of the 

traditional status formulas so that N=959. 

Table 1 (see final page) shows that although U.S. citizenship is very important for 

Puerto Ricans, Puerto Rican national identity is even more intensely valued by 

many. After almost 100 years of U.S. sovereignty, and many billions in U.S. federal 

transfers, 76% of pro-independence Puerto Ricans, almost 60% of procommonwealth people and even 43% of pro-statehood respondents definitely 

expressed that they consider more important in their lives being Puerto Ricans than 

being U.S. citizens. Only 26% of those who commit their votes to statehood withm 

U.S. sovereignty do regard their U.S. citizenship as more important than thtir 

Puerto Rican nationality! 

What these data suggest, in my view, is that Congress, in considering a path 

leading to statehood should take into account the wishes of most Puerto Ricans 

concerning the maintenance of a different nationality as well as our commitment to 

adhere to our own nationhood and to the Spanish language as our preferred means 

for communication among Puerto Ricans. A failure to recognize thisreality by 

Congress could only mean self-deception as well as deceiving the American People 

regarding the Puerto Rican issue. And if the aforementioned reality is, in fad, 

deemed by Congress as incompatible with federated statehood within the LS 

8 
219 

Federal Union, Congress should state so very clearly. Not to do so before the 

celebration of a referendum under the auspices of the US Congress in pursuance of 

H.R. 3024 would be tantamount to deceiving the Puerto Rican people and the 

"Puerto Rican Statehood Movement". If errors are committed in this area of USPuerto Rico relations, instead of attaining a solution to the Puerto Rican status 

problem a new nationality problem will ensue for both the US and Puerto Rico 

even if <<full self-government>> is formally conceded to the Island through a 

status change from Commonwealth to Statehood. Such a new problem might be 

further compounded in the future through Puerto Rican leadership linkages with a 

possible movement led by Hispanics within the continental territory of the United 

States seeking for "Latino Power" within the US political system. 

Inclusion or Exclusion of the Non-incorporated Territory (Current Commonwealth 

Status) in the Referendum Proposed by H.R. 3024 

My first preference is that the extant Commonwealth status should not be 

included in the ballot as an alternative because it is not a political status leading to 

full self-government nor decolonization. In its present form, H.R. 3024, in Section 

5.c.2. clearly states that if referenda turn out to be inconclusive, then the current 

Commonwealth status shall be maintained as an non-incorporated territory under 

the territorial clause of the US Constitution (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). The 

Congress, then, could exercise its powers to decide the disposition of the territory 

and the condition of its inhabitants. 

Just in case the subcommittee or the Resources Committee finally resolve the 

inclusion of Commonwealth status in the ballot as defined by H.R. 3024, I would 

like to add another specification to its definition. Not only should it be clearly 

defined as a non-incorporated territory under the territorial clause, but it should 

also be clearly stated in the ballot that, if it occurrs that the majority or a plurality of 

the voles cast are in favor of the current status, this will imply that the US Congress 

could decide the disposition of the territory and the condition of its inhabitants. 

I think we Puerto Ricans have a right to express our preference and to decide 

our future. But if there is no majority, or a plurality or majority of the people opt for 

the present situation in which Puerto Rico does not enjoy full self-government, 

after several referenda are celebrated, then Congress should exercise its powers to 

determine the disposition of the territory according to the Treaty of Paris of 1899 and 

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. Perhaps one way to do it 

without excluding some form of Puerto Rican participation would be for Congress 

to trasfer sovereignty to a democratically elected Constitutional Convention 

empowered to conduct negotiations with the US Congress. The Convention could 

then proceed to work out a mutually acceptable solution which, after approval by 

both the Convention and the US Congress, could be submitted for ratification by the 

Puerto Rican people in a referendum. 

9 
220 

On the Distribution of Funds for the Referendum 

In Section 7.b.2, H.R. 3024 refers only to political parties as instruments for 

campaigning or providing for the education of the voters regarding the alternativ·es 

to be presented in the ballot in the political status referendum. I would like to 

suggest an amendment to the wording of this section so that there is a possibility for 

distributing a fraction of the funds to bona fide movements organized precisely with 

the purpose of educating the people with reference to the status alternatives to be 

presented to the voters or as defenders of any particular formula. The emergence 0f 

new groups is foreseeable in view of the elimination of the existing Commonwealth 

as an alternative and the inclusion of Free Association, as well as ensuing from a 

possible decision by any one of the three existing parties not to participate. 

Therefore, H.R. 3024 should include a provision defining bona fide movements 

given the fact that the existing process for formal inscription of new political parties 

is costly and time consuming. Congress could require a minimum of signatures by 

members of any political movement in order to grant official recognition and each 

of the alternatives could be permitted a top limit of not more than three distinct 

political parties or political entities (movements) to officially support and 

propagandize the formula with access to public funds. These provisions would add 

flexibility to H.R. 3024 and could be extremely importance to promote ample 

democratic participation as well as to avoid a monopoly of the· process by the thn'e 

traditional Puerto Rican political parties. 

On procedure: 

Just a final word on procedures. Although, as mentioned above, any process for 

defining a full self-government status for Puerto Rito implies mutual selfdetermination and everyone directly involved in discussions or negotiations -or 

public hearings-, both from the American and Puerto Rican sides, should have the 

right of expressing his or her sincere feelings, appropriate care should be taken in 

order to avoid projecting the image or appearance that US Congressmen are 

inclined to harangue the Puerto Rican people in favor of any one formula or 

solution. Failing to do so, could only complicate the process unnecessarily and 

provoke claims on the basis of international law, particularly in the case of 

statehood. If a majority vote is obtained for incorporation to the metropolis which is 

suspect of not being a wholesome, free exercise of self-determination by Puerto 

Ricans because US politicians have been propagandizing statehood on the grounds 

that federal funds cuts are going to have a very negative impact on the lives of the 

inhabitants of Puerto Rico and, hence, the only way to avert an economic 

catastrophe is for Puerto Ricans to choose statehood, the whole process might be 

considered illegitimate according to international law standards. 

10 
221 

Therefore, exercising prudence and self-restraint is the best antidote against such 

an unfortunate outcome. Right now, the fact that the sub-committee has produced 

H.R. 3024 at a time so close to the 1996 general elections is affecting the credibility of 

the seriousness of this initiative. Hence, posposition of this process to the next nonelection year is highly recommended. 

11 

24-926 - 96 - 8 
Status Preference: 

Commonwealth 

Statehood 

Independence 

TABLE 1 

VALUE ACCORDED To BEING PUERTO RICAN 

Vs VALUE ACCORDED To BEING Us CITIZEN 

BY TRADITIONAL POLITICAL STATUS PREFERENCE* 

Being A Puerto 

Rican Is More 

Important 

298 (59.5) 

164 (42.8) 

57 (76. 0) 

Both Are 

Equally 

Important 

135 (27.0) 

115 (30.0) 

8 (10.7) 

Being a US 

Citizen is More 

Important 

57 (11.4) 

98(25.6) 

7(9.3) 

*Absolute and relative frequencies row percentages. 

No 

Response 

11 (2.2) 

6 (1.6) 

3(4.0) 

Total 

501 

383 

75 

N= 959 

~ 

~ 

~ 
223 

MOVIMIENTO DE RENOVACION NACIONAL 

MORENA 

Apartado Postal 7772 

Ponce, P.R. 00732 

February 9, 1996 

The Hon. Don Young 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Sir: 

Having been notified of your pronouncements with 

regard to the Puerto Rican status problem it is our wish 

to inform you the facts about the Independence Movement 

situation in Puerto Rico and our position with regard to 

the subject. 

First of all: No matter what electoral results may 

inform you or anybody, there are no l e ss than half a 

million Puerto Ricans who not only want, desire, and have 

a right to Freedom and Independence but who will also 

oppose any and all efforts, by whoever and to the last 

consequences, to continue denying us those inalienable 

rights. 

Second : Regardless of any and all convenient political 

pos turing , the United States has no right whatsoever to 

continue occupying the land History and Life have given 

our people to grow, live, develop, and enjoy life in. 

Dispassionately stated, the United States, due t o its own 

histo ry, should be the least imperially minded nati on in 

the world. 

Therefore: The United States should, in all conscience 

and decency and as soon as possible, divest itself of this 

colony and withdraw from our national life . 

To this effect, during the next few months, we shall 

be presenting each and every member of the Senate and the 
224 

House of Representatives of the United States, each and 

every State Governor, and the People of the Unit e d States 

through the main national newspapers with a plan for the 

transfer o f all political powers to Puerto Rico and the 

eventual recognition of our right to Liberty and Freedom. 

This proposed plan will include the following: 

1- A proposal for a Joint Resolution of Congress 

establishing the Independence of Puerto Rico as Publi c 

Policy of the United States and the e stablishment of a 

process by which the People of Puerto Rico will advene to 

their independence within five (5) years; 

2 - The process will entail the election of a Puerto 

Ri can Nati ona l Assembly that wi ll , through its specialized 

committee s and in c lose coopera tion with the Congress 

appointed standing committees, handle the transfer of a l l 

political powers to Puerto Rico in an orderly, just, and 

sensibl e manner within the time frame set for such 

process; 

3- At some previously established time during that 

process, all Puerto Ri cans will be given the choice to 

either remain U.S. citizens or to opt for the Puerto Ri can 

citizenship. This is the only fair process for neither 

should the right to U.S. citizenship of those who want to 

keep it, nor the rights of us Puerto Ricans to Liberty and 

Freedom be subjected to plebiscites and/or maiori tv 

decisions . 

We t hink i t fair for you to be duly advised of our 

position and resolve for, sometime soon, you may soon be 

called upon to discharge your duty as a f reedom l oving 

american. For the Movement of Puerto R · al 

Renewal I remain, 

w.c. to Hostosian National Congress 
225 

PRt:PAREO 8TATt-:MENT m· NOEL COLOK MAUTI KEZ 

Distinguished members of the co-ittee on Native American and 

Insular Affairs 

My name is Noel Col6n Martinez and I am here representing the 

Congreso Nacional Hostosiano, a coalition of organizations and 

individuals favoring the independence of Puerto Rico. Attached to 

this written statement you will find a list of the organizations 

and individual members of said Congreso. 

You have before you a translation of a text originally 

submitted in spanish, Puerto Rico's sole national language. It is 

not possible to assert that you want to advance a process of 

political self-determination, while at the same time you are using 

English in these proceedings, a language which over 60% of the 

population does not understand. 

We now wish to point our several observations regarding 

project H.R. 3024, titled "A Bill to Provide a Process Leading to 

full self-governement for Puerto Rico", submitted on March 6, 1996 . 

We acknowledge that said Bill, co-sponsored by the Houses President 

Newt Gingrich and a substantial number of Congressmen, represents 

an initiative which could contribute to the process geared to free 

Puerto Rico of its colonial relationship with the United States . 

The Congreso Nacional Hostosiano takes favorable note of the 

fact that this Bill finally recognizes that Puerto Rico is at 

present an unincorporated territory of the United States. Sa i d 

admission will be a piece of evidence in the international 

deliberations and consultations regarding Puerto Rices status. In 

the language of international law it constitutes and unequivocal 

admission by those signing athis Bill that Puerto Rico is still a 
226 

colonial territory. 

Even though neither the United states nor England supported 

resolution 43 47 (1988) of the United Nations, declaring that the 

1990's would be the International Decade for the Eradication foe 

Colonialism in the World, this does not imply that the United 

States Congress can refuse to comply with such a clear-cut mandate. 

Futhermore, this historic vote is a reflection of the solid 

consensus of the international communitty regarding this matter. 

The United States Goverment should not start the coming 

century without solving the Colonial status of Puerto Rico . Its 

moral leadership will continue being questioned. Its own 

international callings to respect other peoples self determination 

will go on being mocked if the United states Government can not put 

into practice what it preaches outside. In the near Latin American 

and Caribbean context, the presence of a colonial enclave is still 

a thorn hurting the democratic sensibilities of the peoples and 

leaders of the region. 

Acceptance by those signing the project that the Puerto Rican 

archipelago is still subject to congressional powers under the 

Territorial Clause (Art III, Sec. 3, Clause 2) has significant 

international consequences. This statement is inconsistent with 

the representation given by the United states delegation to the 

United Nations in 1953. Therefore, Congress should instruct the 

United states delegation at the United Nations to permit the 

corresponding bodies of the forum designated to resolve 

international disputes, to again assume jurisdiction over the case 

and to participate in the elaboration of a decolonizing process 
227 

which complies with the requisites established by said forum. 

Under the terms of the- Treaty of Paris and the jurisprudence 

established in the so-called Insular Cases, The United States 

Congress is the one called to implement the decolonization process. 

Bill H.R. 3024 does not comply with that international 

responsability. once Congress accepts, as the signatories of this 

Bill have, that this is a matter of colonial status, what 

immediately follows is to transfer political powers to the country 

subjected to the indignation of colonialism. 

In such cases where a majority of those concerned favor 

independence, said transfer implies immediate recognition of the 

new republic. Although the Congreso Nacional Hostosiano favor 

independence, we believe that it will be the product of 

deliberation and a democratic process. we acknowledge, just as was 

declared by the Oecolonization Committee of the United Nations in 

1978, that free sovereign association is also a decolonization 

option for Puerto Rico. Both are viable options based on the 

recognition of a different sovereignty which would allow Puerto 

Rico full participation in the international community. 

We believe Congress should facilitate a process in which 

Puerto Rico will choose from among the options the international 

community has found to be useful for getting out of the move of 

colonialism. 

On the other hand, The Congreso Nacional Hostosiano does not 

acknowledge the political integration of PUerto Rico to the United 

States as an option for decolonization. To us, statehood would be 

the culmination of a long colonial period. we believe, however, 
228 

that those Puerto Ricans favoring statehood should be given full 

participation in the process of transfering powers. If at the end 

of the process the statehood option wins and Puerto Rico i.s 

admitted as a state, as independence advocates we reserve our rigt.t 

to opt for secession and to continue fighting for independence by 

all means deemed necessary. 

Bill H.R. 3024 does not provide a procedural solution to the 

present impasse. With the threat of the loss of u.s. citizenshi~, 

this Bill strives to force Puerto Ricans to vote for statehood, an 

option rejected by 53% of the electorate in 1993) to then make the 

United States deny what it does not want to offer: statehood 

proper. By the absurd logic of this bill, the decolonization 

process must go through that disagree able and dangerous stage. 

That is a mistaken approach. 

Besides, Bill H.R. 3024 seeks to condition the exercise of the 

right to self-determination to the future actions of a Congress 

which has historically given very little time and interest to the 

solution of a problem of which it is ignorant and about which it 

has stated imperialist positions on more than one occasion. 

The right approach was proposed by Representative Ronald 

Dellums some years ago. His project was titled "Bill to Confer 

Sovereign Powers to the Commonwealth and to Provide for The SelfDetermination of Puerto Rico". We include a copy of said documen·t 

along with this statement for your consideration and we formally 

request that it be part of the official records for the 

deliberations of this Committee. 

According to the terms of Section 1 of said project, it is 
229 

declared that it will be the policy of the Un i ted States Congress 

to respect the sovereign rights of the Puerto Rican nation . 

Congress also acknowledges that Puerto Rico is a Caribbean and 

Latin American nation with full rights to its political seldetennination. 

In Section 2 of said project it is established that Congress 

shall proceed to transfer the political powers which the three 

powers of the United States Government hold over Puerto Rico at 

present. Said powers, as described in Title II of the project, 

would be bestowed to a Constituent Assembly. The Constituent 

Assembly is empowered to deliberate and approve the political body 

which will later negotiate with the United Sates Government all the 

aspects of the chosen procedure required by the bilateral agreement 

of both nations. 

Title III of the project instructs that a Negotiating 

Commission of the United states and Puerto Rico be created. The 

negotiators for Puerto Rico would be designated by the Constituent 

Assembly, while the United states counterpart would be chosen by 

the President of the United states, in counsel with the 

congressional leaders. 

The Congress of the United States cannot carry out processes 

of free political determination in a territory under its absolute 

power and control as the present bill points out. since 1977 the 

Puerto Rican Bar Association concluded that "the inconditional 

presence of United States mil i tary bases in Puerto Rico, the 

massive federal aid through programs of social wealfare, and the 

lack of powers of the people over its natural resources, such as it 
230 

stands today, decidedlY . affect the process of 

determination •.• " 

If we are truly talking about and act of free determinaticn 

and acknowledgement of Puerto Rico's sovereignty, then it follows 

that the liberation of the Puerto Rican political prisoners is in 

order, and that it be clearly established that only the persons 

born in Puerto Rico, and the off spring of parents born in Puerto 

Rico currently living in Puerto Rico shall have the right to vote. 

Finally, and adequate international supervision must be guaranteed 

throughout the process of self-determination. 

If the avove is not adequately attended to, the Puerto Rican 

community the international community, and the democratic 

conscience of the United states people will conclude that this is 

· a fake process which merits no respect. 

The members of The Congreso Nacional Hostosiano have a firn 

and unwaivable compromise to achieve Puerto Rico's independence, 

and we are absolutely sure of our final victory, with the supper: 

of the united states Congress, or without it. 

We Puerto Ricans would like that the imperialist prepotency 

and arrogance which accompany in the acts of this sub-committen 

will not bring further division and anxiety to our country. 
231 

Government of Puerto Rico 

House of Representatives 

Honorable 

Zaida Hernandez Torres Speaker 

Hon. Elton Gallegly 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Native American 

and Insular Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Hon. Congressman: 

March 1-1996 

I have had the opportunity to peruse your Committee response to Concurrent 

Resolution 62. I wish to express my deep appreciation of the effort made to respond 

to the Legislature and people of Puerto Rico, and of the obvious dedication and hard 

work that was put into analyzing the alternatives to solving Puerto Rico's status 

problem. 

With Concurrent Resolution 62 the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly was 

seeking precisely to address to Congress our people's just claim, to be told whether 

our aspirations for self governement will be granted, and how will it happen. 

Your Committee have acted responsibly and performed a sterling service to the 

people of Puerto Rico and tc American Democracy, under the Right to Redress for 

Citizens' Grievances. 

We are pleased that the analysis of the claims for "enhancements to 

Commonwealth" has yielded the obvious result that the proposal presented before the 

voters was misleading and utopian. It was highly unfair to the people of Puerto Rico 

to promise them an ideal status full of privileges and prerrogatives, without the 

corresponding responsibilities, and without any sense of what the possible 

consequences might be. 

The process proposed in this bill is highly fair open and honest. It provides 

realistic alternatives and an implementation procedure that ensures the selfdetermination of the Puerto Rican people. We will be able to choose between the 

Capitol. Son Juan. Puerto Rk:o IXJQOI Tel: 72~3449 • 721-6040em. 247 • 297 
232 

Permanent Union to the United States and a separate full Puerto Rican sovereignty. 

It provides for consultation of the people as the transition process goes along. The 

alternatives offered will be permanent, valid under the United States Constitution and 

International law, and will invest our people with true sovereignty, unlike the current 

so-called Home Rule under Commonwealth. 

As speaker of the House, I welcome this response on behalf of the legislative 

Assembly. We stand ready to work hand in hand with your Committee in all activities 

necessary to carry out the proposals in this bill and initiate the definitive solution to 

Puerto Rico's colonial problem. 
The Honorable Don Young 

Chairman 

Committee on Resources 

U. s. House of Representatives 

Washington, D. c. 20515 

Dear Congressman Young: 

233 

March 12, 1996 

Thank you for your letter of February 14, 1996 enclosing 

the recent published book, "Hispanic Americans in Congress", which 

certainly shows that Puerto Rico has been close to Congress for 

many years, demanding, first, Puerto Rico's right to U. S. 

citizenship and, next, its incorporation as a state of the Union. 

This was the original position of Commissioner Federico 

Degetau, representing the Republican Party of Puerto Rico in 1900. 

Later on, Commissioner Tulia Larrinaga raised the issue of 

the non-compliance of Congress with its promises and insisted in 

requesting U. s. citizenship for Puerto Rico. Commissioner Munoz 

Rivera, also, insisted in maintaining that Congress had not kept 

the promises for Puerto Rico and, finally, voted for U. s. citizenship, which was granted in 1917. Puerto Ricans understood that this was an implicit promise for statehood. Later, Santiago 

Iglesias introduced a statehood bill. Finally, Bolivar Pagan, 

Jorge Luis Cordova Diaz, and Ba l tasar Corrada del Rio were all 

statehood advocates. 

We are very happy and, indeed, deeply grateful to you for 

drafting Bill, H .R. 3024, which you have introduced in Congress, 

as Chairman of the Native American Insular Affairs Subcommittee, 

which finally opens the road to Puerto Rico to make a decision 

on its ultimate political status, including statehood as an 

alternative, which was the implicit understanding under which the 

people of Puerto Rico welcomed the American forces of General Miles 

in 1898. 
The Honorable Don Young 

Page 2 

March 12, 1996 

234 

Thank you very much, Congressman Young, for your brilliant 

leadership in trying to settle the status problem of Puerto Rico 

in the dignified manner that becomes the United States Congress 

and the people of the United States. 

Sincerely, '!---. 

~ c."i-~~-

Luls"A. Ferre 
235 

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, M.C. 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1522 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

March 13, 1996 

Thank you for your letter of March 8, and please accept my congratulations for your cosponsorship of HR. 3024, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. This bill, I 

believe, constitutes a clear and commendable response to my October 17, 1995 testimony in 

Washington, D.C. before a joint hearing of your Subcommittee and the House 

Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. 

You may recall my exhortation on that occasion; I spoke the following words, in reference 

to Puerto Rico's political status plebiscite of November 14, 1993: 

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 formally advocating that 

self-determination be exercised without delay, in a permanently definitive manner. 

Just five months later, that call has been emphatically answered. 

I salute you for the leadership and for the statesmanship that you have exhibited by cosponsoring legislation that upholds the highest principles of authentic self-<letermination: 

H.R 3024 offers the people of Puerto Rico a responsible, dignified, eminently-viable 

mechanism for emerging at last from the bottomless quagmire of indefinition with which we 

have grappled throughout the entire 98 years of United States sovereignty over our territory. 

In accepting your invitation to present testimony when your Subcommittee on Native American 

and Insular Affairs conducts its March 23 hearing on the United States-Puerto Rico Political 

Status Act, I extend kindest regards and shall look forward to greeting you personally next 

week in San Juan. 

Sincerely, 

Pedro Rossell6 
Hon. Rep. EUon Gateg!Jj 

U. s. Ho~Ue. o6 Rq>Jtue.n.ta.tive 

flla.61ungt<m, vc t0 51 s 

Hon • Rep.: 

236 

P. 0. Box 1447 

Ponc.e, PuiV!Xo !U.c.o 00733-1447 

lla!tclt 4, 1996 

11/e aJte p11.oud tD p11.Uent owr. 4.i.nc.vr.e wi..l.h that .the. people' 4 

cltoi.c.e be. di.vi.de.d .i.ntD .thu e :tlrAee poli;ti.CJL(. c.onc.lw.i.on-6 6 OJt .the 

.tlu.te Up1LU4i.on o6 oWl dVJ<orJJ.a.cy: 

sto.tehood 

A44oc.Ulte.d Republic. 

CCllllpLete I ndependenc.e. 

Thank IJOU. 
237 
238 

REPUBUCA ASOCIADA 

PUERTO RICO "PRIMERA REPUBLICA 

ASOCIADA DE LOS EST ADOS UNIDOS" 

CUARTA OPCION AL STATUS EN ISSUE 

UNICO CREADOR: MANUEL E. ROMAN VALENTIN - REPUBUCANO 

APARTADO 417 MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO -00681 TEL. (809) - 834-2764 

January 23, 1996 

The honorable Don Young 

United states House of 

Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: 

RE: Hearings for February 1996 

Puerto Rico's Political Status 

in Puerto Rico 

I respectfully request an opportunity to express the concepts of the ASSOCIATED 

REPUBLIC, the only democratic independence, to be included in this Congressional Hearings. 

Resolution 23 of Puerto Rico's Conventional Constitution of 1952. the people of Puerto 

Rico retains the right to propose and to accept modifications in mutual consent between the people 

of Puerto Rico and the United States of America in our relationship with the United states. 

Public Law 600 of 1950 recognizes our right toward the maxim of self government. 

As the Chairman of this Congressional Hearings and Congress consider the 

appropriate course of action to a future plebiscite on Puerto Rico's political status, it is 

essential that the dignity and self respect of the people of Puerto Rico be a matter of the 

highest consideration to our future relationship with the United states. 

CANDIDATO A GOBERNADOR 1996 y PRESIDENTE DE PUERTO RICO 

NOMINACION DIRECfA 
239 

REPUBLICA ASOCIADA 

PUERTO RICO " PRIMERA REPUBLICA 

ASOCIADA DEWS EST ADOS UNIDOS " 

CUARTA OPCION AL STATUS 

UNICO CREAOOR; MANUEL E. ROMAN VALENTIN -IUPUBUCANO 

APART ADO 417-MAYAGOEZ, P.R. 00681-417 - TEL. (787) 834-2764 

Hooorable Represeolante Doo Y ouog 

Presideole de Ia Comisi6n de Recmsos 

de Ia Omara de Represeotantes 

de los Esl.ados Unidos 

VISias en San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Estimado Represeotante Doo young: 

1) INTRODUa::ION 

10 de marzo de 1996 

Pooeocia en esp;Dii>l sobre d status politico 

de Puerto Rico d 23 de marzo de 1996 

Muy buenos elias seiior Presidmle de Ia Comisi6o de Recmsos de Ia Omara de Representantes 

de los Esl.ados Unidos de America y st'Jlores coogresistas de esta ComisiOn.. 

Bienvenidos a Puerto Rico, • LA ISLA DEL ENCANfO • para ce1tbrar vistas sobre d status 

politico de Puerto Rico en nuestras relacioaoe:s polilicas coo los Esl.ados Unidos de AmErica. 

TRATADODEPARIS DELDlA lODE Dl<nMBREDE 1898 

Los F.s1ados Unidos de America le pagaroo a Espaiia VEINTE MILLO~ DE OOLARES POR 

PUERTO RICO Y POR OTRAS ISLAS POSEJDAS POR ESP ANA (Leyes 

Fnndammtales de Puerto Rico, Nueva Edici6o Revisada, P&gina 118) 

Mi oombre es MANUEL E. ROMAN VALENTIN, Aguadeiio, Republicano, vdenoo de Korea 

y VldDin- Peosiooado coo veinlocho (28) aiios de sercicio miiitar y Guardia Nlcional Ain:a de 

Puma Rico Y UNICO CREADOR DE LA IUPUBUCA ASOCIADA. UNICA INDEPENDENOA 

DEMOCRATICA. 

FJ 6 de octubre de 1996uotifiqui: a Ia Comisi6n Eslalal de EJeccianes mi CANDIDATURA 

para GOBERNAOOR. NOMINACION DIRECT A. Y PRESIDENTE DE PUERTO RICO." PRIMERA 

IUPUBUCA ASOCIADA DE LOS EST ADOS UNID0S. CUARTA OPCION AL STATIJS, de ser 

la libre delmDiDaci6n dd pueblo de Puerto Rico en las elecciooes de uovianbre de 1996. 
240 

Honorable Representante Don Young P;lgina2 10 de marzo de 1996. 

2) El F.stado Libre A.sociado de Puerto Rjco tieoe forma de gobiemo REPUBIJCANA DE 

REPUBIJCA: Poder F,ieculivo, Legislalivo y Judicial. Tieoe solxnnia inlema. derecbos de 

constituci{m, de legisl.aci6n. de gobiemo,y de jurisdicci6o.. 

3) DEFINICION DE • COMMONWEALTH •, REPUBIJCA 

• THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO •. REPUBIJCA DE PUERTO RICO pero en 

asociaci6n pexmanenle con las F.stados Unidos. Obligaciones y deberes. como pufl10n'iqueiios y 

ciudadanos americanos, en nuestras relaciooes politicas con los F.slados Unidos. 

4) El concepto de Ia REPUBIJCA ASOCIADA es sometido a ustedes para so consideraci6n y sec 

incluida en el pr6ximo plebiscita. La sobmmia actual (REAL) de Puerto IOC.o estar.i en los Eslados 

Unidos como ciudadadanos americanos basta que el pueblo de Puerto IOC.o Ia remmcie. 

5 DEFINICION BASICA DE LA REPUBIJCA ASOCIADA EN • ISSUE • EN EL 96 

PUERTO RICO • PRIMERA REPUBIJCA ASOCIADA DE LOS EST ADOS UNIDOS 

UNICA INDEPENDENCIA DEMOCR.ATICA, HASI'A QUE PUERTO RICO SEA EST ADO 51 

0 HASI'A QUE SE R.ENUNCIE LA CIUDADANIA AMERICANA HACIA UNA INDEPENDENCIA 

ABSOLUTA. CUARTA OPCION AL STATIJS EN LAS ELECCIONES DE NOVJEMBRE DEL 96. 

E1 GOBERNADOR SE CONVERTIRIA EN PRESIDENTE DE PUERTO RICO. ELECCIONES 

PRESIDENCIALES CADA CUATRO (4) ANOS). EL VOTO PRESIDENCIAL Y VICEPRESIDENTE DE 

LOS EST ADOS UNIDOS DE SER APROBADO POR EL CONGRESO. 

NUESTRAS DOS NACIONES . PRESIDENTES. CONSTITUCIONES . IDIOMAS. 

CIUDADANIA COMUN, MONEDA, MERCADO, SEGURIDAD Y DEFENSA COMUN, BASES 

MnlTARES. EL EST ADO IJBRE ASOCIADO A SU MAXIMO DESARROllO POIJTICO Y 

ECONOMICO, DE SER LA IJBRE DETERMINACION DEL PUEBW DE PUERTO RICO. 

6) OTitASDEFINICIONES 

E1 derecbo politiCo del pueblo de Puerto IOC.o a retenec o a remmciar Ia 01idadania de los Eslados 

Unidos de America. E1 derecbo poiitico de los ciudanos de los Eslados Unidos coo residencia en 

Puerto Rjco por un aiio a releoer" o a remmciar Ia CUIDADANIA PUERTORRIQUENA. Ley Jones de 

1917). Articulo 5, Nuevo articulo incertado por Ley del Coogreso de 4 de marw de 1927) 
241 

Hooorable Representante Don Young P3gina3 10 de octubre de 1996 

1) RESOLUCION NUMERO 23 DE LA CONVENCION CONSTITUYENTE DE PUERTO RICO 

de 1952: 

El pueblo de Puerto Rico rdiene el derecho de proponez- y aceptar modificacioners en los 

terminos de sus relaciones con los Estados Unidos de America, de modo que estas en todo ticmpo sean Ia 

expresi6n de acuerdo libremente concooado entre el pueblo de Puerto Rico y los Eslados Unidos de 

America. 

8) La Ley PUblica 600, aprobada el 3 de julio de 1950 autoriz6 al pueblo de Puerto Rico a 

organizar una forma republicana de gobiemo de acuerdo con una coostituci6n de su propia seleccion. 

con Ia naluraleza de un • convenio •. Tambien mconociO el derecbo que el pueblo de Puerto Rico 

tiene al gobieno propio. Fue aprobada por el pueblo de Puerto Rico m el refmDdwn de 4 de junio de 

1951. La Ley 600 tue firmada por el Presidente de los Estados Unidos Hmy S. Truman. 

9) En 1952 PUERTO RICO, E1 EST ADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO, se 

convirli6 m una REPUBLICA ASOCIADA DE LOS EST ADOS UNIDOS bajo las definiciones de 

REPUBLICA y de "commonweallh". como puettorriquaios y ciudadanos de los Eslados Unidos. 

10) DEFINICIONES DE REPUBLICA (ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA ( pagina 391, volumen 23) 

a) Forma de gobiemo en que el poder de sober.mia reside en el pueblo sea un cuerpo inlegro de 

cuidadanos activos o con mayoria de ellos. Cuaquier gobiemo organizado de esta forma es considerado 

una repUblica. El pueblo pucde tener soberania formal y no soberania actual (REAL 

b) La forma de gobiemo republicana puede existir con un minimo de libedad actual e igualdad. 

(Puerto Rico tieoe forma de gobiemo republicana: Poder Ejeculivo, Legislativo y Judicial). 

c) REPUBLICA. Tambien se refiere a cualquier estado que fue commonweallh..( Encyclopedia 

Americana. a.b y c) p3gina 391. volumen 23. incluyendo Ia definici6n de COMMONWEAL Til)) 

d) Pais o regiOn en el cual el poder ejeculivo del estado y los miembros de Ia legislalura son 

elegidos por el pueblo. Acualmente Ia mayoria de Ia naciones del mundo. incluymdo a los Estados 

Unidos y Rusia. son repllblicas ( NUEVA ENCICLOPEDIA STANDARD, pigina R. 173) 

11) La investidura de Ia ciudadania ami:ricana no aJtero el •treaty stalus" de Puerto Rico ni 

tampoco IUvo como conseml'f!cia su incorporacion a Ia Union. Su efecro recay6 sobre las 

personas no sobre el territorio Dccisi6n del Tribunal Supremo, Caso Balzac VS. people of Puerto 

258. u.s. 298 (1922). 
242 

Honorable Representante Don Young pilgina4 10 de marzo de 1996 

12) PROJECI'O DE LEY DE INDEPENDENCJA PARA PUERTO RICO DE 1936 

REFERENDUM: INDEPENDENCJA SI 0 NO en noviembre de 1937. 

El24 de febrero de 1936 el Senador Tydings present6 en el Senado de los Estados Unidos este 

projecto ofreciendole a Puerto Rico Ia independcncia en altemtiva con el status quo colonial 

a) De triunfar Ia independencia se crearia un "COMMONWEAL m OF PUERTO RICO " 

b) A los seis (6) meses de inaugurado el • commonwealth los ciudadanos de los Estados 

Unidos residentes en Puerto Rico y todos los naturales de Puerto Rico nacidos en Puerto Rico, teodrian 

que escoga- entre Se£ cuidadanos de Estados Unidos o de Puerto Rico. 

c) despoils de cuatro (4 ) aiios de establecido el • commonwealth de 1937 se reconoceria a 

Puerto Rico como una repUblica independiente: PRIMER REFERENDUM ABORT ADO. 

13) ACTA DE LA ESTADIDAD PARA PUERTO RICO DE 1977 Y OTROS PROPOSITOS 

Se someti6 el14 de enero de 1977 por el Presidente de los Estados Unidos, Gernld IU"onl. 

Fue aprobada poe El Senado y Ia Cfunara de Representantes ofreciendole a! pueblo de Puerto Rico Ia 

estadidad , bajo Ia Constituci6n de los Estados Unidos, si el pueblo Ia deseaba y de Se£ Ia libre obci6n 

del pueblo de Puerto Rico. ( se incluye) 

14) Desde 1952 a! presente todas las elecciones gene£aies ban sido plebiscitarias. Los Presidentes 

de los partidos politicos de Ia estadidad, estado libre asociado e independencia (sociaiista o comunista) 

ban sido los Unicos candidatos para gobemador de Puerto Rico. Solicitan donativos para sus formulas 

de status. Dichas formulas no ban estado en • ISSUE • desde 1952 a! presente. 

15) El pueblo de Puerto Rico ba expresado su libre determinaciOn bacia las Ires formula de status. 

en las elecciones desde 1952 a! presente. Cualquie£ independencia renunciandose Ia 

ciudadania de los Estados Unidos seria rechazada por Ia gran mayoria del pueblo de Puerto Rico. 

16) PLEBISCITO DE 1993. 

a) Fue un engaiio a! pueblo de Pueblo de Puerto Rico y a! Congreso de los Estados Unidos y 

discriminaci6n politica. No se incluy6 Ia Unica independencia democratica, REPUBUCA ASOCIADA, 

PUERTO RICO "PRIMERA REPUBUCA ASOCIADA DE LOS EST ADOS UNIDOS ", CUARTA 

OPClON AL STATUS. 
243 

Hononblc Represeotante Doo young l'igina 5 10 de marzo d 1996 

b) No Cue un mandalo al Coogreso de los los F.3lados Unidos. No obluvo mayoria del 

cincuentiuno porcieoto < st <J&), o mas. 

c) Fue una violaci6n ala ~LUDON NUMER.O 23 DE LA CONVENDON CONS1T11JYENTE DE PUERTO RICO. NOSE lNO.UYO LA CUARTA OPOON AL STATIJS 

16) PUERTO RICO~ UNA NADON CON SU OUDADANIA PUERTORRIQUENA. 

NADON: Conjunto formado lXl£ individuos a los que la un.idad de taritorio de origen e historia, 

de cultura. de costumbres o de idioma inc.lina a la CXliDUlllllidad de vida y crea la coociencia de un 

deslino counJn. ( Dicciooario EnciclopOOico vox 

11) CUIDADANIA PUERTORRIQUENA RECONOCIDA POR LA LEY JO~ DE 1917 

Todos los ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos que han residido o que en lo sucesivo residiecen, en 

la isla por un aiio, serin ciudadanos de Poorto Rico.( Articulo 5, nuevo articulo incertado par Ley 

del Coogreso de 4 de matzo de 1921) 

18) OUDADANIA DE LOS EST ADOS UNIDOS, LEY JO~ DE 1917 

Toda pm100a nacida en Pumo Rico en o despues del 11 de abril de 1899, sujeta a la jurWicci6n 

de los Estados Unidos, que en la fecha en que esta Ley entre en vigor resida en Pumo Rico u o1ro 

1euilorio bajo la sobetania de los Eslados Unidos y que no sea cuidad.ana de los Estados Uoidos, bajo 

cualquiEr o1r.1. Icy, se decbra por la presente cuidadana de los Estados Unido5 ( Ley de Naciooalidad 

de 1940-PUblica N" 853- Congreso 76-aprobada el14 de octubre de 1940, para comenzar a regir 

noventa di&'l despues-Artiiculo 202)) 

Mnchisjmas gracias par haberme c:ooc.edido esle lumo para depooeo- sobre el sblus politico 

~--.. -= ......... ~_ 

DEPONENTE, MANUEL ROMAN 

CREADOR DE LA Ra'UBUCA ASOCIADA 
244 

REPUBLIC 

...ben of tropical renera or of tropical 

laJiu. Some migrant 1cnera that once eniortd an almost cosmot~olitan distribution, failed 

1 arvive in northern climes where only their 

loa.l remains acquaint us with the extent of 

w formu ranic.. 

Greece.-The title of the first work in syltem·· 

atic f'O~tical philosophy, Plato's PulittiD (writ· 

ten in lhe lint h:df of the ••h ccntur~ a.c.) is 

tr:~nsl~tc:~ as Rrtuulic. In this work, Plato develops his conce,•tion of a s:ood society : a ri~ritlly 

('r,uiJM d!}' w.!C. .1 l2y a m.i!iurr. &lid in· telh:c11~1l arillou:>Cy, culminating in a ·philosopher·· 

kins:. The people, those who have to work lor 

tl1e neccssiues of life, have no t>Oiitic::~l ri~:lus. 

Nothing cmtl~ he f3rther remnved from the modern idc.1 of a repuhlic-3nd still, the title is justi· 

lied, for tlte whole ri~:id hierarchy is devise~ to 

insure the ll31tility anti the welfare of the whole 

rather than ol 3ny spccil\c s:roun or person. Each 

mcmhcr ul the ll3te is supJKtsctl to per! orm on I)' 

&hat lur1cliun which i.l ltc:sl sui1cU 10 l1is clt:lri4ctcr 

• and :thility. Pulitic:tl ine<ruality to Plato corres· 

: REPUBLIC, a.,fsm:p of raremmcnt in which. 't {Knuls to lite: natural inequality ol hum:m facuhi~ Rjrn '&,der rests wtth the (>Caple. c•ihcr1rnTi ' an.t need.. The: l:ollcr ju•tiftes the former au.t · enure y of acuve att&cns or with il htilor the lew who knnw ltow to rule ltest must rule the 

·11'1 of iL On the basis of f'Opular SO\'ereif~ll~·· many in the interest of all. Plato's Rt,..Wlic is 

: 'r rowmmcnt is exercised hy directly or mch- therefore a critique of the es:alitarian Athenian 

.IIC!ly elected mas:istrates or representatives. Any democracy of the Periclean t~triod where the con•-

prmment which is or~r3nired in this form is t mnn people ruler!, according to Plato, such a 

lllli<l<red a republic rven thou~:h the people may state could not prot~trly IIC called a republic, . for 

&d Cllly formal and no • • the welfare of all ecmld not thus IIC preserved. 

ecrec o f'OPU ar vcrct~; , The rl3ssic::~l Greek city states ol the 5th and 

~~~ticipation ol the people in the s:ovcrnn•ent:d •th cmlllrics a.c. may he c::~lled republics inSofar · f10Cm varies considerably !rom one repuhlic u the s:nverummt Wl<S normally and directly 

•IIIOlher and even within the same rep\lblic at elected by Nthe people," but within this general 

tit cifterent periods of its de,•elopment. The frai'I)Cwork aurlt wicle differences prevatled as 

·-,.blican form of s:ovemment may exist with a that IICtween the egalitarian democracy of Peri-

. ........, of actual freedom nnd equ.1lity; suf· clt::tn Athens and the aristocratic-military ulih!ct and franchise may be confined to~ rd:.:i,.eiy o:<>rcl>y of S11at1:.. Everywhere, Nthe peopit'' con-

·.,11 ~<Ction of the f10pulation, and the repnb- llituted only A part ol the adult population-a 

;Da institutions (ane:mi.Jiies, p:trliamcms, coun· minnrity cvtn in demCJCratic Atl&cn~lavcs, 

'ib, dections, etc.) may in reAlity l~t clomin.1tecl resident aliens, and women were not considered 

:IJ POWerful factions, social classes, even indivi- citizens with f'Oiitic~l ri~:hts. The !act that the 

·-.u. A republic, therefore, may or may not be: Greek city Slates developed on the b:lsis of an 

:14lmcxncy. unfree ponulation 5ltarpenetl the conAict among 

}. Chan(in( Meanin(S ol Republic.-Tn the~ the vonous !actions ol the small citizen L<xl)', 

.'piitic::al tradition of the West, prior to the CJIICCially IJCtwa:n the aristocratic and dcmncratic 

~rion. and French revolutions, the term rc· grouftS, :tnd adclcd int~rn."11 to national disunity. 

'Jti,lic could refer to any state which was a elliii- Violent c<>m('ICtitiun lor the l•e~:cmony of Greece 

.~hh.That iStO say, wlllth «.1$ iibt 1ott1niy and (nr power within tlac city state led to constant ·l"'ji'il!r'Crdespot but was s:overned in the com- warfare. until the Greek city · states succumloed 

;... interest rather than in the interest of one to the Macedoni:tn conquerors ( 338 B.C.) . The 

jlnon or clique. In this sense ol commonwealth, weak remnants ol loc~l independence s:ran ted uy 

J.IINrchy or an aristocracy could he called ~ the M:oceclonian kin~:s were finally lost when the 

~it if the covernment created and Jlrunloted Roman• defe3ted the last ~ll ance of Greek states ! .. CZIIMIOn interest ond well are, and the term in 146 B.C. (..tel be applied to states in which f'Oiitical rights Rome .-At the very time of the Roman con- L'!" rutly restricted. Thus ]e:tn Bodin, cnte quest of Greece, the Roman republ ic itself cnlered '« lbc most inAuential political Uteorists ol the the phase ol its final crisis. It was Rome which 

t

tentury, discussed under the !itlc "repultlic" created the idea as well as the re:tlity of the -.a;t,y, the ariStocratic, and the popular repuLiic as a SJtec:il\c form ol the state. The wort! 

Ba de La Brede et de Uontesquieu, in is deri\'ed !rom the Latin rts tvblica, meaning 

liL'.Et I du Lais (S;irit af tilt Llru•s. 17~8), somethins: which pertains (IICiongs) t~ the people. 

lltiaal a republican Jl'O\'emment as a stote in which is the common concern (eause) ol the 

either the collecti\'e bod)• of the people, people. The term thus contrasts with res ;rWata cular families should be possessed ol the or familiaris, thot wh ich is a privatt or f~mi!y 

power." It is only at the time of the matter and concern. The fact that the Roman 

.and Frmch revolutions that ret•uLiic state in its history-making form emerged alter 

. he connotation of a free stAle with con- the overthrow ol the early kin~:ship (ahout 510 

llltttiooally defined and guaranteed civil ris:hts a. c.) determined the definition of " repuJ.I ic" as 

IHbo:nies ol the indi,•idu:tl, ond onlj• durin~ tloe opposed to mon:~rchy ancl despotism : the rule of 

J .ond early 20th century were the manti old . the kin~s was regarded as government iu the 

J:rx21011s of the s~lfr:oge le~ally alJOiisltctl in j interest of a I pri\'~lc) Joe:rsrm ur iamily rathcr 

tad~ counlru~s of ~he \\'cJJcm \\Orld 1 d£o.n in 1he ct~mmr,~n int~rcst tJi I he JI(;IJJ,Jc.: l!ut 

chance m 1hc mC"antng oi the term rc· the rtr•ul,far "hid• r,r.;.:inittcrl in the ,,,·crrl•r''"' 

rt:ft<;<t,s. th~ deoelopment ol I rcedc.m. in J ui tlte mon~~chy ;.nd "hich loe:cllme the Jortrle an•l 

cvtltz:tllon. The followms: JustortcaJ grco.tness ot f<"me tlul not h;.,e am· d<mtoer:uic 

may illu.•trate this process J.y tliscuHin~: co.nnl<tauon. The kin~:•lo ip w~s O\'ertiortown loy tl1c 

ltSS:CS and t)·pes of repuuhc:>nllm. artstucrocy, ami dum11: its almCJSI f~ur hunolrC<J 

GNcicLope~;/.l /lrtc~ iC/1/VAI 
245 

reproo1 

dwctl, rqw~. To produce apin rvlicics of t~c Rc~ub,lian puty 

~! ;"=/a!:,':'~!~~~t~ct~~~~; n~~~llc~~~!li~/u~~~j.~~hcm, n. or repres~t; to brtnc to the memory The act of republishing; 1 new or imaa;ination.-nproducer, rC•· publication of something before pro•dU'si::r, "·One who or that wlticlt publiJh.cd. · reproduces.-rcproductloa, r4!!•pi'O"- npublith, ri•pub'lish, v.r. To pubduk'shon, n. The act or proast ol llsh. anew; to publish apin, as in a reproduc:inc; the pnx=s whereby new edition. new individuals U"'C eenented and repud.Jate, ri•pli'd.i·it, v.r.-rqrlliJ'-

~r~~~~:rp~:;t;p~: :=:.,;;:~:~":~c!7o ~~ft. f~ scnted ancw.-reproductl•e, rl!·· rcpudill1Jf1 a a.stinc off, a divorce.] 

pro•duk'tiv, 11. Pcrtaininc to repro- To c:aJt away; to nject; to disc:ard; 

duc:tion; tmdin1 to reproduce. to disavow; to divorce; to refuse 

r;:;,~:r~J ~~df~~;;e!:?~~· :i'=~ ~:p-:~.o,~~:~·J.:~·~.~!ihC:, d!.b'iL. or censure addrl::3ted to a penon; "f"l'iatiD.J The act of rcpudiatin&; 

blamee:rprl::3tcd toone'sfacc;centurc re1cction; disavowal; divorce; refutal for a fauh; repnhension; rebuke; on the pan of a aovemmcnt to pay reprimand. · dcbu contracted by a fanner ~-

reprove, ri·prOv', f/.t.-..,.•prtnwl, ,.,.. cmment.-rcpucllator, ri•pU'd.i•i•• 

prwin,. (fr. rfprolftiD", to blame, to rtr, "·One who repi.Uliates. 

~:_:::,~. ·::~.~~~j'T!ro:id;; "::s~~=:.-~::~~~[Fr~·~~,!: to reprehend; to npres. diupprovaJ p.atUij L. r~ptqnm~n d, from "PUf1UI1 

of (to rtprvu• tint); to serve to ad- to resist-rt, apintt, and pt,~~M, co moaish.-rcproYabJe, ri•prCS'n•bl, ftaht. PUCNAClOUS.} The state o! 

:;.w~:Jocf~ein~~.:!~:~ ::u:e ora~::!em.:~~~·r:i:;~ ri•prO'nl, 11. N:c ot rcpf'OYinc; ad• unwiUincncu; opposition iD. narure 

::',0.,.~.·~. ;•·rq>roonet.~, ""',-""ro•'es.ri-- or qualitier; conuviery.-"PUI• , v ... 0 \iW ~... oaac. ri•PUI'n&nt, a. [L. rrfwpuuu' 

nprovl.DrJr, ri·pr-G'vinl•l4 Al'h. In "PIIf'I""'U, {)Pt. of rrpupo. Stand· 

r:;:IJ~tC: ~(fr. r~ptill, from ~~ ~ri:~ ~s~if~U:~:o~; L. rtpnlu, creepmg, from rrpD, (1 statement rtpupant to commoa rtpntm, to aeep; akia to strpo, to sense); hirhly diswteful; offensive 

creep. SDPENT.) Crecvinr; movina (1 course r~pwtndlft to him).-npu1• 

fe~~:ro':c~!~'c; io:;i ':e~1e~= r:;:i~, 'A .~~,~~a:.''r't a:.:~sa, from 1n a general sense, an animal that rtpcilo, rtpwlsum-r,, back, and ptllo, moves on iu belly, or by mcam of to drive. JIZPU..] The condition of smalJ, •hart le-p; a enwlincCJ"'taNl'e; beinr repelled or drivm badt by 

tpecifially, uo/. &a animal bclon•inl fore%; the act of drivin1 bad; a to the cJ.ast Reptilia; a l:fOVehnc, ebeck or defeat; refw&l; denia.l.--v.t. abject, or mean penon.-reptJ.Uaa, -repulsed, rtpulsiffl. To repel; to ~(P·til'J•an, "· Bcion110c to the dasr drive bact; to refw:e; to reject.-" 

das~K~~~i:7'~ r~fJl~rumaJ of lhe ~:~':::.'_~::~::;!~, ri:~~~on~ \/ republlc:. n•pub'ht n. [Fr. rlpu- [L. rtpu/sio.} The let of repellinc; ~· L. rnpt~bltca-ra, an atfa.~r, physia, a term often applied to the mter·n.t,andpub/rca, (em. o(pldlliCJ.U'' action which two bodies exen upon 

~ 

~P.u.blic. Jl!AL, PUBUC.l A~mm :-11 one another whe-n they rend to if.i.Ith ;-a politica.l cOmmu.nt tn inaease their mutual di"anc:e.- WiUdi the 'uprcme poWCiJi\l e rcpublvc, ri•pul'tiv, a. Aaing so state is vested either in cenain u to repel; cxercisina repuhion; 

~~:fo~ :tls"!~r:ol:f~=~: ~C:~Ii~ri~ejt~~::u:',~i1o:CfcJr;;,c~ and thus varyin1 fl'om the mou -npu.binly, ri·pul'aiv•lj, atlv. In a uclwive olisvchy to a pun d.tmoc· repulsive manner.-rcpu.Jslvtacaa, r~ .-Ftd.-rr:J rt ubliu, · ri·pu.l'siv•nes, n. 

~= a:~~les, ta~!,i~ of ~i~~~~ rb!'d;ct~·I'~~J!'C;r;:~.:~~:_l~ -¥!:! of sepante 'cates bound toccther act of buyin1 •&:Lin; a new pu.tr;hase. ~1 ~r:in1ie'~t:etoJ'J:s:n:c~~u~~ rr:,.~'ri;r~~;~;~~~·;;;;;L'~~;,:,?,":~ 

~~~~i:~tlt;:~ ~{"j::!~.1, :u:,tti'::.e:;{:; ':.dc::;:,r:: /!.~a,';; 

( 

~~~-r.;:::p~:;,~b:!C::bavf;; :~c.;~c~~T!:J~~~ h~:d :~:~~ the chanctcr of 1 republic; eon- such or such; to deem,__,., Rcputa .. ionant to thr principles of a Rpublic. tion; chancter, attributed by public _,., One who (avon or pre(en 1 report, espccUily 1ood cha.nctc:r; 

rcpublian form of covemn:~ent; hononble name.-rcputed, ri·pU'-

~:~~ in mv~bs~ ~~~~~ ~~~:li~ ~~~~d beW::cd~11~e=~~~rc:; public1111. Jll!D.-tcp~o~bUcan'tm, ri·- account~-nputcdJy, ri•pU. 'tcd·li, pub'li•lun·izm, n. Re ublican S)'1tem odv. In common opinion or estima- of aovemment; [cap. princi let and tion.-npucablc, rep'U•ta•bl, a. 

Bte, Br, flre, far, f1U; mi, met. ht:r; pine, pin; nUte, not, mCSve; 

Beine in cood repute; held in "'cern; not me-an or disrn~fW.­

npucably, tep\i•ta•bli, o.tlv.. fn a reputable manner. - rcputadoa, 

tep•u•ti'shon, n. [L. rcpuratitJ.} Char- acter by report; opinion of character aencnJ/y entertained; cbanc:ter U· tribu'edi tqNt"ei Ui a ;ood or bad sense; often favorable or hononble reprd; zood name. 

r(~~e~~qj;=>:'e}:;;,: · f~·;:pi;.';;~Jt! thin' required, a wa:u, from rttvira, 

;;::::~'::::;-;:' s!~' ~T.iTh~ cxprn,ioo of desire to 'ome penon for somethica: to be cnnted or dor.e; an :ukinc; a petition, prayer, er:· treaty; the thine uked for or n: .. qunted ; a nate of being esteemed and sou&}lt after, or ulr.ed for (an utide in much ,quut). :. R'fl"lt ttpRSSCS lest e&mi::3CD.CS1 thaD 1ft• 

~~ri~~! IV~Ji~=d ~~~~~:': c:lcur or rcfwe co IIRflC, in this di.tferina: from tJmrgnd,......ofJ,t. To mate a request for; co solicit or express desire for; to expn:sa a request to i to uk. 

RoC'\:'~:, :,~;,~Pi';e,r~~= -rt, apio., and qw"ts, rest, rtpcse.J 1 

[ouvolly '"P·l A funen.l dirJC or unio:, cocu.in.iDc the wordJ •R,... 

quicm IC1:C:tn2m', etc., sun1 for the rest of • penon's soul; a cnnd mwial a:nnposition performed ia honor of some deceased pen011. 

rc-quJre, ri·kwit', v.t.-rcqui,d, rt• quirint. fO.Fr. rtqunT~, rcq&~~ ~,, "f'IJ·,.,., (Fr. rtqubir), from L. ,.,_ quiro1 rtquir,.,, to ask for. R!QtiZ!T.) 

To demand; to uk u of ri&ht anci br au.chority; to insist on harinc; to uk as 1 fa-ror; to all upoo to act i 

to request; to have need or necessity 

for; to aC"C'd or want (the matter rUJVJ'rts lfe&t are, we rtgui,., food}; to lind ic aeccsurr.; to have to : with i.a.finitives (you wdl rtquirt to ao).- rcquirem•at. ri•kwir'mcnt, n. The act ofrequirinc; demand; that which rcqu.itet chc doinc of somethin1; lA rucntial coodition; 'omct.hitla: n:· quired or nec:essary.-rcquitltc, rek'· wi•zit, a. [L. rtquir£nu, from rtquiro.f 

Required by the narun of thinp or by cit'CWIUtaaces; aecessaty.-ft. Tlut wh.ich is aeceuary; tome~l 

ind.ispcnsable.-rcquldtcly, rdt'wt•· 

Ut·li, adv. In a requisite msnner; neeessarity.-requblteaeta, rek'wi•• zit•nct, n.-nqui•lt.loa,rck•wi•zisb'. oa, "· (L rtfld.rin'o.] Azl. application made as of a riaht; a demand; 1 demand for or a lc:vyin1 of nccet- S&rirs by hostile uoop1 from the pt'Opfe in. •hOK COUDU'7 they atej 

a written all or invitation (1 rcquin'- ci#n for a public mectinc); state of beinc requited or much souaht alt~r; ~uest -v t. To m.ab 1 reqWsitioa. or demand upon. re-quJtc, ri•kwit', fl.t.-..,.tquitd, r.- 9Uiti"l· {From rc, back, and f'lit. QUtT.J To repay either J'OC)Ii or evll: tn a roocl sen'e• to recompense or reward: in. a bad 'cnse, to retaliate on.-nqultcr, ri•kwi'u~r, "· One 

tUbe, tub, b\Jil; oil, pound. 
246 

JANUARY l4, l977 

Office of the White House Press Secretary 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE 

PRESIDEHT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE 

JANUARY l4, l977 

Dear Mr. Speake r: . (Dear r~r. President:) 

I submit herewith to the Congress the Puerto Rico 

Statehood Act of-1977. 

The purpose of the Act is to extend to the people of 

Puerto Rico the opportunity to achieve the status of 

statehood if the y should so desire. 

Since 1900, Presidents arid Congresses have debated the · question of statehood for Puerto Rico. 

Some progress has been made in providing the people of · Puerto Rico with greater auionomy and a greater measure · of self-government. But these great people are still 

not represented with a vote _in either the House or Senate. 

They are still not represented in the election of a President. 

Full equality for the people of Puerto Rico cannot come · without full representation. 

Th e social and economic progress to which they aspire 

cannot come. without the political equality of statehood. 

) 'Any change in the status of the Commonwealth must be 1.. 

c_acc omplished by the mutual cons ent of the people of J' 

Puerto Rico and the United States. 

[

As Congress considers the appropriate course of action ) 

relating to the permanent status of Puerto Rico, .it i~ : essential that the dignity and self-resp~ct _of the great . people of Puerto Rico be a matter of the highest consideration. · . _ 

Acc ordingly, the legislation I propose would establish, 

within the framework of the United States Constitution 

and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a sequence of steps reflecting the historic procedures 

by which present states entered the Union, while recognizing the special circumst ances of the Commonwealth 9f 

Puerto Rico and the aspirations of the citizens of the 

Commonwealth. 

First.., -l.n _ reo:o(';niticn. of--.. the-,.fac t- -t·ha;:t;-,.t;a"tei10UUi· -- f or . Puerto Ric o would require the resolution of · many comple x issues, Con gress w~uid establish a joint U.S.-Puerto Ric o Commission to enable the 

people of Pue rto Ric o t o participa te e ffectively 

in det er min i ng the t erms a nd ~onditi ons for Pu ert o 
247 

2 

-Rico•s proposed ~dmission to statehood. By providing a forum for the reaching of a broad understanding of the issues and implications involved 

in admission to the Union, this Act would ensure that the advantiges and disadvantages and the 

rights and responsibilities of statehood are fully 

presented to the peoole of Puerto Rico -- before 

deciding whether their Commonweulth 'shoUld become· a state. 

Second, Congress, after receiving the Commission 

Report, would set "the terms·and conditions of ::· . statehood. . - ····· · 

Third, the Act provides ~or an island-wide 

referendum among the people of Puerto Rico on whether the Commonwealth should become a .-state. l.';' •. • 

I . 

Fourth, the Act propo3eS that 'if ·the ~eterendum '· passes, delegates to a Constitutional Convention 

will meet to frame a Constihition for the proposed . · state. · 

Fifth, .the new cori~titution would be prisented ~6 

the people of Puerto Ricci ' for ratification. ~ , 

Sixth, the proposed . State constitution~: if ratified~: 

would be submitted to the President of the United . · States and to Congress for approval. 

Seventh, upon approval of the proposed Co~stituiiori, 

the voters of Puerto Rico would :elect t~o Senators 

and five Members of the House of Representatives . 

. Eightn~--the ·Governor of ·Puerto--Rico woul·d-·ciert{f'y- ·-

the results of the election to the President, and 

the President would proclaim Puerto Rico a state. 

After more than three-quarters of a Century of discussion 

about Puerto Rico, it is time to act and act positively . . By passage of this Act the representatives ·of the people 

of the 50 States ·will "say to the people of -:Puerto Rico: · Join .us as equals. · ... · '·' · .. , ,-:_. 

I urge the Congress to act. 

Sincerely, 

GERALD R. FORD · 
248 

-----HJJi+- ~~~~,,.._~ ~-s .. rr....rb ..,~ , 

Hearing Weighs New Plebiscite on Puerto Rico •rnwN .. v ........... 

SAN JUAN, P.R., March ll -

Optntna another chap1cr tn 1he long 

and complex rt>latloruhlp bc!twre-n 

this Island territory and the Unlled 

Stale5, a Republican Con~re!lsman 

led a hurlng today on a bill he said 

could brlnl either sovereignty or 

!iilllehood to Puerto Rico by 2010. 

Several hundred Pueno Ricans 

demonstrated outside the htarlng at 

the Government ReccpUons Center 

In Old San Juan. wavina: llacs and 

hokUn& ptacards, ranatnc from 

"s~tehood now" lo "commonweallh forever." Inside. Jhelr polllkal lead· 

en defended their status prtfert:nee 

before the ofttn heated ses.s10n of the 

House Subcommittee an Nauve 

Amertc:an and Insular Affairs. Tbe Manns. led by Represeata· 

Uve Oon Youna, Republican ot Alaska. focused on a bill be filed two 

weeks qo to call a referendum In 

Pueno Rico before the end ot lt98, 

the year that will m1rk • century of 

Unlttd States rule over the Island, 

and 3Sk voters to c:hoost amon1 

staJehood. sovereignty or free assol'lallon. Free association would In· 

valve a pact between Pueno Rtco 

and the Unlltd StitH. whlcft coukS be 

termlnatrd by either side. 

Tl'\e aovemtn& Ne-w Procr~~~lve 

P:nty, which favors ~taU!hood. h:ts 

hllltd the bill, which has the suppnn 

of ~me 38 represeruallvn. lncludlna 

!lipc:.kf'r Newt GlnltriC'h. 

c.;....., , t'rdru J. Ru"SC'Ikl. the' luck'r 

ot tht scatrhood ~r. ur&f'd 

thl' !>ubcommlttt'f to n·m~Wf' the 

"Mitma·· of terntortal ~111us from 

PuttiO Rltn. 

" LIINally. lnr cr~rnnon~ . wf' 

h:t\·e brol'n ea~rlln~ nur~cl "t" • - enr· 

n<'Sely 3nd In .:nud f01lth - nnl)' IO 

dt onr. :IJUiifl and aaatn, that our 

body pntcuc hall bem J,otn,; :tround In 

ctrcl"-... the Covrrnor said In !Moll· 

monv he-lore the subcommiiU'(' 

oUa thr opposttlon Poputar L>f-mocnuc l'nrty, which favors hnpro\'· 

Ina upon the ealslln& common•·toalth 

statu!!:. mounted an embutert'd re· 

sponse to the mea!lure. Pany leadf'n 

hav~ :tccused Mr. YounJI:, who Is 

Opc!nly pro·statehuod, of lillnc a bill 

that ts wet&htfd heavily In favor of 

the New Proc~sstve Party. 

Popular Democrats voiced anger 

at a bill calling for a new plebtscue 

when a plurality of voters chow com· 

monwelllh over statehood In a November 1993 status plebtscUe held by 

lhe New Proeresstve Pany Government Commonwullh 101 41.& per· 

~~ of the vote, narrowly defeaung statehood by two percemqe points. 

Independence flntshed third wllh U 

percent of lhe vote. 

The president of the Popular Dem· 

ocrauc P1rty, Hector luis Acevedo, 

refustd to participate In a new plebl· 

scitc in spite of Mr. Young·s wtllinft· 

ne!t .. tn tnclude a commonwtalth del· 

mit.un. !tt'l by Con~rrsc;, 111 a fututr 

r~fercndum 

" Tile> ropular. ~mocratle rarty 

rrJ~cts this undemocratic bill. a nd In 

th~ unlikely event that It be npprovt'd, shall not pullclpate In any 

!tuch ham plt'blscue as Is tried to be 

Imposed htre." Silld Mr. Ace\'Mo, 

who ttsllflcd In Sp;mtsh before the 

Engllsh·!t()C'aklng committee member! "because U ts the language of 

my people." Commiltee members 

listened vt1 slmultaMOus ltansla· 

lion. 

Tile subc:ammtttee l\ek1 public 

hurlncs In Washtnaton on the 1993 

plebiscite results last fall. But In 

February Mr. Youn1 and lhreeotller 

represeruauves said the referendum 

left lhe stttus Issue "open and unre· 

solvrd." 

Mr. Youna and olher members of 

the subcommittee slid they objected 

to the winning commonwulth ddlnl· 

Uon because several aspects of It 

cannot be enforced. Amons other 

thlnss. the wtnntna definition called 

for "Irrevocable" United States cUI· 

zenshtp. ptrmanent union with the 

United St;ues. and fiscal :.utonomy. 

(gmmonwC'allh advocat~S generally hold that a btlattral asr<"C!ment 

tKIMS tM:t•'f"tn rueno Rico and the 

Untied States, und~r which the Island 

Is s('lf-~ovemlng, retains a !tcpar:ttl' 

cultural Identity, and l!t cxcmptfrum 

paying federal taxes, amgng other 

points. 

Statehood and lndl:!pendence advocates say lfte existing common· 

wtalth status Is tantamoum to colo· nlallsm. Residents of Puerto Rico 

are governed also by federal law and 

couns. are subject to the mllllary 

draft, and are still Ineligible to vote 

In the presidential elections. The Is· 

land of nearly four million restdenu 

elects one non-voting repre~tatt e 

to Congrns, the resident c::omm•s· 

stoner. 

The Younc biD makes clear that 

only statehood carries the guarantte 

of continued American citizenship 

and a pennanent link to the United 

States. 

If passed, the Young btll would 

enact the Ualted States-Pueno Rico 

PolltlcaJ Status Act. calling on Puer· 

to Ricans to choose statehood or sov· 

erelgnty, elt.her lhrou&h free assocl3· 

lion with the United States or lndc· 

pcndence. lr one of tht> option!!: wins :1 

mnjorlty nf the votr, the lsi:Utd will 

undergo a transition ph;~sc of :u k:J~t 

10 year~ during which the ~t :~tu~ 

chan~e must tM: r:.tlltcd t~I<'C h)· 

Puerto Rican vot~rs and l"ongr r~~ 
249 

Sunday, March 24, 1996 Houston Chronicle 

Bill to bring sovereignty or statehood 

to Puerto Rico by 2010 is introduced New York Times 

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Opening another chapter in the long and complex relationship between this island territory and the United States, a Republican congressman 

led a hearing Saturday on a bill he said could bring either sovereignty 

or statehood to Puerto Rico by 2010. Several hundred Puerto Ricans demonstrated outside the hearing at the Government Receptions Center in Old San Juan, waving flags and holding placards, ranging from "statehood now" to "commonwealth 

forever." 

Inside, their political leaders defended their status preference before the often heated session of the House Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs. The hearing, led by Rep. Don Young, R-Aiaska, focused on a bill he filed two weeks ago to call a referendum in Puerto Rico before 

the end of 1998, the year that will mark a century of United States rule 

over the island, and ask voters to choose among statehood, sover- eignty or free association. Free association would involve a pact between Puerto Rico and the United States, which could be termi- nated by either side. The governing New Progressive 

Party, which favors statehood, has hailed the bill, which has the sup- port of some 36 representatives, 

including Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gov. Pedro J. Rossello, the leader of the statehood movement, urged the subcommittee to remove the "stigma" of territorial status from Puerto Rico. 

"Literally, for generations, we have been exerting ourselves -

Rep. Don Young, A-Alaska, has 

filed a bill calling for a referendum 

in Puerto Rico be1ore the end of 

1998 that would ask voters to 

choose among statehood, sovereignty or free association. 

earnestly and in good faith - only to 

discover, again and again, that our 

body politic has been going around in circles," the governor said in testimony before the subcommittee. But the opposition Popular Demo- cratic Party, which favors improving upon the existing commonwealth status, mounted an embittered response to the measure. Party lead- ers have accused Young, who is 

openly pro-statehood, of filing a bill that is weighted heavily in favor of the New Progressive Party. 

Popular Democrats voiced anger 

at a bill calling for a new plebiscite 

0 

when a plurality of voters chose 

commonwealth over statehood in a 

November 1993 status plebiscite held by the New Progressive Party 

government. Commonwealth got 48.6 percent of the vote, narrowly 

defeating statehood by two percentage points. Independence finished third with 4.4 percent of the vote. 

The president of the Popular 

Democratic Party, Hector Luis 

Acevedo, refused to participate in a new plebiscite in spite of Young's 

willingness to include a common- wealth definition, set by Congress, 

in a future referendum. 

"The Popular Democratic Party 

rejects this undemocratic bill, and in 

the unlikely event that it be approved, shall not participate in any such sham plebiscite as is tried to be 

imposed here," said Acevedo, who testified in Spanish before the English-spealdng committee members "because it is the language of my 

people." Committee members listened via simultaneous translation. 

The · subcommittee held public 

hearings in Washington on the 1993 plebiscite results last fall. But in 

February Young and three other 

representatives said the referendum left the status issue "open and unresolved." 

If passed, the Young bill would 

enact the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, calling on Puerto Ricans to choose statehood or sovereignty, either through free as- sociation with the United States or independence. 

If one of the options wins a majority of the vote, the island will undergo a transition phase of at least 10 years during which the status change must be ratified twice by 

Puerto Rican voters and Congress. 


ISBN 0 - 16-053513-1 

90000 

9 80160 535130