U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34-236 PDF 2007

H.R. 900, PUERTO RICO 

DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2007; 

AND H.R. 1230, PUERTO RICO 

SELF-DETERMINATION ACT 

OF 2007

LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

March 22, 2007 and April 25, 2007

Serial No. 110-8

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel 

Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Chairwoman 

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico, Ranking Republican Member

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Elton Gallegly, California 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

(III)

CONTENTS 

Page

Hearing held on March 22, 2007 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Members: 

Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the Virgin 

Islands ............................................................................................................ 2

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

Fortun ̃ o, Luis G., the Resident Commissioner in Congress from Puerto 

Rico ................................................................................................................. 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of West Virginia ............................................................................................ 9

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

Serrano, Hon. Jose ́, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York ....................................................................................................... 13

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York ................................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18

Weller, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Illinois ............................................................................................................ 15

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska . 12

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

Statement of Witnesses: 

Baquero, Enrique, President, Puerto Rico Foundation for Democratic 

Action ............................................................................................................. 76

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 78

Dı ́az, Aida, President, Puerto Rico Teachers Association ............................. 110

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 111

Fernandez, Jose ́ Luis, President, Inter-American Entrepreneurs 

Association ..................................................................................................... 79

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 81

Ferraiuoli, Veronica, President, Puerto Rico Chapter of the Federal Bar 

Association ..................................................................................................... 101

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

Goldstein, Thomas C., Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP .. 45

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 46

Gorrı ́n-Peralta, Carlos I., Professor, Puerto Rico’s Inter-American 

University School of Law ............................................................................. 27

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28

Mejı ́a, Manuel A., Chairman of the Board, Puerto Rico Chamber of 

Commerce ...................................................................................................... 69

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 71

Nieves, Ramon Luis, Executive Director, Movimiento Autonomista 

Socialdemocrata ............................................................................................ 32

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34

Pedroza, Jorge E., President, Vietnam Veterans of America, Council of 

Puerto Rico .................................................................................................... 95

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 97

Pildes, Richard H., Professor, New York University School of Law ............ 38

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40

Romany-Siaca, Celina, President, Puerto Rico Bar Association ................... 107

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 109

Page

IV

Statement of Witnesses—Continued

Thomas, Kenneth R., Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, 

Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress ............................... 19

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21

Vales, Luis E. Gonza ́lez, Official Historian of Puerto Rico ........................... 98

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 99

Additional materials supplied: 

List of individuals and organizations submitting information for the 

record ............................................................................................................. 19

(V)

CONTENTS 

Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 ......................................................... 125

Statement of Members: 

Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the Virgin 

Islands ............................................................................................................ 126

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 127 

Fortun ̃ o, Luis G., the Resident Commissioner in Congress from Puerto 

Rico ................................................................................................................. 139

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 141

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, Statement submitted for the record ..................................... 235

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

Statement submitted for the record ............................................................ 162

Statement of Witnesses: 

Acevedo-Vila ́, Hon. Anı ́bal, Governor, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

Former Member of U.S. Congress, President, Popular Democratic Party 

(PDP) .............................................................................................................. 163

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 165

Aponte-Hernandez, Hon. Jose ́, Speaker of the House of Representatives 

of Puerto Rico ................................................................................................ 196

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

Berrios-Martinez, Rube ́n, President, Puerto Rican Independence Party 

(PIP) ............................................................................................................... 168

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 170

Dalmau-Santiago, Hon. Jose ́ L., Senate Minority Leader, Popular 

Democratic Party .......................................................................................... 208

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 210

Duprey, Nestor, Spokesman, Puerto Ricans for Free Association and 

Social Justice (MAS) ..................................................................................... 225

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

Ferrer Rios, Hon. Hector, Minority Leader of the House of 

Representatives of Puerto Rico, Popular Democratic Party ...................... 211

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

Marshall, Hon. C. Kevin, Co-Chair of the President’s Task Force on 

Puerto Rico’s Political Status, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice ................................. 129

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 131

Martin, Fernando, Executive President, Puerto Rican Independence 

Party .............................................................................................................. 222

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 223

McClintock, Hon. Kenneth D., President, Senate of Puerto Rico ................. 188

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

Passalacqua, Juan Manuel Garcia, Lawyer, Writer, Political Analyst ........ 228

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 229

Romero Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, Former Governor, Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, Former Member of U.S. Congress ...................................................... 205

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 207

Rossello, Hon. Pedro, Former Governor and current Senator, 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, President, New Progressive Party 

(NNP) ............................................................................................................. 172

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 175

Additional materials supplied: 

Engel, Hon. Eliot L., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York, Statement submitted for the record ......................................... 233

Page

VI

Additional materials supplied—Continued

Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Wisconsin, Statement submitted for the record ......................................... 234

Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Califonnia, Statement submitted for the record .................................... 234

List of individuals and organizations submitting information for the 

record ............................................................................................................. 128

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 900, TO PROVIDE FOR A FEDERALLY SANCTIONED 

SELF-DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR THE 

PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO (PUERTO RICO 

DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2007); AND H.R. 1230, 

TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE 

OF PUERTO RICO TO CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION THROUGH WHICH 

THE PEOPLE WOULD EXERCISE THEIR NATURAL RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, 

AND TO ESTABLISH A MECHANISM FOR 

CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF SUCH 

DECISION (PUERTO RICO SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2007) 

Thursday, March 22, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Insular Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Donna M. 

Christensen [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Christensen, Faleomavaega, Grijalva, 

Bordallo, Rahall, Fortun ̃ o, Gallegly, Flake, and Young. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Good morning. The legislative hearing by the 

Subcommittee on Insular Affairs will now come to order. 

I ask unanimous consent that Members of the full committee 

wishing to participate in the proceedings of the Subcommittee be 

allowed to sit on the dais. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New 

York, Mr. Serrano, the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. 

Vela ́zquez, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in the hearing. Hearing no 

objection, so ordered. 

Under Committee Rule 4(g), the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member can make opening statements. At this time I also ask 

unanimous consent that in lieu of the authors of the two bills 

2

before us appearing as witnesses, Mr. Serrano and Ms. Vela ́zquez, 

be extended the opportunity to make an opening statement. If any 

other Members have statements, they can be included in the 

hearing record under unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, so 

ordered. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on 

H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. H.R. 900, sponsored by Mr. Serrano, will 

provide for a Federally sanctioned self-determination process for 

the people of Puerto Rico. 

H.R. 1230, sponsored by Ms. Vela ́zquez, will recognize the right 

of the people of Puerto Rico to call a Constitutional Convention to 

which the people would exercise their natural right to self-determination, and to establish a mechanism for Congressional consideration of such decision. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A 

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. As a co-sponsor of H.R. 1230, it is clear that 

I favor a bottoms-up approach to resolving Puerto Rico’s long-unresolved political status question, one that empowers the people of 

Puerto Rico to translate their hopes and aspirations into a new and 

even possibly unique political relationship with the mother country, 

instead of one that dictates what their choices can and cannot be. 

But above any support for one bill over the other, I support the 

right of the people of Puerto Rico to be fully informed, to have a 

fair process, and to have all of the possible status options clearly 

and accurately defined and placed before them. 

Keeping this in mind, I want to thank Chairman Rahall for reestablishing the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs. It is well known 

that Chairman Rahall has been a long-time friend of Puerto Rico, 

most notably leading the effort in Congress for the funding of 

Trans Urbano. His presence this morning underscores his continuing interest in Puerto Rico, its people, and his desire to see 

progress on the status issue. 

We will also be joined by the committee’s Ranking Member, Mr. 

Young, as well. As a sole representative of Alaska, one of the last 

U.S. territories to become a state, he knows political status issues. 

As we all know, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Committee, was 

the main sponsor of the legislation to resolve Puerto Rico’s political 

status in 1998. His leadership and efforts resulted in the House approval of legislation providing for a process to resolve that status. 

During today’s hearing, all sides of the Puerto Rican status debate will be heard through an ambitious agenda, which includes 

some four panels consisting of 13 witnesses, all of whom understand the issue and its history well, and the overwhelming majority 

of whom are full-time residents of the Commonwealth. And we welcome all of you. 

Because of the large number of requests to participate in the deliberations on these bills, we found that it was not possible to have 

a full hearing on the issues involved today. So in approximately 

one month from today we will convene a second hearing on the 

bills, at which time we will hear from the leadership of the political 

3

parties, as well as from the Commonwealth, government, and legislature. 

I have to say, though, that I am very disappointed that after 

such a harsh evaluation of Puerto Rico’s current status and such 

a strong statement on the process they feel should be adopted, the 

Administration is not here with us this morning. I hope that this 

does not mean that their intention is to drop that bombshell and 

disappear, but that the Administration will see fit to testify at the 

second hearing. 

It has been more than 108 years since the United States acquired the island of Puerto Rico along with Guam in the Philippines at the end of the Spanish-American War. Since that time, 

the people of Puerto Rico have been seeking to have their relationship to the United States resolved according to their wishes. It is 

high time that this occurs, and it is my fervent hope that beginning 

with this hearing today, we will all see this happen in short order. 

I look forward to the testimony we will receive both in person 

and in writing. And before I conclude and yield to my Ranking 

Member for his opening statement, I want to say two last things. 

First, as I made reference to last year, I do hear dissatisfaction 

from the people of Puerto Rico with the status quo. But on the socioeconomic issues—housing, education, healthcare, crime, even the 

politics—and also corruption inside and outside of government. I 

cannot see, but I stand ready to be educated on how changing political status will improve the conditions that the Puerto Ricans care 

most deeply about. 

I see them as not necessarily being connected, and I also see a 

danger in tying too closely together as we move through this process. 

Second, your neighbors and fellow non-state areas are watching. 

What happens here, and similarly what happens today with the 

District of Columbia, while they are not exactly similar, having 

bearing on us and our process of self-determination. 

So let us be mindful, as we pronounce what can and cannot be 

under the Constitution, that such limitations will have a far greater impact on those of us whose choices are far more limited than 

our larger cousin, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

I now yield for an opening statement to my colleague and friend, 

the resident commissioner, Mr. Fortun ̃ o. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Donna M. Christensen, Chairwoman,

Subcommittee on Insular Affairs 

As a cosponsor of H.R. 1230, it is clear that I favor a bottom-up approach to resolving Puerto Rico long unresolved political status question; one that empowers the 

people of Puerto Rico to translate their hopes and aspirations into a new and even 

possibly unique political relationship with their mother country instead of one that 

dictates what their choices can and cannot be. 

But above any support for one bill over the other, I support the right of the people 

of Puerto Rico to be fully informed, to have a fair process, and to have all of the 

possible status options clearly and accurately defined and placed before them. 

Keeping this in mind, I want to thank Chairman Rahall for reestablishing the 

Subcommittee on Insular Affairs. It is well-known that Chairman Rahall has been 

a long-time friend of Puerto Rico, most notably leading the effort in Congress for 

the funding of Tran Urbano. His presence this morning underscores his continuing 

interest in Puerto Rico, its people, and his desire to see progress on the status issue. 

4

It is also a pleasure to have the Committee’s Ranking Member Mr. Young here 

as well. As the sole Representative of Alaska, one of the last U.S. territories to become a State, he knows political status issues. As we all know, Mr. Young, as Chairman of this Committee, was the main sponsor of legislation to resolve Puerto Rico’s 

political status in 1998. His leadership and efforts resulted in the House approval 

of legislation providing for a process to resolve Puerto Rico’s status. 

I think the presence of Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young sends a 

clear signal that the Committee looks forward to having progress made on this issue 

in the 110th Congress. I believe that the proceedings of this Subcommittee will help 

in that effort; and give the Full Committee a better appreciation of both the complexity of this issue and the desire by the people of Puerto Rico for the process to 

begin. 

During today’s hearing, all sides of the Puerto Rican status debate will be heard 

from through an ambitious agenda which includes some four panels consisting of 13 

witnesses—all of whom understand this issue and its history well and the overwhelming majority of whom are full time residents of Commonwealth. 

Because of the large number of requests to participate in the deliberations on 

these bills, we found that it was not possible to have a full hearing of the issues 

involved in one day. 

So in approximately one month from today we will convene a second day of hearings on the bills at which time we will hear from the leadership of the political parties from Puerto Rico as well as from the Commonwealth government and legislature 

I have to say that am very disappointed that after such a harsh evaluation of 

Puerto Rico’s current status and such a strong statement on the process they feel 

should be adopted, the Administration is not here. I hope that this does not mean 

that their intention is to drop that bombshell and disappear, but that the Administration will see fit to testify at the second hearing. 

It has been more than 108 years since the United States acquired the island of 

Puerto Rico, along with Guam and the Philippines at the end of the Spanish American War. Since that time, the people of Puerto Rico have been have been seeking 

to have their relationship to the United States resolved according to their wishes. 

It is high time that this occurs and it is my fervent hope that beginning with this 

hearing today we will all see this happen in short order. 

I look forward to the testimony we will receive both in person and in writing and 

to the answers to some questions that the Committee will have. They will all be 

taken into consideration as we move to the full committee and seek to move this 

process to fruition. 

Before I conclude and yield to my Ranking member for his opening statement, I 

want to say two things: 

First, as I made reference to last year, I do hear dissatisfaction from the people 

of Puerto Rico with the status quo—but on the socio-economic issues—housing, education, healthcare, crime, even the politics and corruption in and outside of government. I cannot see, but stand ready to be educated on how changing political status 

will improve the conditions that Puerto Ricans care most deeply about. I see them 

as two different things and I also see a danger in tying the two too closely together 

as you move through this process. 

Secondly, your neighbors and fellow non-state areas are watching! 

What happens here, and similarly what happens tomorrow with the District of 

Columbia—while they are not exactly similar—have bearing on us and our process 

of self determination. 

For example, any attempt to ‘‘clarify’’ or make clear that the only two options 

available to Puerto Rico constitutionally are statehood or independence, automatically limits the options for the Virgin Islands as well as for the other smaller territories to just one; independence or its cousin Free Association—a choice which is not 

now supported by a majority of constituents. 

Commonwealth or some other status under the sovereignty of the U.S., is all that 

those of us who want to remain part of the United States but are too small to become a state is all that we can aspire to. 

So let us be mindful, as we pronounce what can and cannot be under the constitution, that such limitations will have far a greater impact on those of us whose 

choices are much more limited that our larger cousin, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico. 

I now yield for an opening statement to my colleague and friend, the Resident 

Commissioner of Puerto Rico, Mr. Fortun ̃ o. 

5

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, THE RESIDENT 

COMMISSIONER FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you, Madame Chair. Madame Chair, I 

want to take this opportunity to thank you for holding this very 

important hearing today. It has certainly been a pleasure serving 

with you in the Subcommittee, and I look forward to continuing to 

work with you in a bipartisan manner to address the current inequities in the way our nation treats U.S. citizens and nationals, 

not only in Puerto Rico, but in all of its territories. 

I also want to commend Chairman Nick Rahall and Ranking 

Member Don Young for their longstanding leadership and commitment in ensuring that my constituents, the four million U.S. citizens that reside in Puerto Rico, are granted the opportunity to participate in the truly decolonizing and fair self-determination process. 

Furthermore, I want to thank my fellow Subcommittee Members 

that are here or will join us today, and extend a warm welcome to 

our other colleagues present in the hearing who are not Members 

of this Subcommittee, but have taken time from their busy schedules because of their keen interest in this very important matter. 

In particular I want to thank my three fellow Puerto Ricans in 

Congress: Jose ́ Serrano, Luis Gutierrez, and Nydia Vela ́zquez. During my two years in Congress they have provided me with invaluable insights, but most of all with their friendship. 

Last, but not least, I want to welcome all of our witnesses, most 

of whom have traveled from the island to be with us today to provide the Subcommittee with their views on this vitally important 

issue. 

In our political affairs, consensus is beneficial when it can be 

achieved. But the fact is that in a democracy, we are based on majority rule. 

Today we do not have majority rule in Puerto Rico on the question of a permanent, non-territorial, and fully democratic future political status, even though this is clearly the most critical issue we 

face as a people. Instead, we have polarity or minority rule because 

no defined political status option has received a majority in the last 

two locally sponsored status votes. 

Against this backdrop, you may wonder how it is that I can come 

before you today and tell you that we have a consensus in Puerto 

Rico on what Congress must do about the political status question. 

Yet that is exactly what I am here to tell you. 

We have an overall consensus in Puerto Rico that our current relation with the U.S. is territorial in nature, not fully democratic, 

not fully self-governing, not based on equal rights and duties of 

citizenship, and does not fully implement the principle of government by consent of the governed. 

We have an overall consensus that our current political relationship with the United States no longer serves either Puerto Rico or 

the U.S. well. We have an overall consensus that the time for 

change into a permanent, non-territorial relationship with the 

United States is not only long overdue, but urgently needed. The 

reality is that the island’s current status does not enable the people 

6

of Puerto Rico to fulfill their potential for social, economic, and political development. 

It is not only a political problem; it is also money invested in 

Puerto Rico’s chronic economic under-performance. This includes 

the local economic recession, even in the midst of our national economic growth and expansion, as well as high unemployment, while 

national unemployment is at record lows. This economic reality 

translates into human discouragement and unrealized dreams, and 

have forced many of my constituents—some people say about 6,000 

per month—to move to the mainland in search for better opportunities and equality. 

We have a sacred duty to our children and future generations to 

stop this cycle of unfulfilled human potential. That is why there is 

a consensus in Puerto Rico that the current status must be 

changed to a new status that is permanent and non-territorial; one 

that redeems the promise of democracy and opportunity for our 

people. 

To be sure, the political parties in Puerto Rico still have the most 

profound differences on what permanent non-territorial status we 

prefer. We also disagree on the procedure to achieve majority rule 

and status issue. 

In other words, we agree that there is a problem, but are at odds 

as to what the solution and the process to reach that solution 

should be. 

But I believe we have a consensus that calls upon Congress to 

recognize a democratic referendum process, grounded in self-determination by the people, based on options compatible with the Constitution, but formulated with local participation. 

In this regard, while I strongly believe that H.R. 900 offers a 

much better approach and process to resolving once and for all 

Puerto Rico’s status dilemma, I have to admit that H.R. 1230 is 

more realistic than its previous version in the sense that it recognizes the need for a new status that is non-territorial and permanent. That mere recognition in itself constitutes one step in the 

right direction. 

We, however, still have major differences about how to ensure 

that the people have a direct vote at each stage of the process and 

that Constitutionally valid options are proposed instead of options 

that are legally impossible. Those issues are clearly addressed in 

H.R. 900 but not so in H.R. 1230. 

For example, Governor Acevedo’s proposal for enhanced commonwealth, as included in his party’s 2004 platform, provides, among 

other things, number one, that Puerto Rico would be a sovereign 

nation but in permanent union with the U.S. as part of a covenant 

to which the United States will be permanently bound. 

Two. That Puerto Rico would be able to veto most Federal laws. 

Three. That Puerto Rico would be able to invalidate Federal 

court jurisdictions. 

Four. That Puerto Rico would be able to enter into trade and 

other agreements with foreign nations and join international organizations separate from the U.S. 

Five. That the U.S. would continue all current assistance programs to Puerto Rico, plus a new annual block grant for socioeconomic development. 

7

Six. That the U.S. would provide new incentives for investment 

in Puerto Rico. 

Seven. That the U.S. would continue to grant free entry to any 

goods shipped from Puerto Rico. 

Eight. That the U.S. would continue to grant U.S. citizenship to 

persons born in Puerto Rico. 

And nine. That residents of Puerto Rico would not have to pay 

Federal taxes. 

Anyone who objectively reviews the Governor’s enhanced commonwealth wish list and is honest about it will have to conclude 

that the definition that he is trying to sell in Puerto Rico and to 

some of our colleagues here is unconstitutional and thus not acceptable to the Congress. As a matter of fact, similar proposals have 

been rejected by this very same committee and the Federal Executive Branch in the past. 

My friends, the best of two worlds, as labeled by the Governor’s 

party, does not exist. If it did, I have no doubts that we in Congress 

would immediately receive 50 other requests for the same deal. 

This, quite honestly, is one of my biggest concerns with the Constitutional Assembly approach, where a select and limited group of 

delegates will be entitled to unilaterally come up with a status proposal that we in the House, in this House, all know would not be 

acceptable to the U.S. Congress. A Trojan Horse, if you will. 

That being said, I firmly believe that most of the issues where 

we currently lack consensus could be resolved through the very deliberative process we commence today. The success of these hearings and other future proceedings before Congress on this issue will 

rest on whether or not we are able to advance the goal of Federal 

sponsorship of a limited status resolution process; one that will enable the issues, and which there is no consensus to resolve by selfdetermination, majority rule, and government by consent of the 

governed, selecting by their direct vote their status preference. 

It is in this spirit of seeking solutions based on inclusion of all 

ideas from those with a legitimate interest in this question that I 

literally welcome and encourage the contributions to this discourse 

by Representatives Serrano, Vela ́zquez, and Gutierrez, as well as 

all sectors on the island. Together with all our colleagues in the 

House and the Senate, we are seized with a solemn and sacred 

duty, and with God’s help, I trust we will acquit ourselves in a way 

that honors our people and our nation. 

Madame Chair, as you know, just a few weeks ago we celebrated 

the 90th anniversary of the granting of U.S. citizenship by Congress to Puerto Ricans. The final resolution of Puerto Rico’s status 

dilemma has been stalled for too long. Let us work together to 

unlock this process and bring a final solution to Puerto Rico’s century-old colonial predicament. Thank you again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fortun ̃ o follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Luis G. Fortun ̃ o,

Subcommittee on Insular Affairs 

Madame Chair, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for holding this very 

important hearing today. It has certainly been a pleasure serving with you in the 

subcommittee, and I look forward to continuing to work with you in a bipartisan 

manner to address the current inequities in the way our Nation treats U.S. citizens 

and nationals, not only in Puerto Rico, but in all of its territories. 

8

I also want to commend Chairman Nick Rahall and Ranking Member Don Young 

for their long-standing leadership and commitment in ensuring that my constituents, the 4 million U.S. citizens that reside in Puerto Rico, are granted the opportunity to participate in a truly decolonizing and fair self-determination process. 

Furthermore, I want to thank my fellow subcommittee members that are here or 

will join us today, and extend a warm welcome to our other colleagues present in 

the hearing, who, while not members of this subcommittee, have taken time from 

their busy schedules because of their keen interest in this very important matter. 

In particular, I want to thank my three fellow Puerto Ricans in Congress: Jose ́

Serrano, Luis Gutierrez and Nydia Velazquez. During my two years in Congress, 

they have provided me with invaluable insights, but most of all, with their friendship. Last, but not least, I want to welcome all of our witnesses, most of whom traveled from the Island to be with us today to provide the subcommittee with their 

views on this vitally important issue. 

In our political affairs, consensus is beneficial when it can be achieved, but the 

fact is that, in a democracy, we govern based on majority rule. 

Today we do not have majority rule in Puerto Rico on the question of a permanent, non territorial and fully democratic future political status, even though this 

is clearly the most critical issue we face as a people. Instead, we have plurality or 

minority rule, because no defined political status option has received a majority vote 

in the last two locally sponsored status votes. 

Against this backdrop, you may wonder how it is that I can come before you today 

and tell you that we have a consensus in Puerto Rico on what Congress must do 

about the political status question. Yet, that is exactly what I am here to tell you. 

We have an overall consensus in Puerto Rico that our current relation with the 

U.S. is territorial in nature, not fully democratic, not fully self-governing, not based 

on equal rights and duties of citizenship, and does not fully implement the principle 

of government by consent of the governed. We have an overall consensus that our 

current political relationship with the United States no longer serves either Puerto 

Rico or the U.S. well. We have an overall consensus that the time for change into 

a permanent and non-territorial relationship with the United States is, not only 

long overdue, but urgently needed. 

The reality is that the Island’s current status does not enable the people of Puerto 

Rico to fulfill their potential for social, economic and political development. This is 

not only a political problem, it is also manifested in Puerto Rico’s chronic economic 

underperformance. 

This includes a local economic recession even in the midst of a national economic 

growth and expansion, as well as high unemployment while national unemployment 

is at record lows. These economic realities translate into human discouragement and 

unrealized dreams, and have forced many of my constituents—about 6,000 per 

month—to move to the mainland in search for better opportunities and equality. We 

have a sacred duty to our children and future generations to stop this cycle of 

unfulfilled human potential. 

That is why there is a consensus in Puerto Rico that the current status must be 

changed to a new status that is permanent and not territorial, one that redeems 

the promise of democracy and opportunity for our people. 

To be sure, the political parties in Puerto Rico still have the most profound differences on what permanent non-territory status we prefer. We also disagree on the 

procedure to achieve majority rule on the status issue. In other words, we agree that 

there is a problem, but are at odds as to what the solution and the process to reach 

that solution should be. 

But I believe we have a consensus that calls upon Congress to recognize a democratic referendum process grounded in self-determination by the people, based on 

options compatible with the federal constitution but formulated with local participation. 

In this regard, while I strongly believe that H.R. 900 offers a much better approach and process to resolving, once and for all, Puerto Rico’s status dilemma, I 

have to admit that H.R. 1230 is more realistic than its previous version in the sense 

that it recognizes the need for a new status that is non territorial and permanent. 

That mere recognition, in itself, constitutes an important step in the right direction. 

We, however, still have major differences about how to ensure that the people 

have a direct vote at each stage of the process, and that constitutionally valid options are proposed instead of options that are legally impossible. Those issues are 

clearly addressed in H.R. 900, but not so in H.R. 1230. For example, Governor 

Acevedo’s proposal for Enhanced Commonwealth, as included in his party’s 2004 

Platform, provides, among other things: 

9

1. That Puerto Rico would be a sovereign nation, but in permanent union with 

the U.S., as part of a covenant to which the United States would be permanently 

bound; 

2. That Puerto Rico would be able to veto most Federal laws; 

3. That Puerto Rico would be able to invalidate Federal court jurisdiction; 

4. That Puerto Rico would be able to enter into trade and other agreements with 

foreign nations and join international organizations, separate from the U.S.; 

5. That the U.S. would continue all current assistance programs to Puerto Rico, 

plus a new annual block grant for social and economic development; 

6. That the U.S. would provide new incentives for investment in Puerto Rico; 

7. That the U.S. would continue to grant free entry to any goods shipped from 

Puerto Rico; 

8. That the U.S. would continue to grant U.S. citizenship to persons born in 

Puerto Rico, and; 

9. That residents of Puerto Rico would not have to pay Federal income taxes. 

Anyone who objectively reviews the Governor’s Enhanced Commonwealth wish 

list, and is honest about it, will have to conclude that the definition that he is trying 

to sell in Puerto Rico and to some of our colleagues here is unconstitutional and 

thus, not acceptable to the Congress. As a matter of fact, similar proposals have 

been rejected by this very same Committee and the Federal Executive Branch in 

the past. My friends, the ‘‘best of two worlds’’, as traditionally labeled by the Governor’s party, does not exist. If it did, I have no doubts that we in Congress would 

immediately receive 50 other requests for the same deal. 

This, quite honestly, is one of my biggest concerns with the Constitutional Assembly approach, where a select and limited group of delegates would be entitled to unilaterally come up with a status proposal that we, in this House, all know would not 

be acceptable to the United States Congress. A Trojan horse, if you will. 

That being said, I firmly believe that most of the issues where we currently lack 

consensus could be resolved through the very deliberative process we commence 

today. 

The success of these hearings and all other future proceedings before Congress on 

this issue will rest on whether or not we are able to advance the goal of federal 

sponsorship of a legitimate status resolution process, one that will enable the issues 

on which there is no consensus to be resolved by self-determination, majority rule 

and government by consent of the governed, selecting by their direct vote their status preference. 

It is in this spirit of seeking solutions based on inclusion of all ideas from those 

with a legitimate interest in this question that I not only welcome, but encourage, 

the contributions to this discourse by Representatives Serrano, Velazquez and 

Gutierrez, as well as all sectors on the Island. Together with all our colleagues in 

this House and the Senate, we are seized with a solemn and sacred duty, and with 

God’s help I trust that we will acquit ourselves in a way that honors our people and 

our nation. 

Madame Chair, as you know, just a few weeks ago, we celebrated the 90th anniversary of the granting of U.S. citizenship by Congress to Puerto Ricans. The final 

resolution of Puerto Rico’s status dilemma has been stalled for too long. Let’s work 

together to unlock this process and bring final solution to Puerto Rico’s century old 

colonial predicament. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Fortun ̃ o. I also recognize and 

welcome at this time again the distinguished gentleman from West 

Virginia, and the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, 

Mr. Rahall, and recognize him for any statement that he might 

make. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Madame Chair. I appreciate very much 

your recognition, as well as your calling this hearing today before 

the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs on two legislative proposals—

H.R. 900, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, and H.R. 1230, the 

Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act. 

10

When I was honored to be named Chairman of the Committee on 

Natural Resources earlier this year, I issued an agenda of American values to guide the committee in its consideration of the many 

pressing issues we face within our broad jurisdiction. One part of 

that agenda stated, in reference to the territorial possessions of the 

U.S., that we must recognize that there is an inherent right of political self-determination. 

The document noted, and I quote, ‘‘For a majority of our territories, circumstances of history and acquisition are similar. However, timelines to establish any other political status will vary. 

When appropriate, we should work toward providing clear direction 

to achieve political status consistent with the U.S. Constitution.’’

Since the establishment of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 

1952, four popular votes have been held on the status issue in 

three plebiscites and one referendum. 

In going back just to the 1970s, at least 40 separate measures 

have been introduced in Congress to resolve or clarify Puerto Rico’s 

political status. In addition, Congress has held at least 10 hearings, 

and four measures have received either House or Senate action. 

Further, we have the report by the President’s Task Force on 

Puerto Rico’s Status, released last year, which was the subject of 

a hearing by the committee. 

With all this background, it does appear to me that among all 

of the territorial possessions of the United States, this is indeed the 

time when we should work toward providing clear direction to 

Puerto Rico to resolve its political status in a manner consistent 

with the U.S. Constitution. 

As such, we are meeting today to examine a simple proposition 

that nonetheless does elicit complex responses. The proposition is 

whether or not the people of Puerto Rico are satisfied with the status quo in terms of their political status. The responses are extremely complex, and often tinged with heated political rhetoric 

and deep-seated emotions. 

I believe that this Subcommittee’s responsibility is to be an honest broker with the people of Puerto Rico as this issue moves forward. At the same time, I would submit that it would be misleading to ignore the recommendations of the report by the President’s Task Force, the positions of previous Administrations, our 

committee’s own record, international law, and indeed, our country’s Constitution. 

So I conclude by thanking again the distinguished gentlelady 

from the Virgin Islands, Chairman Donna Christensen, as well as 

the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, the gentleman from 

Puerto Rico, Luis Fortun ̃ o, for holding this hearing. I commend my 

Ranking Member of the full committee, Chairman Don Young, as 

well as other Members of Congress that have joined us today or 

will join us for debate on this issue, and listening to those who 

have come to testify. 

Thank you, Madame Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, Chairman,

Committee on Natural Resources 

Thank you, Madame Chair. Nearly a year ago, when the Full Committee convened a Oversight Hearing to receive testimony on the Report by the President’s 

11

Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, I saluted the twenty-one Puerto Rican families 

who had lost a loved one in our war with Iraq. 

Since then, three more soldiers who call Puerto Rico home have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country free. To the Rodriguez, Montalvo, and SotoPinedo families; we regret your loss and honor your loved ones, along with the twenty-one other patriotic families in Puerto Rico with a brief moment of silence. 

Madame Chair, we are here today because the people of Puerto Rico have been 

suffering from political status injustice for more than a century. In 1898, when we 

first raised our stars and stripes beyond our continental borders, did we unwittingly 

lower the promise of freedom, representation, and democracy upon which we had 

built our country? If time has been our judge, then the clock seems to favor injustice 

because more than one-hundred years of disenfranchisement and inequity remain. 

This is not to say that the issue has not been raised before this Congress. Everyone in this room, along with the millions in Puerto Rico listening to our proceedings 

know that Congress has tried to find a way to resolve the status issue. We realize 

how important the issue of status is for the people of Puerto Rico; it is debated 

daily, written about often, and divides friends and families. 

In going back just to the 1970’s, at least forty separate measures have been introduced in Congress to resolve or clarify Puerto Rico’s future status. Congress has 

held at least ten hearings and only four measures have received either House or 

Senate action. It seems that a lot has been done and very little has been accomplished. 

This may hold true in Puerto Rico as well. 

In the past century, three plebiscites have gauged the people’s desires to advance 

their current political status in the American family as a U.S. territory. It has become clearer that with each completed plebiscite, all has become vague, with a 

choice of ‘‘None of the Above’’ garnering more votes than any other political status 

option on the ballot in the 1998 plebiscite. 

Madame Chair, it seems the adage; ‘‘the more things change the more they remain the same;’’ holds true. 

I am more optimistic today with the re-establishment of this Insular Affairs Subcommittee and with Ms. Christensen as its chairwoman. She is a thoughtful leader 

and I trust that she will conduct this proceeding in a fair and balanced manner. 

In fact, I applaud her for reaching out into the Puerto Rican community to hear 

from those who may not have been heard in prior proceedings. 

Some have criticized this decision, which has in part left the leaders of Puerto 

Rico’s political parties in the gallery; all of whom have appeared before us in prior 

years, and at least one have served with us. This Committee knows where you stand 

and we appreciate you coming to give your support for others in the Puerto Rican 

community wanting to add their voices to the debate. I welcome all of you. 

The two bills before us offer very different approaches to resolve the future political status of Puerto Rico. To be clear, I support only one; H.R. 900. It reflects the 

recommendations of President Bush’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s status. It has historical precedence; affording the people of Puerto Rico the same opportunity afforded 

to every other U.S. territory or protectorate. Status options that have been deemed 

constitutional and which also have international recognition. 

I realize that there are realities for residents of U.S. territories that confront them 

daily. The application of Federal laws that do not make sense. Being a part of the 

U.S. sometimes, and not all the time. Enjoying U.S. citizenship, yet having a unique 

cultural identity that sets you apart from your fellow Americans on the U.S. mainland. 

So, it is no surprise that one would want to support a proposed arrangement that 

recognizes all those feelings of inequality and disenfranchisement and then empowers you to be in control. 

However, we cannot tailor that sort of arrangement. To do so, sends a wrong message not only to our other U.S. territories who have yet to walk down the same path 

that the people of Puerto Rico are on; but also to the States of our Union. 

California is one of the largest economies in the world. Mississippi is one of the 

poorest States in the Nation. How could either one not ponder what it would be like 

to independently negotiate a trade deal; or have their legislature be able to annul 

Federal law? 

Madame Chair, I feel that this Subcommittee’s hearing is important so that the 

people of Puerto Rico are dealt with honestly. For decades, we have allowed for the 

realm of possibilities and it is now time for the realm of reality. We need to give 

them a process steeped in both historical and constitutional precedence. 

12

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is also my distinct pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young, for any statement 

he might wish to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Madame Chairman, and I will submit 

for the record my total statement, because much of what is in my 

statement has already been said by Luis Fortun ̃ o. 

I am a proud sponsor of H.R. 900. As you know, this is not new 

to me. We passed this out of the committee very nearly unanimously. We had a margin of about 50 votes on the Floor until the 

morning we had the vote, and the English first group came out in 

droves, and they ended up passing it by one vote. 

I don’t believe that will happen this time. I am very excited 

about this bill in the sense it is very similar to the one we passed 

before. I will say that the counter-proposal causes me great concern, because I do believe in my heart of hearts that bill is dead 

on arrival. 

We might work out something a little different than 900, but 

what was asked by the Governor is an impossibility, and there will 

be no action in this Congress. 

So my goal is to continue to go forth, try to solve this I think 

long-overdue challenge for the people of Puerto Rico. And I want 

to thank the people of Puerto Rico. As you know, I have been down 

there many times, and it is an area which I truly love, and the people. 

We had our 45th wedding anniversary in Puerto Rico. And I 

couldn’t think of a better person. And whoever has got that cell 

phone, they had better shut it off. 

I really, really appreciate the passion the Puerto Rican people 

have on this issue and other issues. If you have never been to a 

horse race or a cockfight in Puerto Rico, you haven’t really experienced excitement. 

So Madame Chair, with that, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Ranking Republican,

Committee on Natural Resources 

Madame Chairwoman, thank you for holding this hearing today and for a balanced line-up of witnesses. 

First off, let me say I’m a proud cosponsor of H.R. 900, a bill authored by my good 

friend, Mr. Fortun ̃ o, the Ranking Republican of this Subcommittee, and Congressman Serrano. 

Many in the room today are familiar with my experience dealing with this issue. 

In the 105th Congress, I sponsored a bill, H.R. 856, to resolve the political status 

of Puerto Rico. My principle aim was to consider the status question in a manner 

that complied with the Constitution and that bore in mind the aspirations of the 

people of Puerto Rico to determine their future. 

After three committee hearings, including two in Puerto Rico, the Committee 

passed the bill, and so did the House. 

While H.R. 900 is somewhat different from the bill I sponsored in 1997, it conforms to my basic goal, which is to enable the people of Puerto Rico to determine 

their status in a manner that is democratic and consistent with historic, legal, and 

constitutional precedents. 

13

This is not really a ‘‘statehood bill,’’ or an ‘‘independence bill,’’ or a ‘‘status quo’’ 

bill per se. This is a procedural bill, one that allows for a transparent, democratic 

process to resolve the status question. 

I recognize and respect the aims of those who support H.R. 1230. But I have some 

fundamental problems with the bill. 

First, it contemplates an outcome which may be unconstitutional. It would give 

Puerto Rico a chance to have a ‘‘new Commonwealth’’ status that gives it all the 

benefits of statehood but without the same application of federal law as all other 

states must bear. 

And aside from the constitutional problem, I don’t believe the House would pass 

a bill allowing for this arrangement. 

Another problem is that the bill seems to avoid the open, democratic process set 

forth under H.R. 900. This may tend to create confusion among residents of Puerto 

Rico who want to settle the status question in a directly democratic fashion. 

I applaud Chairwoman Christensen for holding a hearing to focus on some of 

these academic and constitutional questions surrounding these bills. 

I would urge my colleagues to carefully consider what process to use and focus 

first and foremost on which bill conforms most closely to the Constitution. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Ranking Member Young. The 

Chair now recognizes the author of H.R. 900, Representative 

Serrano, for any statement he may have. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOSE ́ SERRANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. I really appreciate this opportunity to 

participate in this hearing. And you would be interested to know 

that both Ms. Vela ́zquez and I left SBA hearings. She is Chairman 

of the SBA Committee, and I on Appropriations overseeing SBA’s 

budget. So SBA took second to Puerto Rico today, as it should on 

any given day. 

Let me just comment on the fact that I may be a member, the 

leader of a group that only has one member: me. And that is anything but the colonial status of Puerto Rico. I know that one of the 

favorite pastimes in Puerto Rico is trying to figure out whether I 

support statehood or independence. 

I think that is the problem; that for so many years we Puerto 

Ricans have been asked to be in favor of something, when in fact 

we should have organized ourselves to be against the colonial status. Get rid of the colony, move it out of the way, and then roll the 

dice on what comes later and deal as brothers and sisters on the 

island and in Congress. 

And it is with that in mind that I joined Mr. Fortun ̃ o. I have always proposed the idea that Puerto Rico first must decide whether 

it wants to remain in this relationship, or change. 

And so H.R. 900 gives us an opportunity to make that decision. 

And then it puts forth either integration or separation from the 

American Union as the true alternative. 

Now, why do I believe that that is correct? I believe that there 

are things in life that border, or are, in fact, issues of morality. And 

I believe as a legislator of 33 years that there is such a thing as 

legislative morality. So I believe that it is legislatively immoral to 

present to the people of Puerto Rico a colonial option as one of its 

choices. 

You cannot, in the true American, democratic, constitutional tradition say I give you the choice of joining the Union as a full 

partner; I give you the choice of becoming a member of the world 

14

community as an independent nation; but I also give you the choice 

of becoming even a stronger colony. Such a thing doesn’t exist, and 

that is why I have always proposed. 

Now, I have to tell you that we make compromises when we 

want to get something done. So I am not happy with the opening 

statement of H.R. 900 that says that you wish to remain the same. 

But I know I can’t move to step two if we don’t ask that question 

first. Given a choice, I would never ask that question. I would simply say statehood or independence, and that is the choice. 

Now, a comment that was made by our Chairwoman I think merits a comment from me. You say that you like a process that starts 

from the bottom up. That makes the assumption that the people of 

Puerto Rico will decide their political future. 

It wasn’t Puerto Rico that invaded the United States in 1898. It 

was the United States that invaded Puerto Rico. We have been 

holding the colony for 109 years. We have to determine whether we 

want to integrate the colony, or dispose of the colony. 

But the U.S. Congress first has to make the determination that 

this can’t continue, and it has to make that change. 

Now, as well was said by Mr. Fortun ̃ o, which is interesting, no 

one in Puerto Rico supports the present status. When they say they 

support commonwealth, they support a new commonwealth, which 

I call a letter to the Three Kings or a letter to Santa Claus. Because it says let me be a state, but let me be an independent nation; let me change, but not change. 

Does Puerto Rico deserve that after 109 years of colonialism? Absolutely. And I would vote for it. Can any Member of Congress outside of three or four of us vote for that? Absolutely not. Because 

as it was said here, if you go back to your district, somebody is 

going to ask you that Sunday morning in church, what was it that 

you gave Puerto Rico that you can’t give my district. And that is 

the problem, that it is not realistic. 

Now, also it was said that nothing may change the economics of 

Puerto Rico. Well, tomorrow we are voting to give the District of 

Columbia a vote. I will vote for that. Because we know what that 

integration means. We are also promoting democracy throughout 

the world, which is good. We know what that means. That is an 

independent nation, right? 

Well, let us face it. Both of those do guarantee certain strong futures. It is the colonial status that guarantees no future at all. 

We still live in this Congress in a situation that is sad. I keep 

bringing up the fact that people have told me at times can I get 

them stamps for their collection from Puerto Rico. And I still tell 

the story of the Member of Congress, who is still a Member of Congress, who asked me for currency from Puerto Rico from his collection. So I took a dollar bill from my pocket and gave it to him. And 

I think that person got the message. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SERRANO. In order for us to move ahead, we have to determine whether we are serious or not. I really would beg those who 

support the commonwealth to accept the reality that there is such 

a thing as an enhanced commonwealth; it is called free association. 

You have to move toward that if you truly believe in an enhanced 

commonwealth. 

15

But to continue to ask for a commonwealth that is colonial in nature is a disservice to the people of Puerto Rico, is a disservice to 

this country, and it is a disservice to democracy throughout the 

world. 

I will not rest until the colony is gone. It served a purpose for 

a long time perhaps, and I give credit to those who took it from 

where it was to where it is. But it was never the intention of the 

founders of the commonwealth to keep it as a permanent condition, 

and it is a condition. 

And so I find myself today in a unique situation, a situation similar or identical to what Nydia finds herself in. We were both born 

in the colony, and now we serve in the Congress of the power that 

holds the colony. As a Puerto Rican, I don’t want my birthplace to 

be a colony. As an American Congressman, I think it is indecent 

that my country has colonies in 2007. And this must end. 

For that reason I proposed this bill. For this reason I think that 

the American family will resolve this problem jointly, and the 

Puerto Rican family will do the same. 

Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. Before I move to the 

author of H.R. 1230, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 

from Illinois, Mr. Weller, be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in the hearing. Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

I also understand, Mr. Weller, that you need to leave us in a few 

minutes? And we are limiting our opening statements, but I will 

allow you to acknowledge the witnesses that have traveled today. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JERRY WELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. WELLER. Madame Chair, let me just thank you for the courtesy of being able to join you and our colleagues on this very, very 

important Subcommittee. 

I come here today both to support H.R. 900, as well as to echo 

the comments of the lead sponsors of H.R. 900, my friend, Jose ́

Serrano, as well as Luis Fortun ̃ o, the elected representative of the 

people of Puerto Rico on behalf of H.R. 900. 

I believe Congress has a role to play, and I also believe that 

H.R. 900 puts into place the appropriate response. I have been a 

witness as well as a participant in this process over the last 12 

years. For some it has been frustrating, but I believe H.R. 900 provides the true answer. 

I have a much longer statement I would like to submit for the 

record. But again, I am here to support H.R. 900. And Madame 

Chairman, thank you very much for the courtesy of allowing me to 

present my very brief comments, as well as to express my support. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weller follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jerry Weller, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Illinois 

Madam Chairwoman, I am here today to support H.R. 900, the Serrano-Fortun ̃ o 

bill, because I believe Congress has a role to play and a responsibility to enable a 

process to achieve democratic majority rule in Puerto Rico on the status issue. 

The history of frustrating and disagreeable locally sponsored status votes teaches 

us that a three way choice among options that include a commonwealth definition 

16

already repeatedly rejected by Congress virtually ensures minority rule in the form 

of indecisive plurality votes. 

We need to sponsor a vote with a ballot that enables a majority to vote to continue 

the current status as defined by federal law, or to seek change. Only if a majority 

vote to seek a new status would there ever be a vote on statehood or some form 

of nationhood, either independence or free association. So who is afraid of majority 

rule, and how is it unfair? 

I have heard all the hype about exclusion of commonwealth as an option, and it 

is just not true. This bill is fair to commonwealth as it really is under current federal law, and may even give it an advantage by asking voters to choose between 

the known and the unknown. 

What is not fair is to return to the practice of asking voters to choose among unattainable options defined in the ideological hot house of local politics, without any 

federally sponsored process of legitimate and informed self-determination based on 

constitutionally defined options. 

H.R. 1230 will invite yet another agonizing debate and inconclusive process focused on an option that is not legally possible or politically realistic. That does not 

empower people, that disempowers people. 

We should not waste any more time on the notion of a bilateral compact to make 

Puerto Rico a separate nation under the American flag. I agree with those who believe this is just a delaying tactic to preserve the status quo. The only way the status quo should be preserved any longer is if the majority consent to it in a democratic process, and that is what H.R. 900 ensures. 

So we need to shift the focus away from flawed ideology and delay tactics embodied in H.R. 1230, and focus on the real issue and legitimate self-determination 

as proposed by H.R. 900. 

I know there are economic and political arguments that can be made for and 

against statehood. Personally, I think statehood is probably he best way to ensure 

that Puerto Rico will develop economically, so that the current $15 billion federal 

subsidy of commonwealth status ends, and Puerto Rico can prosper enough to afford 

to pay its own way in the union. Every territory that has become a state has developed and risen to and with the level of the national economy. 

I also think it is silly to try to predict whether Puerto Rico will send more Democrats or Republicans to Congress if it becomes a state, because they elect both Republicans and Democrats now, and they are not different than the rest of the U.S. 

politically. What really matters is whether they have full democratic participation, 

because what we know is that both parties are competitive in Puerto Rico and will 

thrive when Americans in Puerto Rico not only attend the national party conventions, but vote in the elections that follow. 

However, I don’t think the economic and political arguments are as important as 

the constitutional and moral issues. The territorial clause in Article IV of the Constitution was never intended to result in a century of territorial status for what is 

now close to 4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico. 

How can 4 million U.S. citizens be represented by one non-voting member of the 

House? 

Madame Chairwoman—thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and 

testimony here today. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Weller. The Chairman now 

recognizes the author of H.R. 1230, Representative Vela ́zquez, for 

any statement she may have. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And my Chairwoman of the Small Business 

Committee. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Chairwoman Christensen and Minority Ranking Member Fortun ̃ o, for holding this important hearing today. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here and offer my views on 

H.R. 1230, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2007. 

17

My friends, here we are today debating on the House Floor a 

supplemental regarding the war in Iraq. And we, the U.S. Congress, we are in Iraq because we want to empower the people of 

Iraq. 

Well, I am here to empower the people of Puerto Rico. And we 

should not be afraid to provide for a political vehicle that will allow 

the people of Puerto Rico, who live in Puerto Rico, come to terms 

regarding their political destiny. 

I am a Puerto Rican Member of the U.S. Congress, and I will not 

go to Puerto Rico to tell the people of Puerto Rico what is the best 

political option for them. That is a decision that they have to make. 

The path to self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico has 

been a long, difficult one. It is full of complex factors that warrant 

thorough discussion in order to make an informed decision. 

Previous Congressional initiatives have focused on defining what 

the options should be for the people of Puerto Rico, but the truth 

is Puerto Ricans themselves should decide what their options are. 

That is why I introduced H.R. 1230, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, along with Congressman Gutierrez—that by the way 

is not here at this moment because he is holding a press conference 

to announce legislation on immigration—and Congressman Wicker, 

to recognize that it is the people of Puerto Rico who are best suited 

to determine their political future. 

The residents of the island need to examine the factors themselves, the economic, legal, and social issues that are coming into 

play. Most importantly, it must be done in a way that allows their 

opinions to be both heard and considered. 

Puerto Rico has not only a natural right to self-determination, 

but it is also entitled to a process that allows an informed use of 

that right. You cannot ask or even expect people to choose their future without debating what their options are, and what consequences may arise. 

A democratic self-determination process ensures that people are 

able to debate their ideas and reach consensus themselves on how 

to proceed. Plebiscites or referendums do not lend themselves to a 

comprehensive and thoughtful process. Arbitrarily defined Federal 

concepts that require the Puerto Rican people to choose in a yesor-no format are not consistent with the practices of self-determination. 

I want to take a moment to remind the Committee today that 

this process will impact eight million Puerto Ricans living in our 

states and on the island. Congressmen Gutierrez, Serrano, and myself have a significant number of Puerto Rican constituents in our 

districts, as well as family and friends still living on the island. We 

must make sure that all of their opinions are taken into account 

during this vital discussion. 

It is for this reason that I am strongly encouraging that this Subcommittee hold hearings on this issue in Puerto Rico, New York, 

Chicago, and Orlando, so that local community leaders and the 

general public have an opportunity to participate in this historic 

process. These discussions cannot take place on Capitol Hill alone, 

and needs to be seen in the light of day for the Puerto Rican 

community to see and participate. 

18

Chairwoman Christensen, I appreciate the time you have granted me today to share my thoughts on this important issue. I am 

hopeful that under your leadership, this hearing will lead to consensus, dialogue, and a fair process for the people of Puerto Rico. 

They simply cannot afford to spend time watching yet another 

round of hearings that in the end only compound the already-existing divisions among groups in Puerto Rico. 

This is a complicated issue which draws many emotions from the 

people in Puerto Rico and those Puerto Ricans living in the States 

that feel passionately about their future. We have an opportunity 

before us to address this issue in a comprehensive, fair, and transparent manner. 

I look forward to working with you and the Members of the Subcommittee in providing the people of Puerto Rico with an unbiased 

approach that guarantees a true expression of the right to self-determination and their aspirations. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vela ́zquez follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Nydia M. Vela ́ zquez, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York 

Thank you, Chairwoman Christensen, for holding this hearing today. I appreciate 

the opportunity to be here and offer my views on H.R. 1230, The Puerto Rico SelfDetermination Act of 2007. 

The path to self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico has been a long, difficult one. It is full of complex factors that warrant thorough discussion in order to 

make an informed decision. Previous congressional initiatives have focused on defining what the options should be for the people of Puerto Rico. But the truth is—Puerto Ricans themselves should decide what their options are. 

That is why I introduced, H.R. 1230, ‘‘The Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act’’, 

along with Congressmen Gutierrez and Wicker, to recognize that it is the people of 

Puerto Rico who are best suited to determine their political future. The residents 

of the island need to reexamine the factors themselves—the economic, legal and social issues—that are coming into play. Most importantly, it must be done in a way 

that allows their opinions to be both heard and considered. 

Puerto Rico has not only an inalienable right to self-determination, but it is also 

entitled to a process that allows an informed use of that right. You cannot ask, or 

even expect, people to choose their future without debating what their options are 

and what consequences may arise. 

A democratic self-determination process ensures that people are able to debate the 

ideas and reach consensus themselves on how to proceed. Plebiscites or referendums 

do not lend themselves to a comprehensive and thoughtful process. Arbitrarily defined federal concepts that require the Puerto Rican people to choose in a yes or 

no format are not consistent with the practices of self-determination. 

I want to take a moment to remind the committee today that this process will 

impact 8 million Puerto Ricans living in our states and on the island. Congressman 

Gutierrez, Serrano and myself have a significant number of Puerto Rican constituents in our districts, as well as family and friends still living on the island. We must 

make sure that all of their opinions are taken into account during this vital discussion. 

It is for this reason that I am strongly encouraging that this sub-committee hold 

field hearings on this issue—in New York, Chicago, Orlando and of course, in Puerto 

Rico; so that local community leaders and the general public have an opportunity 

to participate in this historic process. These discussions cannot take place on Capitol 

Hill alone. It needs to be seen in the light of day for the Puerto Rican community 

to see and participate. 

Chairwoman Christensen, I appreciate the time you have granted me today to 

share my thoughts on this important issue. I am hopeful, that under your leadership, these hearings will lead to consensus, dialogue and a fair process for the people of Puerto Rico. They simply cannot afford to spend time watching yet another 

round of hearings that, in the end, only compound the already existing divisions 

among groups in Puerto Rico. 

19

This is a complicated issue which draws many emotions from the people in Puerto 

Rico, and those Puerto Ricans living in the states, that feel passionately about their 

future. We have an opportunity before us today to address this issue in a comprehensive, fair and transparent manner. 

I look forward to working with you and the Members of the Sub-committee on Insular Affairs in providing the people of Puerto Rico with an unbiased approach that 

guarantees a true expression of their right to self-determination, and their aspirations. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Congresswoman Vela ́zquez. 

I want to welcome also to the hearing today my fellow delegates, 

Congressman Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa; Ms. Madeleine Bordallo, Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of Guam; and 

Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island. 

I would now like to thank those who responded to the Subcommittee’s call to hear from organizations that may not have had 

the opportunity to be heard by Congress in the past. 

We received a great number of requests to appear before us, and 

we were not able to accommodate all requests. 

However, if there are no objections, I would like to take this opportunity to enter into the record the statements of the following 

people: 

Mr. Ricardo Alvarado; Mr. Carlos Chardon; Mr. Jose ́ Julio Dı ́az,, 

President of the New Statehood Movement; Lieutenant-Colonel 

Freytes; Mr. Arturo Guzman, Chairman of the Institute for the Development, Equality, and Advancement of Puerto Rico; The League 

of United Latin American Citizens; Mr. Joaquin Marquez, President of the Puerto Rican-American Foundation; Mr. Juan Manuel 

Garcia Passalacqua; Juan Jose ́ Nola Acosta; Ms. Luz E. Cuadrado 

Pitterson; Mr. Mario Porrata; Mr. Dennis Simmons; and Dr. 

Marissel Vela ́zquez-Vicente, President of the Puerto Rico Association of Physicians and Surgeons. 

And hearing no objections, so ordered. 

[NOTE: The statements submitted for the record have 

been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I would now like to call up the first panel. Mr. 

Kenneth Thomas of the Congressional Research Service; Professor 

Carlos I. Gorrı ́n-Peralta of Puerto Rico’s Inter-American University 

School of Law; Mr. Ramo ́n Luis Nieves, the Executive Director of 

Movimiento Autonomista Socialdemo ́crata; Professor Richard Pildes 

of New York University School of Law; and Thomas C. Goldstein, 

a lawyer with the firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Thomas to testify for five minutes. 

The timing lights on the table will indicate when your time is concluded, and all witness statements will be submitted, the full statements will be submitted for the hearing record. 

Mr. Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH R. THOMAS, LEGISLATIVE 

ATTORNEY, AMERICAN LAW DIVISION, CONGRESSIONAL 

RESEARCH SERVICE 

Mr. THOMAS. Madame Chairwoman and Members of the committee. My name is Ken Thomas, and I am a legislative attorney 

with the American Law Division of the Congressional Research 

Service at the Library of Congress. 

20

I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the committee’s consideration of H.R. 900, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007, and H.R. 1230, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2007. I would also like to thank Johnny Killian, 

Sam Garrett, and Keith Bee of my office who helped me in preparation for this hearing. 

I would like to start my discussion with H.R. 900. H.R. 900 is 

based on the recommendations of the President’s Task Force on 

Puerto Rico’s Status. That task force report states that there are 

three constitutionally valid options available to the island: independence, statehood, or the continuation of the commonwealth status, subject to the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

Under H.R. 900 there would be a plebiscite to ask voters to 

choose between the current commonwealth status or a permanent 

non-territorial status. If a majority of voters chose the second options, then a second plebiscite would be held to choose between 

statehood or independence, the latter of which would include free 

association. 

The second bill, H.R. 1230, contemplates convening a Puerto 

Rican Constitutional Convention, which would formulate a status 

option to be voted on in a public referendum. If approved, that option would be presented to Congress to be passed as a joint resolution. 

There are several aspects of H.R. 1230 that are of special note. 

While a Constitutional Convention could formulate any one of there 

options—again, statehood, independence, or commonwealth—any 

commonwealth status proposed would need to be new or modified. 

Under H.R. 1230 this appears to mean that a commonwealth status would be ‘‘based upon the sovereignty of the people of Puerto 

Rico, and not subject to the plenary powers of the territorial clause 

of the Constitution of the United States.’’

Now, the territorial clause, found in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 

2 of the Constitution, provides that 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. 

Now, the Supreme Court has held that Congress’s power under 

the territorial clause is extremely broad, and can be exercised even 

after the authority to govern has been delegated to a territorial 

government. So the question which needs to be asked is what is 

this new or modified commonwealth option which could be proposed by the convention, under H.R. 1230? 

While I would first like to suggest that the language under 

H.R. 1230 is ambiguous to exactly how this commonwealth status 

would be formulated—for instance, this bill, unlike previous recommendations, seeks to withdraw Federal jurisdiction over Puerto 

Rico in order to achieve the goal of a new commonwealth. 

Now, it is not clear how far this withdrawal of Federal jurisdiction is intended to go. For instance, one could argue that this language means that if the Constitutional Convention approves a particular definition of new commonwealth or a particular governmental structure, and Congress approves it, then it is that definition that could not be changed by the Federal government. 

21

In other words, the convention could adopt something like the 

current commonwealth, where there is both an existing Puerto 

Rican self-government, but there is also Federal jurisdiction, there 

are Federal criminal laws, Federal civil laws applicable. That is 

one interpretation. And this I would refer to as locking in the commonwealth. 

Now, another possible interpretation would be that commonwealth status cannot be considered unless it eliminates all Federal 

jurisdiction over the territory of Puerto Rico; again, a very different 

possible type of commonwealth. 

Now let me briefly address the idea of locking in commonwealth 

status. Now, I should first say that it is perfectly consistent with 

the Constitution for the Congress to commit itself not to exercise 

Federal jurisdiction over the commonwealth, and it is certainly perfectly constitutional for the Congress to act consistently with that 

pledge. 

The question is whether the Congress can, by statute, bind a further Congress so that such a statute cannot be repealed or altered. 

Now, some commentators had argued that perhaps the Fifth 

Amendment due process clause would be relevant here, in that you 

could have vested political rights that cannot be withdrawn. 

Now, without addressing these arguments in particular, let me 

just note that H.R. 1230 does not appear to be based on the enforcement of Federal rights, but instead on the elimination of Federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the vested political right argument 

may not be relevant to this bill. 

Now, one might also consider the alternative interpretation, 

where passage of a newer enhanced commonwealth would not just 

lock in commonwealth status, but it would also remove all Federal 

jurisdiction over the island of Puerto Rico. This interpretation also 

raises constitutional issues. 

The portion of the Constitution which appears to be most relevant here is, of course, Article IV, Section 3, which addresses both 

the power to grant statehood and the power to regulate or dispose 

of territories. 

Now, these powers are consistent with three possible options: 

statehood, territorial status such as commonwealth, or independence. 

However, 1230 does not specify an alternative constitutional authority under which Congress could act to create a commonwealth 

which is not subject to the territorial clause. 

You will hear—excuse me. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. You have a few seconds to wrap up. 

Mr. THOMAS. Madame Chairwoman, that concludes my prepared 

statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or 

other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:]

Statement of Kenneth R. Thomas, Legislative Attorney, American Law 

Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress 

Madame Chairwoman and members of the Committee: 

My name is Ken Thomas. I am a Legislative Attorney with the American Law 

Division of the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress. I’d like 

to thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the Committee’s considerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
22

1 A ‘‘free association’’ relationship generally entails negotiated legal and economic ties, severable by either side, between sovereign nations. 2See U.S. President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, Report by the President’s Task 

Force on Puerto Rico’s Status (2005) (Task Force Report). 3 Executive Order No. 13183, 65 FR 82889 (2000). 

ation of H.R. 900, the ‘‘Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007’’ and H.R. 1230, the 

‘‘Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2007.’’ I’d also like to thank Sam Garrett, 

an analyst with our Government and Finance Division, who helped me in my preparation for this hearing. 

Today, I would like to discuss the specifics of these two bills, including how they 

might be interpreted by a court and how they would interact with United States 

Constitution. Let me start with H.R. 900, which would authorize various plebiscites 

to be held in Puerto Rico on the issue of status. Under H.R. 900, a plebiscite would 

be held to ask voters to choose between two different status options, both of which 

are specified in the bill. The first option would be to continue ‘‘the existing form of 

territorial status as defined by the Constitution, basic laws, and policies of the 

United States.’’ The second option would be to pursue ‘‘a path toward a constitutionally viable permanent nonterritorial status.’’ If a majority of voters in this first 

plebiscite were to choose the option of maintaining the status quo, H.R. 900 would 

then call for additional plebiscites to be held every eight years to reexamine the voters’ status preferences. On the other hand, if a majority of voters chose the second 

option, ‘‘a path toward a constitutionally viable permanent nonterritorial status,’’ 

H.R. 900 would authorize a second plebiscite. In this second plebiscite, voters would 

be asked to choose between: 

(1) statehood or (2) becoming a ‘‘sovereign nation.’’ The second option would include either complete independence or entering into a ‘‘free association’’ relationship 

with the United States. 1

The process contemplated by H.R. 900 is based on the recommendations of the 

President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status (Task Force). 2 The Task Force was 

established by President Clinton in 2000 to, among other things, identify options for 

the territory’s future political status and suggest a process for realizing such options. 3 In December of 2005, the Task Force issued a report on Puerto Rico’s relationship with the federal government. The report asserted that there are only three 

constitutionally valid options available to the island: (1) independence; (2) statehood; 

or (3) continuation as a U.S. territory subject to the Territorial Clause of the U.S. 

Constitution. The provisions of H.R. 900 were drafted to be consistent with this 

finding. 

By contrast, H.R. 1230 appears to contemplate a method for addressing the status relationship between Puerto Rico and the federal government that differs significantly from both the process and the status options suggested by the Task Force. 

One significant difference is that H.R. 1230 contemplates the convening of a Puerto 

Rican constitutional convention, which would formulate a status option to be considered by the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress. The convening of the convention, however, would be one part of a multi-step process. First, the Puerto Rican 

government would approve legislation establishing the number of delegates to the 

convention. Then, an election would be held in Puerto Rico to select those delegates. 

Once the constitutional convention was convened, the convention delegates would be 

asked to agree on a proposed ‘‘Self-Determination Option’’ for Puerto Rico. The convention’s proposal would then be presented to ‘‘the People of Puerto Rico’’ in a referendum. Finally, if a majority of referendum voters approved the proposed status 

option, it would become a ‘‘Self-Determination Proposal,’’ which would then be presented to Congress to be passed as a joint resolution. 

The process suggested by H.R. 1230, however, would not necessarily end if the 

‘‘Self-Determination Proposal’’ is passed or rejected by Congress. If Congress were 

to make any changes to the proposal before passage, then § 4(a)(1) of the bill provides that these changes would be submitted to the Puerto Rican voters for approval 

in another referendum before the proposal could take took effect. On the other hand, 

if Congress rejected the proposed status option outright, § 4(a)(2) provides that the 

constitutional convention may reconvene to develop a new proposal. 

There are several aspects of H.R. 1230 that are of special note. First, a ‘‘Self-Determination Option’’ can involve Commonwealth status, statehood or independence. 

However, if the Commonwealth status is chosen, it must be a ‘‘new or modified’’ 

Commonwealth. This language appears to be related to the further requirement 

that, whatever status is chosen—Commonwealth, statehood or independence options—it must be ‘‘based on the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico and not 

subject to the plenary powers of the territorial clause of the Constitution of the 

United States.’’ This language stands in contrast to the Task Force report, which 

23

4Foraker Act of April 12, 1900, ch. 191, 31 Stat. 77 (1900). 

5See, e.g., Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904); 

Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922). 6 182 U.S. 244 (1901). 

7 U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. 

8 Jones Act of March 2, 1917, ch. 145, 39 Stat. 951 (1917). 

9Public Law 81–600, ch. 446, 64 Stat. 319 (1950). 

suggests that at least one of the status options, Commonwealth, cannot be formulated in a way that is not subject to Congress’ power under Territorial Clause. 

Of additional interest is the process to be followed by the Congress in the event 

that a ‘‘Self-Determination Proposal’’ is sent to the Congress by the convention. 

H.R. 1230 provides that if such option is submitted to Congress, then a joint resolution ‘‘shall’’ be enacted approving both the terms of the proposal and any necessary 

implementing language. At first impression, the use of the term ‘‘shall’’ would appear to contemplate that Congress would be required, under the bill, to accept the 

status option submitted by the convention. As will be discussed later, such an interpretation of this language may raise constitutional concerns. 

One thing that the two bills do have in common is that they would both allow 

Puerto Ricans living off the island to participate in the proposed status decisionmaking. H.R. 900 would allow ‘‘all United States citizens born in Puerto Rico’’ who 

satisfy eligibility requirements set by the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission 

to participate in the plebiscites. The bill would thus allow Puerto Ricans born on 

the island, but not living there today, to participate in the plebiscites. H.R. 1230, 

on the other hand, appears to allow even broader suffrage. Although ‘‘voter eligibility’’ is not as explicitly addressed as it is in H.R. 900, the bill specifies that the 

‘‘People of Puerto Rico’’ would participate in electing constitutional convention delegates and in the referendum on the convention’s self-determination proposal. The 

‘‘People of Puerto Rico’’ is defined to include resident Puerto Ricans and nonresidents ‘‘who are either born in Puerto Rico or have one parent born in Puerto 

Rico.’’

At this point, I would like to briefly give some background on the political status 

of Puerto Rico. After the end of the Spanish-American War, the United States and 

Spain signed the Treaty of Paris, which resulted in Spain relinquishing its claims 

to various holdings in the Caribbean, including Puerto Rico. The island was then 

governed by a U.S. military governor from 1898 through1900. 

In 1900, the Congress passed the Foraker Act, under which Puerto Rico became 

an organized territory of the United States. 4 This Act included numerous provisions 

to raise revenue, and it provided Puerto Rican citizenship for inhabitants of the island who chose not to remain Spanish citizens. The Act also established a civilian 

government in Puerto Rico, and provided for a non-voting Resident Commissioner 

to act as the island’s representative in Congress. 

Soon thereafter, the Supreme Court began a consideration of the island’s constitutional status in what have become know as the Insular Cases. 5 For instance, in the 

case of Downes v. Bidwell, 6 the Court considered whether the constitutional requirement that duties, excises and imposts were to be uniform throughout the 

United States 7 applied to Puerto Rico. Justice White, in concurrence, established 

the territorial incorporation doctrine, which was ultimately used in the other Insular Cases. Under this doctrine, incorporated territories would enjoy all of the Constitution’s protections, but unincorporated territories, such as Puerto Rico, would 

only enjoy fundamental constitutional rights and those additional civil rights that 

Congress provided by statute. 

In 1917, Congress passed an Organic Act for Puerto Rico, which is popularly 

known as the Jones Act. 8 Among other things, the Act granted a bill of rights and 

statutory citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico. In 1950, the Congress passed the 

Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act, 9 giving Puerto Rico the right to establish a government and a constitution. This law is considered to be the basis for the modern 

Commonwealth relationship. In 1951, a referendum was held which approved the 

provisions of this Act, and the island’s electorate subsequently approved a new 

Puerto Rican constitution. The constitution was then amended and approved by 

Congress. Since that time, a series of local referendums and plebiscites have been 

held on the status issue, but no significant change in political status has occurred. 

The nature of the existing Commonwealth relationship between Puerto Rico and 

the United States has long been controversial. It is clear that the creation of the 

Commonwealth was intended to establish a significant level of self-government for 

Puerto Rico. However, disagreement exists about whether this relationship, which 

24

10The preamble to the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act provides that: ‘‘the Act is now 

adopted in the nature of a compact so that the people of Puerto Rico may organize a government 

pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption.’’ Id. 11Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162, 168 (1899). 12 Binns v. United States, 194 U.S. 486, 491 (1904). 13 101 U.S. 129 (1879)(upholding congressional authority over issuance of bonds by counties 

under the authority of a territory). 14 Id. at 132. See also Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cr. (10 U.S.) 332, 336 (1810); American Insurance Co. 

v. Canter, 1 Pet. (26 U.S.) 511, 542 (1828); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 48 (1894). 

was established in the ‘‘nature of a compact,’’ 10 was intended to be binding on both 

parties, so that changes to that relationship could only be made by mutual consent. 

A further question is whether, regardless of the intent of the parties, Congress can 

be constitutionally bound to observe such an agreement. 

This debate is also important to the consideration of the status options provided 

for in the bills before the Committee. As noted, the Task Force has asserted that 

the only three constitutionally-recognized options available to the island are independence, statehood or continuation as a U.S. territory subject to the Territorial 

Clause. While H.R. 1230 also provides for three status options—independence, 

statehood or Commonwealth—it specifies that none of the status options shall be 

subject to the Territorial Clause. Assuming for the moment that the current Commonwealth status is subject to the Congress’ power over territories, H.R. 1230 directly raises the issue of whether such a ‘‘new or modified’’ Commonwealth option 

not subject to the clause is constitutionally permissible. 

Article IV, § 3, cl. 2, the Territorial Clause, provides that ‘‘The Congress shall 

have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the 

territory or other property belonging to the United States....’’ The Supreme Court 

has held that Congress’s power under the Territorial Clause is extremely broad: 

In the Territories of the United States, Congress has the entire dominion 

and sovereignty, national and local, Federal and state, and has full legislative power over all subjects upon which the legislature of a State might legislate within the State; and may, at its discretion, intrust that power to the 

legislative assembly of a Territory. 11

It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court has also held that the Congress has wide discretion in how it can provide for self-government in those territories: 

It must be remembered that Congress, in the government of the Territories 

as well as of the District of Columbia, has plenary power, save as controlled 

by the provisions of the Constitution, that the form of government it shall 

establish is not prescribed, and may not necessarily be the same in all the 

Territories. We are accustomed to that generally adopted for the Territories, of a quasi state government, with executive, legislative, and judicial 

officers, and a legislature endowed with the power of local taxation and 

local expenditures, but Congress is not limited to this form.... It may legislate directly in respect to the local affairs of a Territory or transfer the 

power of such legislation to a legislature elected by the citizens of the Territory. 12

If Congress delegates authority to local authorities, however, this does not limit 

Congress’ continuing power to act in that territory under the Territorial Clause. In 

First National Bank v. County of Yankton, 13 the Court said: 

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 the outlying dominion of the 

United States. ... 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. 14

Considering these parameters, the question arises as to how a court might interpret the language of H.R. 1230 which provides that all of the status options to be 

considered by the constitutional convention must ‘‘be based on the sovereignty of the 

People of Puerto Rico and not subject to the plenary powers of the territorial clause 

of the Constitution of the United States.’’

A preliminary question with which a court might be concerned is just how broad 

an assertion of sovereignty is contemplated by the bill, as the quoted language may 

be seen as ambiguous. For instance, an argument might be made this language provides only that, once a status option is chosen and approved by Congress, it was 

the agreement itself which was no longer subject to Congress’s power under the 

25

15This theory of vested rights was apparently adopted by the Department of Justice in a 1963 

legal opinion, and was reiterated as late as 1975. See Task Force Report, supra note 2 at 6. 

The Department of Justice apparently reconsidered this opinion after the 1986 Supreme Court 

decision in Bowen v. Agencies Opposed to Soc. Sec. Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41, 54-56 (1986) (holding that a State’s purported contractual right to withdraw its employees from Social Security 

was not a property right). Since that time, the Department of Justice has apparently held the 

opinion that a political compact cannot rise to the level of vested property rights. Id. 

clause. Another interpretation would be that, whatever status option is chosen, that 

once that option is approved, the Congress would no longer be able to exercise its 

territorial power over Puerto Rico. 

If the first interpretation is correct, then this language would appear to be intended merely to ‘‘lock in’’ whatever status option was chosen by the Congress, by 

removing Congress’ constitutional authority to amend the provisions of the enacted 

joint resolution. This interpretation would, of course, raise constitutional issues. In 

fact, it would appear to raise many of the same legal arguments that have been 

made over the course of years concerning the current Commonwealth status. In general, these arguments, while accepting the fact of continuing federal jurisdiction 

over the territory of Puerto Rico, have suggested that some essential portion of the 

existing political structure, such as the Puerto Rican Constitution, is beyond the 

Congress’s power. 

The fundamental controversy in this regard appears to be whether the Congress 

can be bound by political status agreements. For two of the status options provided 

under H.R. 1230, this would not be a problem. There is little disagreement with the 

suggestion that, if Congress granted Puerto Rico statehood or independence, these 

decisions could not be reversed, and that under either of these options, Puerto Rico 

would no longer be subject to the Territorial Clause. Nor is there any question that 

Congress, after endorsing a Commonwealth status proposal, could refrain from 

modifying that decision, so that no issue of constitutional consequence would arise. 

Thus, the main point at issue is how the legislation as it is constructed is to be interpreted. 

It is not clear from H.R. 1230 what legal theory might be presented in this regard. Because of the similarity of the proposal to past theories regarding the Puerto 

Rican Commonwealth, one could postulate that some of the legal arguments made 

in that earlier context would be relevant. For instance, commentators have suggested that certain compacts granting self-governmental authority to a territory create ‘‘vested political rights.’’ Under the Fifth Amendment, once the United States 

has vested a property right, then Congress cannot deprive a person of that property 

without due process of law; nor can that private property be taken for public use 

without providing just compensation. Under a ‘‘vested political rights’’ theory, a compact granting self-governmental authority to a territory could create such vested 

property rights, so that a subsequent Congress could not revoke the compact unilaterally. 15

It is not clear, however, how this argument could be applied to the situation contemplated by H.R. 1230. As noted, the ‘‘vested political rights’’ theory relies on precepts of due process and the takings doctrine, both of which are found in the Fifth 

Amendment. H.R. 1230, rather than invoking the application of these constitutional 

protections, focuses on diminishing the authority of Congress under the Territorial 

Clause. Arguably, the provisions of H.R. 1230 may even work against the strength 

of the ‘‘vested political rights’’ argument. As noted, the Insular Cases found that the 

degree to which constitutional rights were applicable in the territories was often to 

be determined by Congress under the Territorial Clause. However, to the extent 

that the Territorial Clause was deemed no longer applicable to the ‘‘new or enhanced’’ Commonwealth, then this would appear to diminish the argument that the 

constitutional prohibition against the deprivation of ‘‘vested political rights’’ was 

still applicable to Puerto Rico. 

Considering the constitutional problems with the ‘‘vested political rights’’ theory, 

one might consider an alternative interpretation of proposed language under 

H.R. 1230. Under this second interpretation, the passage of a ‘‘new or enhanced’’ 

Commonwealth would result, not just in a ‘‘locking in’’ of the status relationship, 

but also in a removal of all federal jurisdiction over the island of Puerto Rico. This 

interpretation, however, may raise more significant constitutional issues. As the 

Congress is limited to its enumerated powers, it must be determined under what 

authority the United States Congress could establish such a status relationship. 

The portion of the Constitution which is most relevant to political status relationships is Article IV, § 3, which addresses three powers of Congress: the power to 

grant statehood, the power to regulate territories, and the power to dispose of territories. These three powers are consistent with the three status options of statehood, 

26

16See, e.g., H.R. 1230, § 4(a)(1)(‘‘If Congress approves the Self-Determination Proposal with 

any changes or amendments, it shall be submitted in a referendum vote to the People of Puerto 

Rico for approval before it shall be effective.’’) 17See Eule, Temporal Limits on the Legislative Mandate: Entrenchment and Retroactivity, 

1987 Am. B. Found. Res. J. 379. 18Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cr. (10 U.S.) 87, 135 (1810)(Chief Justice Marshall). 

Commonwealth subject to the Territorial Clause, and independence. H.R. 1230 does 

not specify under that what alternative constitutional authority Congress could act 

to create a Commonwealth not subject to the Territorial Clause, and as noted above, 

the ‘‘vested political rights’’ theory that has been suggested in the past may not be 

applicable to H.R. 1230. 

Further, this second interpretation would result in a significant change in the relationship between federal government and Puerto Rico. Currently, a significant 

number of criminal or civil federal laws are applicable to Puerto Rico. To the extent 

that a ‘‘new or enhanced’’ Commonwealth would mean that there is a total loss of 

federal jurisdiction over Puerto Rico, this would suggest a more significant change 

in the existing Commonwealth relationship between Puerto Rico and the federal 

government than has generally been contemplated in the past. While it is certainly 

the case that the federal government could choose to amend federal laws to exclude 

their application to the Puerto Rico, this would not eliminate Congress’s authority 

to reinstate such statutory provisions. 

Another issue is whether, under H.R. 1230, the Puerto Rican constitutional convention could evade some of these constitutional concerns by proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution. It seems clear that a constitutional amendment could be used to achieve the status option of a ‘‘new or enhanced Commonwealth’’ not subject to the plenary territorial powers of the Congress. Such a status 

is simply not achievable through a statutory route. Thus, to the extent that the constitutional convention were to provide a ‘‘new or enhanced Commonwealth’’ status 

option regarding Puerto Rico, it would appear likely that it would need to take the 

form of a constitutional amendment. 

On its face, H.R. 1230 does not specifically appear to limit a status option from 

being proposed as a constitutional amendment. There are certain aspects of the bill 

language which suggest that a proposed amendment to the Constitution would be 

appropriate. First, the bill provides that once a status proposal is submitted to Congress, that it shall be passed as a joint resolution, a legislative vehicle more commonly associated with special legislation such as constitutional amendments than 

with territorial legislation. Second, the bill itself speaks only in terms of Congressional approval of the joint resolution. 16 Normally, a joint resolution requires the 

approval of the President to become law. Thus, despite the failure to specify presidential participation, an interpretation of the bill would require either presidential 

participation or ratification by the states. 

A final provision of H.R. 1230 that should be considered is the requirement that 

Congress ‘‘shall,’’ by joint resolution, pass any proposal submitted by the Puerto 

Rican constitutional convention. The Supreme Court has held that a statute cannot 

bind a future Congress so that such statute cannot be repealed or altered. 17 As the 

Court long ago stated: 

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 general legislation, can never be controverted. 18

Similarly, Congress could not mandate that a future Congress take a specified action such as the passage of a particular proposal. 

Adding to the interpretational difficulties here is that, despite the requirement in 

H.R. 1230 that the Congress ‘‘shall’’ enact any status proposal, the bill specifically 

contemplates the possibility that Congress could either reject or modify (i.e., not 

pass) the status proposal. This brings into question whether the use of the term 

‘‘shall’’ in this context is truly intended to be mandatory. 

On a final note, if the Congress does fail to consider, pass or reject a status proposal, this may lead to other problems with the interpretation of the bill. For instance, as noted above, H.R. 1230 § 4(a)(1) and (2) contemplates additional procedures that can be taken in the event that Congress either modifies or rejects a status proposal. No such provision is made, however, in the event that Congress merely 

chooses not to consider a joint resolution containing the status options. One might 

argue that such a situation is contemplated by § 5 of the bill, which provides that 

the constitutional convention may remain in session until a self-determination proposal is enacted by Federal law. However, under the provisions of § 4(a) cited above, 

27

the Puerto Rican convention is only authorized to reconvene to propose another status option if Congress rejects the last one. If the Congress never considers the proposal, then it appears that the bill’s language would not provide for the consideration of a second self-determination proposal by the convention. 

Madam Chairwoman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have, 

and I look forward to working with all Members and the staff of the Subcommittee 

on this issue in the future. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. We will next recognize Professor Gorrı ́n-Peralta. 

STATEMENT OF CARLOS I. GORRI ́N-PERALTA, PROFESSOR, 

INTER-AMERICAN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, PUERTO 

RICO 

Mr. GORRI ́N-PERALTA. Good morning, Madame Chairwoman and 

Members of this Subcommittee. 

Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. It has been an unincorporated territory since the relation began in 1898, 109 years 

ago. Coincidentally, back in 1898 the Constitution was 109 years 

old. 

For 50 percent of its constitutional history, the United States has 

submitted the people of Puerto Rico to colonial rule, which is a subversion of the basic values on which the American Republic was 

founded. 

The Declaration of Independence says that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of 

the governed. Self-determination was reaffirmed when the people, 

through a constitutional convention, adopted the Constitution. Over 

the blood spilled on Gettysburg, Lincoln would renew the proposition that government of the people, by the people, and for the 

people should not perish from the earth. 

Yet, over the course of the 19th century, the nature of the Republic was transformed. What Jefferson had referred to as the republican ideal of an empire of liberty somehow mutated into a very 

unrepublican regime that claimed the liberty to rule an empire. 

As a result of the doctrine of territorial non-incorporation 

constitutionalizing the Insular Cases, everyone in Puerto Rico is 

daily subjected to the obligation of Federal laws from dawn to sundown, and even in our sleep, without our consent. 

You will surely hear happy colonials or their retained representatives say that in 1952, the people of Puerto Rico consented wholesale to the present relationship, but that is tantamount to saying 

that a slave owner may validly maintain a regime of involuntary 

servitude with the consent of the slaves. No individual may consent 

to slavery. No people may consent to colonialism. 

The world has changed. The day has come for the United States 

to finally solve the contradiction between colonial rule and fully 

democratic government. Even Justice White, the judicial artificer of 

the doctrine of territorial incorporation, spoke in his opinion in 

Downes v. Bidwell of, and I quote, ‘‘obligations of honor and good 

faith which sacredly bind the United States to terminate the dominion and control when the situation is ripe. The presumption 

must be,’’ he added, ‘‘that Congress will be faithful to its duty 

under the Constitution.’’

28

To comply with international law regarding the colonization, 

Congress ought to pass legislation that first and foremost declares 

the unequivocal intention of Congress to divest itself of the powers 

it has exercised under the territory clause. 

The process of self-determination should begin with the free expression of the people of the will to change the present territorial 

relation. The Congress ought to recognize the inherent constituent 

power of the people of Puerto Rico to call for the election of a constitutional assembly as depository of the sovereignty of the people 

to propose, negotiate, and agree to future relations with the United 

States. 

How do H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230 attempt to comply with these 

proposed standards? H.R. 900 proposes, as has been said, a series 

of plebiscites to solve the status issue with a clear Congressional 

purpose to renounce the territorial powers. 

In the first plebiscite, should the majority reject the existing territorial status, there would be a clear exercise of self-determination 

which would require a solution with all deliberate speed. 

The bill poses several problems, which I discuss in my written 

testimony. For example, the ballot language should be simplified 

and clarified to elicit a yes or no answer to the following proposition I suggest. Puerto Rico should no longer be subject to the 

powers of Congress under the territory clause of the Constitution 

of the United States. 

H.R. 1230 also has some positive and negative aspects. It would 

recognize the principle of sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico, 

and its inherent authority to call a constitutional convention to propose a self-determination option not subject to the territory clause. 

However, H.R. 1230 does a little more. It contemplates that a future Congress will enact a joint resolution to approve the terms of 

the proposal. That, of course, is wishful thinking at best, since one 

Congress may not bind a future Congress. 

Both H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230 have positive aspects and pitfalls. 

Both could complement each other by drawing on the positive aspects of each other. What is of paramount importance at this point 

is that Congress act now to set the process of self-determination 

and decolonization in motion. H.R. 900 is a step in that direction. 

One hundred and nine years ago began a colonial regime which 

demeans both the colonized and the colonizer. The time has come 

to send a clear signal to the world that Justice John Marshall Harlan was right when he stated in his dissent in Downes v. Bidwell 

106 years ago that, and I quote, ‘‘the idea that this country may 

acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, 

and hold them as mere colonies or provinces, is wholly inconsistent 

with the spirit and genius, as well as with the words, of the Constitution.’’

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gorrı ́n-Peralta follows:]

Statement of Carlos Iva ́n Gorrı ́n-Peralta, Professor,

Puerto Rico’s Inter-American University School of Law 

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of this Subcommittee. 

Thank you for the invitation to share with you my perspective regarding the two 

bills under consideration. I will first outline some historical and legal concepts 

29

regarding the relations between Puerto Rico and the United States, as necessary 

background for my analysis of the two measures. 

Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. It has been an unincorporated territory of the United States since the relation began as an act of war in 1898, one hundred and nine years ago. Coincidentally, in 1898 the Constitution of the United 

States was one hundred and nine years old. That means that for fifty percent of 

its constitutional history, the United States has submitted the people of Puerto Rico 

to the ignominy of colonial rule, which is a subversion of the basic values on which 

the American Republic was founded. 

The Declaration of Independence of 1776, which has been heard more clearly 

around the world than the shots fired at Lexington and Concord, states that ‘‘governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of 

the governed.—[I]t is the right of the people—to institute new government, laying 

its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them 

shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.’’ That seminal act of self 

determination was reaffirmed when ‘‘the people’’, through a constitutional convention, as depositary of popular sovereignty, and through ratification of the proposed 

document, adopted the Constitution of the United States. Blood had been spilled to 

secure that right of self-determination, and has continued to spill since then 

throughout the world. Four score and seven years after independence, over the blood 

spilled on Gettysburg, Lincoln would renew the proposition that government OF the 

people, BY the people and FOR the people should not perish from the earth. 

Yet, over the course of the 19th Century, the nature of the Republic was transformed. What Jefferson had referred to as the republican ideal of an empire of liberty somehow mutated into a very unrepublican regime that claimed the liberty to 

rule an empire. Constitutionally, the territory clause of the Constitution, which had 

been conceived as a mere property clause granting the federal government the 

power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the 

Northwest territory and other property belonging to the United States, was reinterpreted as granting Congress the power to acquire new territories by purchase or by 

conquest, and to exercise sovereignty over them, even though their inhabitants were 

not allowed to participate in their own government. 

By the 1890’s, dominant racist and imperialistic ideologies resulted in the infamous doctrine of ‘‘separate but equal’’ of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), 

and in the colonial doctrine of territorial non incorporation, enacted into law in 

1900, and judicially constitutionalized in the Insular Cases from 1901 onward. Since 

then, Congress has purported to exercise constitutional power indefinitely over the 

nonincorporated territories—Puerto Rico included—as possessions which are not 

part of, but merely appurtenant to the United States. Never mind that those possessions are not mere tracts of real estate, but are inhabited, as is Puerto Rico, by a 

distinct and separate people who, despite their inalienable right to self-determination and their inherent constituent power, have never been allowed to exercise their 

collective rights as a people. 

The federal government is not a government OF the people of Puerto Rico, nor 

is it in any way validated BY the people, nor does it rule FOR the people of Puerto 

Rico, but as it should be, for the interests of the people and institutions whom it 

represents. And yet, everyone in Puerto Rico is daily subjected to the application 

of federal laws, from dawn to sundown, and even in our sleep. Federal laws apply 

in Puerto Rico without our consent or real participation in the Congress which enacts them. The federal executive administers such laws in Puerto Rico despite the 

fact that we do not participate in its election. The federal judiciary interprets and 

applies the laws in Puerto Rico, despite the fact that the judges are designated by 

a President we do not elect, and are confirmed by a Senate in which we do not have 

even nominal participation. 

You will surely hear testimony of happy colonials or their retained representatives, to the effect that in 1950 to 1952 the people of Puerto Rico consented wholesale to the present relationship. But that is tantamount to saying that a slave owner 

may validly maintain a regime of involuntary servitude so long as he asks his slave 

whether she wants to adopt the rules for her household or whether she prefers that 

the master continue to dictate those domestic rules. Colonialism, like slavery, violates inalienable rights which may not be validly abrogated or renounced. No individual may consent to slavery; no people may consent to colonialism. 

The legislative record of Law 600 of 1950 is clear. The purpose of the enactment 

was to allow Puerto Rico a greater degree of local self government and to obtain 

acquiescence of the colonized to the existing territorial relationship. The nature of 

the relation was to remain intact, as were the legislative authority of this Congress, 

the executive power of the President, and the judicial jurisdiction of federal courts. 

30

The scheme was made possible by the territory clause and the doctrine of the Insular Cases, which have allowed the denial of the right to self determination, and 

present a grave inconsistency with the founding values of the Republic. The doctrine 

defers to the political branches of the federal government the governance of the territories on the basis of political expediency. At the end of the 19th Century colonialism was enthroned as the law of the land, and basic tenets of democracy, liberty 

and self-determination were set aside to serve the national self-interest through the 

acquisition of new unincorporated territories. 

The world has changed. The national interests that prompted the acquisition of 

Puerto Rico were strategic and economic. Puerto Rico no longer has the strategic 

value it once had. Economically, the colony has failed and our society is crumbling. 

The national self-interest is now best served by a new policy aimed at the disposition of the territory of Puerto Rico and the implementation of measures to promote 

the right to self-determination. Far from condemning the United States to continue 

an imperial policy of colonial rule, the doctrine of territorial incorporation leaves 

ample space for congressional action with respect to the territories. The day has 

come for the United States to finally solve the contradiction existing for too long between colonial rule and fully democratic government. Even Justice White, the judicial artificer of the doctrine of territorial incorporation, spoke in his opinion in 

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), of ‘‘obligations of honor and good faith 

which—sacredly bind the United States to terminate the dominion and control, 

when, in its political discretion, the situation is ripe to enable it to do so.’’ Faced 

with the prospect that his theory could be used to hold an unincorporated territory 

indefinitely, he stated: 

[T]he presumption necessarily must be that [the legislative] department, 

which within its lawful sphere is but the expression of the political conscience of the people of the United States, will be faithful to its duty under 

the Constitution, and, therefore, when the unfitness of a particular territory 

for incorporation is demonstrated the occupation will terminate.... [No 

pledge is] more sacred than—that great pledge given by every member of 

every department of the government of the United States to support and 

defend the Constitution. 

This is the historical and legal background against which decisions are to be made 

to facilitate a truly meaningful process of decolonization, of disposition of the territory and the exercise of the right to self determination. 

The political process necessary to resolve the territorial conundrum is twofold. 

Substantively, what kind of relationship should exist between Puerto Rico and the 

United States? The four options mentioned in the Puerto Rican political discourse 

are: (1) the present territorial relationship under the sovereignty of the United 

States; (2) full sovereignty under independence as a basis for a new relationship established by treaty; (3) admission as a state of the Union; or (4) sovereignty limited 

by a compact of free association, as that concept is defined under international law. 

Of course, the first is not really an option; territoriality is the problem, so it cannot 

be the solution. The other three will depend on the final decision of the people, and 

in the case of statehood and free association, the approval by Congress. 

The other aspect of the process is procedural: how to reach the final substantive 

decision. H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230 suggest different approaches. Both have 

strengths and both have weaknesses. Neither, by itself, is an appropriate measure. 

But both have elements which could be combined in a new measure. Both pose 

many questions and raise issues which cannot be addressed in the limited time now 

available. I will focus on its fundamental design. 

In order to comply with international law regarding decolonization, the measure 

ought to, first and foremost, declare the unequivocal intention of Congress to dispose 

of the territory, and to divest itself of the powers it has exercised over Puerto Rico 

under the territory clause of the Constitution. Once Congress complies with its 

international and constitutional obligation, the process of self-determination should 

begin with a free expression of the people of the will to change the present territorial relation and to enter into a future relation whereby Puerto Rico shall not be 

subject to congressional power under the territory clause. In order to promote subsequent actions towards self-determination in Puerto Rico, Congress ought to recognize the inherent constituent power of the people of Puerto Rico to call, through its 

elected government, for the election of a constitutional assembly, as depositary of 

the sovereignty of the people, or any other decolonizing mechanism, to propose, negotiate and agree to future relations with the United States that will not be colonial 

or territorial in nature. Finally, the process of self-determination would culminate 

with the ratification by the people of the terms of the new relation. 

How do H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230 attempt to comply with these proposed standards? 

31

H.R. 900 proposes a series of plebiscites to solve the status issue. In a first plebiscite, the people would select between the existing territorial status and an alternative ‘‘viable permanent nonterritorial status.’’ The bill would allow for a valid exercise of self determination if the people were to claim a change in status on the 

first round of voting. Should a majority reject the existing territorial status, there 

would be a clear exercise of self determination which would require a solution with 

all deliberate speed. 

There are some problems with the first vote. The language of the ballot defines 

the alternative as ‘‘a constitutionally viable permanent nonterritorial status.’’ The 

concept of ‘‘constitutional viability is ambiguous. It would invite subsequent controversies regarding what is viable or not, when the different political groups would 

begin specifying their status options for the second round of voting. In addition, the 

second plebiscite would require that the voter select between statehood and ‘‘sovereign nation,’’ grouping here both independence and free association, two distinct 

options. Free association is by definition not permanent, since any party to the relation may opt out at any time. 

The second round of voting presents another pitfall. A rejection of the current status and a demand for change in the first vote would automatically prompt a second 

plebiscite in which the voter would choose between statehood and another nonterritorial option. Experience shows that a significant number of Members of Congress 

would not support H.R. 900 because it would contain a self-executing provision that 

could result in a majority demand for statehood. No one here will come out and say 

it explicitly, but you know it is true; and that provision might hinder approval of 

the bill as it stands and stagnate the process. Nothing should stand in the way of 

congressional action at this time. 

On the other hand, if the majority were to select the existing territorial status 

in the first vote, then another plebiscite would be held eight years later. It could 

be interpreted that Congress would have implicitly decided to renounce to its territorial powers at some future indefinite date when the people so decide. But there 

is no explicit declaration to that effect, and furthermore, the bill contemplates the 

possibility of consent to territoriality for periods of eight years, an excessively long 

period of territorial government, which contradicts the true intention of the measure 

which is to end the territorial regime. 

The greatest problem with H.R. 900 lies in its absolute silence regarding the inherent constituent power of the people to determine their future. On the contrary, 

the bill would require that the permanent nonterritorial status be designed and submitted to Congress by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, in mere 

consultation with the Governor, the Resident Commissioner, the President of the 

Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico. That is a 

flagrant denial of self-determination and a usurpation of the constituent power that 

belongs to the people. Those four officials will not have been endowed, nor can they 

be endowed by this Congress, with constituent power, nor can they validly represent 

the people in this matter. 

H.R. 1230, on the other hand, also has some positive and negative aspects. First, 

on the positive side, the bill is premised on an implicit policy of disposition of the 

territory, that is, a congressional objective to renounce to its territorial powers. The 

definition of a ‘‘self-determination option’’ would recognize the principle of sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico and limit options for the future to alternatives 

not subject to the plenary powers of the territory clause of the Constitution. Some 

may argue, as they have in the past, that since 1952 this Congress does not exercise 

plenary powers. Therefore, they would probably argue, if the current language is enacted, that the existing relationship could be a self-determination option. That, of 

course, is contrary first to the understanding of probably all 535 Members of Congress regarding the plenary nature of all federal powers, as decided almost two hundred years ago in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). In any case, the ambiguity can be avoided by changing the phrase ‘‘plenary powers’’ in Section 2 (2) of 

the bill, page 2, line 12, to the words ‘‘any powers.’’

Section 3 of the bill would recognize ‘‘the inherent authority of the people of 

Puerto Rico to call a constitutional convention—in accordance to legislation approved by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,’’ which under Section 5 would remain 

in session until a definite self-determination proposal is finally adopted by the people in referendum and ‘‘enacted by federal law.’’ There is a major flaw in Section 

5. Only a territorial status option or an admission to statehood would culminate in 

a federal law. Relations under both independence and free association would culminate with the signature and ratification of a treaty. I would suggest that the language be modified as follows: ‘‘A constitutional convention—may remain in session 

until all legal instruments needed for transition to a new nonterritorial relation 

shall have come into effect.’’

32

Despite its positive recognition of the inherent authority of the people, H.R. 1230 

does little more. Section 4 contains a non-binding desideratum that whenever the 

constitutional assembly submits a self-determination proposal to Congress, that future Congress will enact a joint resolution to approve the terms of the proposal. 

That, of course, is wishful thinking at best, since one Congress may not bind a future Congress. In any event, requiring congressional approval to implement independence would be illegal under international law because once a people select independence, the colonial power may only accede to the demand and facilitate by law, 

not the decision itself, but the transition to the new status. 

In conclusion, both H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, as I have said before, have positive 

aspects and pitfalls. By facilitating that the people demand a profound change 

through a plebiscite, now or eventually, H.R. 900 clearly pursues a policy of disposing of the territory by congressional renunciation of the powers under the territory clause of the Constitution. On the other hand, H.R. 1230 would recognize the 

authority of the people of Puerto Rico to call for a constitutional convention as the 

procedural mechanism for the exercise of its right to self-determination. 

What is of paramount importance at this point is that Congress act now, to set 

the process of self-determination and decolonization in motion. H.R. 900 is a step 

in that direction. In the first plebiscite the people could decide that the time has 

come to demand a change in the fundamental nature of the relationship. The ballot 

submitted to the voter should elicit a Yes or No answer to the following proposition: 

Puerto Rico should no longer be subject to the powers of Congress under 

the territory clause of the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Congress has the legal and moral obligation to act. Unfortunately, disagreement 

among the different political sectors of Puerto Rican society has been used as an 

excuse for inaction in the past. The result has been congressional complicity during 

the one hundred and nine years of a colonial regime which demeans both the colonized and the colonizer. A radical transformation of the relationship is in order, 

now. 

The time has come for Congress to finally find it in the best interest of the United 

States to send a clear signal to the Supreme Court, to the Puerto Rican people and 

to the world to the effect that Justice John Marshall Harlan was right after all 

when he stated in his dissent in Downes v. Bidwell, one hundred and six years ago, 

that ‘‘the idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, 

by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces—is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the words of the Constitution.’’

Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Next we will hear from Mr. Ramo ́n Luis 

Nieves. 

STATEMENT OF RAMO ́ N LUIS NIEVES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MOVIMIENTO AUTONOMISTA SOCIALDEMO ́ CRATA 

Mr. NIEVES. Thank you. I appear before you as Executive Director of Movimiento Autonomista Socialdemo ́crata, MAS. 

MAS is a political organization that advocates for the adoption 

of a Compact of Free Association between the United States and 

Puerto Rico. 

I also appear as a student of the status issue. As a result of such 

studies, I published a book titled ‘‘Estado Libre Asociado del Siglo 

XXI,’’ an argument for free association. 

MAS has decided not to state an official preference either for 

H.R. 900 nor H.R. 1230. Our goal is to share our thoughts as to 

both bills, in the hope that future action by Congress provides for 

an effective process of self-determination. 

The discussion of process must be based on two basic premises: 

fundamental fairness and expediency. Fundamental fairness requires that any bill approved by Congress provides a mechanism 

that does not play favorites with any status formula. 

33

The U.S. will violate international law if it fails to recognize on 

equal grounds the options of statehood, independence, and free association. 

The other premise is expediency. The economy of Puerto Rico is 

currently undergoing an historic crisis. MAS believes that resolution of the status problem is key to the acquisition of the tools required to implement solutions to our economic and social problems. 

The process to solve the status issue must begin sooner, rather 

than later. 

Our first comment on H.R. 900 is that there is no need to vote 

in order to express dissatisfaction with the current territorial status. The three political parties in Puerto Rico already advocate for 

a non-territorial status option. 

The proposed first plebiscite will be redundant, and it will delay 

resolution of the issue. 

MAS also objects to the sovereign pathway of the second plebiscite. As it is, H.R. 900 will contribute to play favorites with statehood by merging the association alternative with independence. 

This approach will certainly help those who have insisted on eliminating political association from any status process. 

Congress should not be confused by those who articulate the apparent value of assigning an artificial minority in favor of statehood. 

Hence, MAS proposes the following amendments to H.R. 900. 

Elimination of the first plebiscite and separate columns for statehood, independence, and free association in the remaining electoral 

event. 

Enter H.R. 1230. In Puerto Rico, the language of politics or the 

politics of language has electoral consequence. The combination of 

Puerto Rican sovereignty with the concept of new or modified commonwealth should be clarified. 

MAS will support the association option as long as it is non-territorial and sovereign in nature. It is clear and in compliance with 

international law and U.S. Constitutional practice. 

H.R. 1230 must be amended to establish a process to implement 

the association alternative. The complexities of political association 

require that the option be submitted to the electorate in the form 

of a statement of principles. MAS has already submitted to the 

Subcommittee a statement of principles for free association. A similar statement will be the type of proposal submitted to the voters, 

and then included as part of the joint resolution contemplated in 

H.R. 1230. 

MAS also proposes that Section 4 of H.R. 1230 be amended to 

provide that in the case of the approval of an association option, 

Congress instructs the Executive Branches of both the U.S. and 

Puerto Rico to designate representatives to a bilateral commission 

60 days after approval of the joint resolution. 

This commission will be in charge of negotiating a compact of 

free association during a period of no more than two years, with 

a possibility of an additional one-year extension. 

The need for expediency leads MAS to propose that Section 3 of 

H.R. 1230 be amended to express that the initial process of articulating a self-determination option be limited to two years, with an 

additional one-year extension declared by the convention itself. 

34

MAS believes that Puerto Rico needs the political and economical 

powers inherent to sovereign free association in order to maximize 

the opportunities available for our nation, Puerto Rico, in the global economy. We sincerely hope that this Congress agrees on a fair 

and expedient mechanism in furtherance of our self-determination, 

as well as the democratic ideals and international obligations of the 

United States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nieves follows:]

Statement of Ramo ́n Luis Nieves, Esq., Executive Director,

Movimiento Autonomista Socialdemo ́ crata 

My name is Ramo ́n Luis Nieves. I am an attorney-at-law in the private sector. 

I appear before you as executive director of Movimiento Autonomista 

Socialdemo ́crata (MAS). MAS is a political organization that advocates for the 

adoption of a Compact of Free Association between the United States (U.S.) and 

Puerto Rico, and for diverse ideas of social justice and economic development. The 

option of free association advocated by MAS would be based in the U.S. constitutional experience in the Pacific, but also taking into account the important differences between Puerto Rico and the Micronesian nations, including U.S. citizenship; Puerto Rican national identity and; levels of economic assistance and integration with the U.S. 

I also appear as a person who has studied the U.S.-Puerto Rico relationship for 

half of my life. As result of such studies, I published a book titled ‘‘Estado Libre 

Asociado del Siglo XXI’’, whose second edition appeared in 2004. The 

abovementioned book, an argument for free association, contains a critical analysis 

of Commonwealth status, as well as a detailed analysis of the Compacts of Free Association between the United States, the Federated of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. It also includes discussions about the negotiations for ‘‘Compact 

II’’, approved by the 108th Congress and President George W. Bush in 2003, a process which I followed closely. 

Let me begin by commending Chairwoman Donna M. Christensen, for convening 

hearings to discuss both H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. We are grateful for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to share our views on both bills. 

MAS has decided not to state an official preference either for H.R. 900 nor 

H.R. 1230. Our goal is to share our thoughts as to both bills, in the hope that future 

action by Congress provides for an effective procedural mechanism in furtherance 

of self determination for the Puerto Rican nation. 

The Basic Premises: Fundamental Fairness and Expediency 

The discussion of process must be based on two (2) basic premises: fundamental 

fairness and expediency. 

The U.S. government must take into account that, since the 19th Century, the 

Puerto Rican nation has been debating its definitive political status. Three main 

currents of political thought or aspirations have emerged during the process: independence, statehood and an alternative of political association, which has prevailed 

in all the referenda held during the last part of the 20th Century. 

Fundamental fairness requires that any bill approved by Congress provides a 

mechanism that does not ‘‘play favorites’’ with any status formula. MAS submits 

that the U.S. would violate recognized principles of international law, such as the 

right of self determination, if it approves any process that fails to recognize, on 

equal grounds, the options of statehood, independence and political association. 

International law on the subject, as codified by United Nations Resolution 1541 

(XV), recognizes integration, independence and free association as separate options 

of self government. American constitutional experience has also recognized such options when it granted independence to the Philippines; when it incorporated into the 

Union thirty seven (37) territories and; when Congress approved Compacts of Free 

Association with the former Strategic Trust Territories in the Pacific. 

In addition to the aforementioned legal and constitutional framework, Congress 

should take notice that no advancement has been made in previous congressional 

efforts where one or more status options have been excluded from the process. Three 

options, separated from each other, presented in a fair way for their evaluation and 

approval by the Puerto Rican nation: that is the fundamental fairness required for 

any real process to advance. 

35

The other premise of any status process is expediency. The economy of Puerto 

Rico is currently undergoing a historic crisis. The current crisis of the Puerto Rican 

economic model includes as factors the end of federal tax incentives (known as IRC 

Section 936 / 30A), which were an important element of the Puerto Rican economy 

during most part of the 20th Century; a self inflicted fiscal crisis; problems in governance of the Commonwealth government and social ills and basic inequality in 

Puerto Rican society, expressed by an increase in substance abuse, alienation, violence at all levels and an alarming decrease of general civility. The Puerto Rican 

crisis has caused the migration to the U.S. of thousands of well-educated professionals and workers, mostly to Florida, in search of the quality of life and material 

opportunities that they have not been able to find in our Islands. 

MAS believes that resolution of the status problem is key to the acquisition of the 

tools required to implement permanent solutions to the economic and social problems that affect the Puerto Rico. Hence, MAS submits that the process to solve the 

status problem must begin sooner rather than later. 

In accordance with the abovementioned premises, I hereby submit our comments 

to H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. 

H.R. 900—‘‘The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007’’

H.R. 900 provides for the calling of at least two plebiscites. The first of such 

plebiscites would be held in 2009. That first plebiscite would allow the Puerto Rican 

voters to decide if the current territorial status shall continue, or if they would prefer to pursue a path toward a so-called ‘‘constitutionally viable permanent nonterritorial status’’. If the majority of the voters agree with the continuation of territorial 

status, plebiscites would be held every eight (8) years, until the voters favor the 

other option. 

If voters choose the ‘‘pathways’’ option, a second plebiscite would be held between 

two (2) alternatives: a path towards statehood, or a path toward a ‘‘sovereign nation’’, either fully independent from or in free association to the U.S. This second 

plebiscite would be held during the 112th Congress, in 2011, four (4) years and two 

(2) subsequent terms of Congress later. 

If H.R. 900 has been conceived in furtherance of democratic principles for the 

Puerto Ricans, it would do so very late. Assuming that the voters approve the ‘‘pathways’’ option in 2009, they will not begin to walk towards their chosen ‘‘path’’ until 

2011. The proponents of the bill apparently have figured that the process of self determination would be affected if it is debated on an election year for the Presidential 

election, the Puerto Rican general election, and future congressional elections. This 

appears to be the only reason for the proposed stalling of our self determination. 

However, MAS believes that such considerations are contrary to the urgent economic needs of the Puerto Rican nation. Moreover, the Puerto Rican electorate is 

more than ready to cast their votes. One hundred and nine (109) years of painful 

and costly political education is more than enough time. Puerto Ricans should not 

be required to wait another two, three, or even eight years to conclude the status 

issue. 

MAS also opposes the proposed first plebiscite. In our view, there is no need to 

vote in order to express dissatisfaction with the current territorial status. The vast 

majority of Puerto Ricans, and the three registered political parties in Puerto Rico, 

already have expressed their desire for a non-territorial status option. Even the Popular Democratic Party, which has advocated in the past for minor ‘‘modifications’’ 

to the current form of Commonwealth, now officially advocates on its platform and 

by mandate of its governing bodies, for an option of non-territorial political association based in the sovereignty of the Puerto Rican People. 

As to the U.S., the apparent consensus in the body politic since the early 1990’s 

is that Puerto Rico remains a territory under the Constitution. Both Congress and 

the Executive branch have repeatedly referred to Puerto Rico as a ‘‘territory’’. The 

federal body politic has even described the creation of the Commonwealth during 

the 1950’s as an ‘‘arrangement’’, as opposed to a legitimate political association. The 

apparent honesty in confessing the colonial nature of its relationship with Puerto 

Rico serves to explain why the U.S. has not vehemently opposed the annual resolutions passed by the United Nations Committee on Decolonization since the 1990’s. 

The end, both of the Cold War and the strategic significance of the Puerto Rican 

Islands, accelerated the process whereby the U.S. has come out of its colonial closet. 

An additional argument to oppose the first plebiscite proposed on H.R. 900 is that 

it could severely damage the self determination process itself. If the electorate rejects the current territorial relationship by voting for the ‘‘pathways’’ option, Puerto 

Ricans would have effectively and directly ended the legitimacy of U.S. sovereignty 

over Puerto Rico. As argued above, the legitimacy of U.S. sovereignty has already 

been put into question by the majority of Puerto Ricans in the political discourse. 

36

However, a direct rejection of current territorial status through the ballot would 

place Puerto Rico in a state of pure and unadulterated colonial rule by the U.S. 

Puerto Rico would be back to 1949, all over again. 

MAS also objects to the ‘‘sovereign pathway’’ proposed as alternative in the second 

plebiscite contemplated on H.R. 900. This so-called ‘‘pathway’’ runs counter to the 

premise of fundamental fairness mentioned above. Instead of a sole pathway to sovereignty, MAS proposes separate columns for the independence and free association 

options. 

As it is, H.R. 900 will contribute to ‘‘play favorites’’ with the ‘‘pathway’’ toward 

statehood. Although some Puerto Ricans desire independence, advocates for statehood have historically claimed that free association, or even minor modifications to 

Commonwealth status, are really a backdoor to independence. These are precisely 

the type of political games that have been rejected and vehemently opposed by the 

Puerto Rican nation in the not so distant past. Congress should not be confused or 

impressed by those who articulate the apparent value of simplifying the status option in order to manufacture a fraudulent and artificial majority in favor of the 

‘‘pathway’’ to statehood. 

MAS strongly considers urges you to consider that the option of political association is neither ‘‘derivative’’, nor dependent, on full independence. This position has 

been validated by U.S. constitutional practice and international law on the subject. 

Last, but not least, this Congress must respond a fundamental policy question: 

whether to allow non-resident persons who claim Puerto Rican descent to participate in the self determination process. H.R. 900 would bar from the process persons 

who, although born outside of Puerto Rico, claim Puerto Rican descent. On the other 

hand, H.R. 1230 would allow the vote of non-resident persons either born in Puerto 

Rico, or who have one parent born in the Islands. This policy question goes to the 

heart of the debate of national identity. The definition of who could be considered 

a member of the Puerto Rican nation is fundamental to our process of self determination. 

MAS agrees with the approach proposed on H.R. 1230 as to this important issue. 

The economics of colonialism are mostly responsible for the migration to the U.S. 

and the national identity issues of people of Puerto Rican descent living in the U.S. 

Hence, exclusion of persons who claim Puerto Rican descent from a self determination process would be a cruel and cynical position to assume. 

H.R. 1230—‘‘The Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2007’’

H.R. 1230 provides for the recognition by Congress of ‘‘the inherent authority of 

the People of Puerto Rico to call a Constitutional Convention’’ for the purpose of proposing a ‘‘Self-Determination Option’’ to the People of Puerto Rico. The so-called 

‘‘Self-Determination Options’’ are statehood, independence and a ‘‘new or modified 

Commonwealth status’’; all of which ‘‘must be based on the sovereignty of the People 

of Puerto Rico and not subject to the plenary powers of the territorial clause of the 

Constitution of the United States’’. 

In Puerto Rico, the language of politics, or the politics of language, has electoral 

consequences. In all fairness, the combination of Puerto Rican sovereignty with the 

term ‘‘new or modified Commonwealth status’’ should be clarified. The explicit clarification of the non-territorial and sovereign nature of the association option is the 

paramount issue here. MAS would support the association option as long as its nonterritorial and sovereign nature is clear and in compliance with applicable international and U.S. constitutional law. 

An important point has to be raised as to the process to consider free association 

(or the so-called new or improved ‘‘sovereign’’ Commonwealth.) as a ‘‘Self-Determination Option’’. H.R. 1230 must be amended to establish an adequate and workable 

process to implement the ‘‘sovereign association’’ alternative. In the case of ‘‘sovereign association’’, the nature of the political process would require that the ‘‘Self 

Determination Option’’ that the Constitutional Convention would submit to the electorate be prepared in the form of a ‘‘declaration of principles’’ of association. The 

existing Compacts of Free Association, their Subsidiary Agreements, and even the 

CNMI Covenant, are complex documents which were the result of lengthy negotiations. 

MAS includes, as an Exhibit, a ‘‘Statement of Principles for Free Association between the United States of America and Puerto Rico’’. The enclosed ‘‘Statement of 

Principles’’ is based on the ‘‘Hilo Principles’’ agreed upon between the U.S. and Micronesia during a crucial stage of the Compact I negotiations, in the late 1970’s. A 

similar ‘‘statement of principles’’ would be the type of proposal that, in reality, could 

be submitted to the electors, and then be included as part of the joint resolution 

contemplated in Section 4 of H.R. 1230. 

37

Considering the constitutional experience of the U.S. as to the negotiation of compacts of free association, MAS proposes that Section 4 of H.R. 1230 be amended to 

provide that, in the case of the approval of a ‘‘Self Determination Option’’ named 

either as ‘‘free association’’ or ‘‘sovereign association’’, the joint resolution to be 

passed by Congress instructs the executive branches of both the U.S. and Puerto 

Rico to designate representatives to a bilateral commission, sixty (60) days after its 

approval. This bilateral commission would be in charge of negotiating, drafting and 

agreeing on a Compact of Free Association, which would then be submitted both to 

the Puerto Rican electorate and the Congress. MAS also proposes that the joint resolution instructs the bilateral commission to conduct negotiations for a Compact and 

its Subsidiary Agreements on a period of no more than two (2) years, with the possibility of an additional one-year extension. 

It is proper to address the issue of uncertainty in the time-frame to start the process of self-determination proposed in H.R. 1230. This is a gray area. An instruction 

by Congress of a time-frame to conclude approval by a Constitutional Convention 

of a ‘‘Self-Determination Option’’ could be construed as an obstacle to our right of 

self-determination. However, the abovementioned need for expediency leads the 

MAS to propose that Section 3 of H.R. 1230 be amended to express that the initial 

process of proposing a ‘‘Self-Determination Option’’ would not last more than two 

(2) years, counted from the moment the bill becomes Federal law, with an additional 

one-year extension, which would be approved by the Convention itself. MAS believes 

that two (2) years is a fair time-frame to call the Convention, elect the delegates, 

prepare the proposal, and submit it to the electorate. H.R. 1230 already provides 

for the situation whereby the voters reject the proposal of the Convention, and such 

mechanism would not be affected by the proposed time-frame. 

Lastly, the Subcommittee must consider a political reality in Puerto Rico as to the 

procedural alternative of a constitutional convention. The Independence Party of 

Puerto Rico and the Popular Democratic Party, who favor independence and sovereign association, respectively, currently agree on a constitutional convention as 

the preferred process of self determination. Together, they represent more than half 

of the voters in Puerto Rico. However, the pro-statehood New Progressive Party officially opposes the alternative of a constitutional convention. The official objection of 

the party leadership is that a direct election through plebiscites is by nature more 

democratic than the People acting through delegates to a Convention. The real basis 

for their opposition is that the party suspects that pro-independence and pro-association advocates would create a political alliance in favor of sovereign free association. 

Sadly, the opposition of the New Progressive Party represents an important roadblock to the procedural mechanism contemplated by H.R. 1230. The party represents almost half of the electorate. Furthermore, the New Progressive Party has 

a history of ignoring and, in fact, acting in opposition to the democratic wishes of 

the People. Such was the aftermath of pro-Commonwealth results in the 1967 and 

1993 plebiscites, which were not respected by the pro-statehood party. The history 

of non-compliance with the will of the People by the pro-statehood party presents 

an important challenge to the mechanism proposed in H.R. 1230. 

Conclusion 

MAS believes that Puerto Rico needs the political and economical powers inherent 

to sovereign free association, in order to maximize the opportunities available for 

our nation in the global economy. 

We sincerely hope that the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs takes our comments 

into consideration. The Puerto Rican nation also hopes that this Congress agrees on 

a fair and expedient mechanism in furtherance of our right of self determination, 

as well as the democratic ideals and international obligations of the United States 

of America.

EXHIBIT 

‘‘Statement of Principles for Free Association between the

United States of America and Puerto Rico’’

1. The United States and the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico shall negotiate 

and enter into a Compact of Free Association, which could only be altered by mutual 

consent; 

2. The People of Puerto Rico shall retain all powers not specifically delegated in 

the Compact to the United States; 

3. The United Status will provide financial and technical assistance to the Free 

Associated State of Puerto Rico, in furtheranceof the economic advancement and self 

38

reliance of the People of Puerto Rico. Both nations shall identify target sectors to 

enhance the social and economic development of Puerto Rico (education, health, infrastructure, etc.), and will collaborate intensively in the design and implementation 

of strategies for the effective investment of federal funding in initiatives to promote 

job creation and business development; 

4. The Compact of Free Association will provide for the continued transmission 

of the United Status citizenship. The Constitution and laws of the Free Associated 

State of Puerto Rico shall provide for the recognition of Puerto Rican citizenship; 

5. Puerto Rico will continue to be eligible for U.S. federal grants and assistance, 

on a government-to-government basis. Individuals shall retain their economic entitlements as U.S. citizens, including their Social Security benefits, as well as other 

job-related entitlements (as federal employees and veterans); 

6. Free transit of goods, services, capitals and persons between the United States 

and the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico shall be maintained; 

7. The Free Associated State of Puerto Rico will have full capacity to conduct its 

foreign affairs; to enter into, in its own name and right, treaties and other international agreements with governments and regional and international organizations, including the U.N. 

8. The Constitution of Puerto Rico will remain in full force and effect, as well as 

the applicable laws of the U.S. pursuant to the Compact. Nevertheless, the Constitution of Puerto Rico shall be amended to incorporate the new governmental powers 

obtained through the Compact of Association; 

9. The United States and the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico will establish 

special areas of mutual assistance and cooperation to secure the well-being of both 

the Puerto Rican and American peoples, for example: law enforcement efforts 

against drug trafficking; illegal immigration; terrorism; natural disasters; environmental protection; labor protection and standards; communications and; technological advancement to secure the well being of the people and the Puerto Rican 

economy; 

10. The United Status shall maintain full authority and responsibility in security 

and defense matters of Puerto Rico, in accordance with the provisions of the Compact. The Free Associated State of Puerto Rico shall foreclose access to or use of its 

territory for the military or strategic purposes of any third country. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Nieves. Next we will hear 

from Professor Richard Pildes. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD PILDES, PROFESSOR,

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 

Mr. PILDES. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for holding this 

panel on the vital constitutional issues concerning the potential political status of Puerto Rico and other non-state areas. And thank 

you for inviting me to testify. 

I want to focus on one essential point. In my view, H.R. 900 

rests on an incorrect, deeply flawed, and inadequate constitutional 

analysis. 

Should the Congress of the United States and the President 

jointly, through legislation, along with the people of Puerto Rico, 

agree to legislation that provides greater autonomy for Puerto Rico 

on the basis of mutual consent, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that denies the U.S. Government the power to make this 

choice. 

H.R. 900’s language and structure is based on the constitutional 

analysis in the 2005 Presidential Task Force report. That analysis 

consists largely of the repetition of a single platitude: one Congress 

cannot bind another. 

While that platitude is true for the run-of-the-mill legislation, in 

my view that constitutional analysis is deeply flawed for at least 

four reasons when it comes to matters of political status. 

39

First, the analysis completely ignores American constitutional 

history and past political practice. From the time of the Constitution’s formation, Congress has enacted mutual consent clauses that 

permanently altered the political status of non-state areas. The famous Northwest Ordinance is the perfect example. That established the process by which Congress pledged to incorporate territories as states in a way that involved mutual consent, and it was 

permanently binding. 

Later Congresses followed the model of the Northwest Ordinance 

in enacting organic acts for the incorporation of future territories 

and their admission as states. 

The Task Force analysis requires the conclusion that the original 

Congress, many of whose Members formed the Constitution, and 

many subsequent Congresses, acted unconstitutionally in establishing this mutual consent process for changing the status of a territory into a state. 

Moreover, individual states of the United States have long enacted mutually binding compacts. The United States Supreme 

Court not only has recognized this practice, it has endorsed it and 

required that these compacts be enforced according to their terms; 

and that individual states not be permitted to unilaterally alter the 

terms of a compact that they have entered into. 

Second, the analysis ignores central constitutional doctrine that 

deals with the complex issues of the U.S. relationship to non-state 

areas. There are not a lot of cases directly on point, but those that 

are enforce pledges Congress has made to non-state areas. 

For example, once Congress pledges by law to incorporate an 

area as a state, the United States Supreme Court, in a series of 

cases, has held that that promise is binding on future Congresses. 

The Rasmussen case, which I describe in my testimony, is an example. 

Second, when it comes to alterations of the political status of individuals, when Congress legislates to change citizenship status, 

the U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized that that pledge binds 

subsequent Congresses, and Congress no longer has the power to 

change the citizenship status that has been granted by law. 

Moreover, under the territory clause itself, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has flexible, pragmatic, 

and expansive powers which implicate foreign policy matters to decide on the kind of relationship that best suits the United States’ 

association with various non-state areas. After all, the original 

Constitution only refers by its terms to states and territories. But 

in the insular cases for better and worse in a complex act of political pragmatism and political morality, the United States Supreme 

Court recognized that clause empowers Congress to choose new 

forms of political relationship. 

Finally, the United States Justice Department has agreed with 

my position on the constitutional issue for nearly 40 years. In 1963, 

when the U.S. Justice Department first took a position on mutual 

consent clauses involving Puerto Rico, reaffirmed in 1973, reaffirmed when the Northern Mariana Islands, mutual consent 

clause was adopted by Congress, reaffirmed in 1989 in the Guam 

Task Force report. Through all of this period, the Department of 

Justice recognized the constitutional power of the United States to 

40

enter into mutual consent clauses that are binding with respect to 

matters of political status. 

It is only in the early 1990s that the Justice Department made 

a 180-degree about-face on this issue, on the basis of reasons that 

I have to say I find constitutionally mysterious. 

The Justice Department referred to a Supreme Court case from 

the 1980s involving Congressional welfare programs, and decided, 

the Court’s decision in that case fundamentally changed 200 years 

of American constitutional history on mutual consent clauses. For 

reasons I elaborate on in my written testimony, I find that analysis 

wholly unavailing and irrelevant to the kinds of issues involving 

political status to Puerto Rico. 

In sum, my view is that Congress’s power to enter into mutual 

consent clauses regarding political status, when the United States 

determines its foreign policy and political interests are best served 

by doing so, is supported by longstanding political practice; it is 

supported by Supreme Court decisions involving the territory 

clause; it is supported by the longstanding position of the United 

States Justice Department; and it is supported in my view by 

sound constitutional analysis. 

None of this, in conclusion, is to articulate any position on the 

specific choices the Puerto Rican people face. My only concern is to 

eliminate lack of clarity and confusion of how the constitutional 

structure within those choices should be framed. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pildes follows:]

Statement of Professor Richard H. Pildes, Sutler Family Professor of 

Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law 

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I specialize in constitutional issues concerning the structure of American government. The United States Supreme Court 

has cited my scholarship on these issues many times. I am also the co-author of a 

casebook entitled The Law of Democracy (2nd ed. 2001 and 2006 Supplement). I 

successfully represented the Puerto Rico Election Commission before the United 

States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the resolution of Puerto Rico’s 2004 

disputed gubernatorial election. I also successfully represented the government of 

Puerto Rico before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit in litigation concerning the legal status of Puerto Rico under particular federal laws. I am here testifying in my own capacity, based on my academic study 

of the relevant issues and my knowledge developed during my legal representation. 

In my view, were the United States Congress and the people of Puerto Rico to 

prefer expanding the existing Commonwealth relationship, in a way that provides 

greater autonomy for Puerto Rico on the basis of mutual consent, it would be unfortunate, even tragic, for that option to disappear due to confusion or error about 

whether the Constitution permits Congress to adopt such an option. Yet one of the 

proposed bills, H.R. 900, rests on precisely such confusion about how the Constitution applies to the potential political status of Puerto Rico. H.R. 900 would artificially and wrongly limit a plebiscite to two, and only two, options. H.R. 900 would 

deny the people of Puerto Rico the right to express their preference for a mutuallybinding covenant that would determine Puerto Rico’s status to be that of an autonomous, self-governing Commonwealth. H.R. 900 eliminates this option due to a 

faulty constitutional analysis that assumes, incorrectly, that the Constitution denies 

Congress the power to enter into such a mutually-binding covenant. 

The plebiscite structure H.R. 900 would establish reflects the constitutional conclusions expressed in the December 22, 2005 report of President Bush’s Presidential 

Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status (the Task Force). I would note that none of the 

members of the Task Force are academic authorities in constitutional law, particularly the exceptionally complex and arcane law that controls the relationship of the 

United States to various non-state entities, such as incorporated territories, unincorporated territories, the current Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or entities of other 

political status with which the United States, for reasons of history and policy, 

41

might desire to form various types of political relationships. Perhaps for that reason, 

the Task Force’s constitutional analysis is unpersuasive and inadequate. The analysis largely consists of the repetition of certain general platitudes that I believe to 

be wrong in the context of the United States’ relationship to Puerto Rico. Time and 

time again, the United States Supreme Court has insisted that this relationship has 

‘‘no parallel in our history.’’ Examining Bd. of Engineers v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 

572, 596 (1976); Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 658 (1966) (discussing 

‘‘unique historic relationship between the Congress and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico’’). Proper understanding and analysis of this unique relationship is only 

confused and obscured, rather than advanced, by the repetition of highly general 

legal platitudes not designed to address the specific, exceptional context of the 

United States-Puerto Rico relationship. 

The major platitude in the Task Force report, and which appears to be the basis 

for H.R. 900, is the notion that it ‘‘is a general rule that one legislature cannot bind 

a subsequent one.’’ Task Force Report, at 6. From this ‘‘general rule’’ it purportedly 

follows that Congress and Puerto Rico cannot enter into a mutually-binding covenant on Puerto Rico’s status—even if both Congress and the people of Puerto Rico 

prefer that option. According to the Task Force report, the United States Constitution, as currently written, ‘‘does not allow for such an arrangement.’’ Id. The reason, 

allegedly, is that such a covenant would involve one Congress binding a later one. 

Thus, Congress and Puerto Rico could not enter into a mutually-binding covenant 

to guarantee Puerto Rico’s status as an autonomous, non-State entity in permanent 

association with the United States. As a practical matter, there might be no realistic 

likelihood that the United States would violate such a solemn commitment, if Congress were to make that commitment. Nonetheless, the Task Force suggests that, 

as a matter of abstract constitutional theory, such an agreement would not, in principle, be valid. 

This superficial analysis is seriously defective. First, constitutional issues involving the political status of entities associated with the United States are too significant, unique, and complex to be addressed through general platitudes such as ‘‘one 

Congress cannot bind another.’’ Like most platitudes, this one is true in many routine contexts of lawmaking. Congress cannot, for example, pass a tax bill and deny 

a later Congress the power to amend, modify, or repeal that bill. But when it comes 

to far more fundamental issues involving the basic political status of individuals and 

entities, platitudes of this sort break down and lose their relevance. Congress’ creation of a new political status, for individuals and entities, can be a legal act that 

transforms the status quo irrevocably, in a way that does bind later Congresses. Not 

only does the Constitution permit Congress to do so. The Constitution actually requires later Congresses to adhere to the change in political status that an earlier 

Congress has established. 

Thus, with respect to individuals, when one Congress grants statutory citizenship 

to a class of individuals, that statutory grant does bind later Congresses. When Congress changes the political status of individuals by making them citizens, the United 

States is bound, constitutionally, to honor this new political status. This commitment of one Congress binds the United States going forward. As the Supreme Court 

has said, Congress lacks a ‘‘general power ... to take away an American citizen’s citizenship without his assent.’’ Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 257 (1967). That is, 

once Congress enacts legislation signed by the President (or adopted over his veto), 

that legislation creates a new political status for individuals; the Constitution itself 

then denies later Congresses the power to change that status. Afroyim addressed 

naturalized citizens, who have become citizens only by virtue of legislation. Most 

commentators agree Afroyim applies in the same way to all statutory grants of citizenship. The United States Department of Justice agrees that it does. See Letter 

of Assistant Attorney General Robert Raben to The Honorable Frank H. Murkowski, 

January 18, 2001. 

With respect to territories associated with the United States, the constitutional 

principle is the same. The issue has directly arisen, however, in only one context 

of which I am aware. In that context, the Supreme Court similarly made clear that 

when one Congress changes the political status of a territory, later Congresses are 

bound by that change. Thus, it has long been bedrock constitutional law that, when 

Congress through legislation pledges to incorporate territory into the United States, 

that legislative commitment binds subsequent Congresses. See Rasmussen v. United 

States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905). The congressional pledge to incorporate transforms the 

legal status of a territory. Congress no longer has the ‘‘plenary power’’ under the 

Territory Clause, Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl.2, that it had before it enacted legislation to incorporate the territory. Rasmussen involved the Alaska Territory, which the United 

States had pledged originally, by treaty and statute, to incorporate into the United 

States. As a result of this statutory pledge, the Court held unconstitutional laws enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
42

acted by a later Congress that were inconsistent with the earlier Congress’ legal 

commitment to treat the Alaska Territory as an incorporated territory. Rasmussen 

is just one of many cases in which the Supreme Court, early in the 20th century, 

established that a congressional statute committing the United States to eventual 

incorporation of territory into the United States creates an irrevocable commitment 

that later Congress are constitutionally required to honor. The President’s Task 

Force does not indicate any awareness of Rasmussen or the many cases similar to 

it, let alone explain why those cases do not show the irrelevance of the ‘‘one Congress cannot bind another’’ platitude in the context of legal changes to the political 

status of territories. 

Of course, one Congress can also irrevocably bind another Congress to a change 

in political status of a former territory in other, obvious ways. As it did with the 

Philippines, Congress can enact a statute granting a former territory full political 

independence. No one would suggest that, as a matter of domestic law, a later Congress could simply pass a new law declaring the Philippines to once again be a mere 

territory of the United States. Similarly, Congress can transform a former territory 

into a State, as it did with Hawaii. Again, once one Congress does so, it irrevocably 

commits the United States to maintaining Hawaii as a state on an equal footing 

with all other States. See Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) (discussing equalfooting doctrine). Thus, the United States can act in numerous ways to change the 

political status of territories or non-state areas of the United States: it can pledge 

to incorporate them into the United States, it can admit them as a State, it can 

grant them independence. Any of these changes are irrevocable once made and bind 

later Congresses. The one thing the United States purportedly cannot do, however, 

according to the President’s Task Force report, is to enter into a mutually-binding 

agreement to transform a territory into a Commonwealth, with guarantees of the 

self-governing autonomy of that entity. It would be exceedingly odd for the Constitution to single out, for no apparent reason, this one option as one that Congress does 

not have the discretion to choose. Surely some substantial explanation should be required before reading the Constitution to require such an odd result. Yet the Task 

Force report does not even attempt to provide such an explanation. 

Moreover, to read the Constitution as denying Congress power to decide what 

forms of political relationship best serve the interests of the United States would 

be odd for at least three further reasons. First, the United States has a long history 

of entering into mutual consent clauses. Section 14 of the famous Northwest Ordinance of 1787, for example, 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.’’ Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 

159 (1886). Many early territorial organic acts that Congress enacted incorporated 

these mutual-consent clauses from the Northwest Ordinance, either expressly or by 

reference. Clinton v. Englebrecht, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 434, 442 (1872). If the constitutional analysis of the President’s Task Force is correct, Congress has been acting 

unconstitutionally for over 200 years, and the fundamental legal structures through 

which Congress historically has incorporated territory into the United States has 

been unconstitutional. 

Second, individual States can enter into mutually-binding Compacts with other 

States. States can draft these Compacts so that they are binding absent mutual consent to a change by the other States in the Compact. As former Chief Justice 

Rehnquist wrote for the Court, the ‘‘classic indicia of a compact’’ between States is 

that once a State has entered into a Compact, it has no ability ‘‘to modify or 

repeal ... [the Compact] unilaterally. ...’’ Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Board of Governors, 472 U.S. 159, 175 (1985). Nothing in the Constitution denies States the 

power to further their interests through such arrangements. The platitude that ‘‘one 

legislature cannot bind another’’ does not apply to these Compacts. See, e.g., Jill 

Elaine Hasday, Interstate Compacts in a Democratic Society, 49 Fla. L. Rev. 1, 2 

(1997) (‘‘An interstate compact is an exception to the rule that one legislature may 

not restrict its successors.’’). 

Far from being unconstitutional, these arrangements are constitutionally sanctioned, enforced, and protected. Once a State consents to such a Compact, that consent binds the State going forward. See, e.g., West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 

341 U.S. 22, 28 (1951); Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 725 

(1838); Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1, 92 (1823). Just as it is obviously advantageous for individuals to have the capacity to enter into binding contracts, it 

can be advantageous for a State to have the ability to enter into mutually-binding 

Compacts with other States. But unless the text of the Constitution expressly required it, why should the Constitution deny Congress the exact same power individual States have? If Congress and the President believe the interests of the 

United States, domestic and international, are best served by entering into a mutuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
43

ally-binding covenant with a non-state area or territory tied to the United States, 

under which the United States transforms that territory into a self-governing Commonwealth and pledges not to change the terms of that agreement absent mutual 

consent, is there anything in the Constitution that would preclude the United States 

from pursuing its interests in this way? If the text of the Constitution expressly forbid such an arrangement, that would be one thing. But the Task Force report does 

not claim that. There is nothing in constitutional history, precedent, or logical inference from the powers the Constitution grants Congress that requires such an odd 

and unlikely result. 

Third, even a brief history of American political practices under the Territory 

Clause refutes the simplicity of the Task Force’s analysis. The Constitution itself 

only mentions two forms of political entity that the United States might govern: 

States and territories. If Congress’ powers were constitutionally limited to forming 

political relationships between only ‘‘States’’ and ‘‘territories,’’ as the Constitution 

originally understood those categories, Congress would never have had the power 

to forge the relationships it did for many decades between the United States and 

Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, and other places. But Congress did form these 

relationships, in the late 19th century, by creating the novel distinction between ‘‘incorporated’’ territories and ‘‘unincorporated’’ ones. The former are lands the United 

States has pledged eventually to incorporate as States; the latter entail no such 

pledge. 

Before Congress decided to create this novel distinction, it had long been thought, 

and widely understood, that a ‘‘territory’’ within the meaning of the Constitution 

was limited to land the United States possessed with a commitment to turn that 

land eventually into a State. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court concluded that the 

Constitution, through the Territory Clause, grants Congress the power and flexibility to create additional forms of political entities beyond the two originally conceived and expressly mentioned in the text. Congress has the power to establish distinct political relationships with these entities. The conclusion that the Constitution 

grants Congress flexibility to create novel forms of political relationship is, of course, 

the basis for the Insular Cases, such as Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). 

This constitutional principle is also the foundation for the relationship the United 

States has had with Puerto Rico. Whatever one thinks as a matter of policy or political morality about the desirability of the United States holding lands indefinitely 

in a status other than statehood, it is clear as a matter of constitutional law that 

Congress has the power and flexibility, as United States policy interests dictate, to 

forge new kinds of political relationships and associations with lands formerly held 

as territories. The Territory Clause has long been a source for expansive and creative congressional policymaking, not a rigid straitjacket. The Court has never invoked the Territory Clause to deny Congress the power to form new types of political relationships and associations. If Congress were to enter into a mutually-binding covenant with Puerto Rico to ensure Puerto Rico’s expanded autonomy as a 

Commonwealth, this history strongly suggests the Court would acknowledge Congress’ power to do so. 

Indeed, it would be perverse for the Constitution to permit Congress in the early 

20th century the power to ‘‘invent’’ a new political status, that of unincorporated territory, that permitted the United States to possess territories in a colonial-like relationship, but then to deny Congress today the power to invent a new relationship, 

such as an amended and more autonomous Commonwealth, that promotes the selfgovernance and autonomy of places like Puerto Rico. I do not believe the Constitution, properly interpreted, requires such a perverse result. 

In my last remarks, I would like to address the shifting positions of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on these issues over the years. For most of the past 50 years, 

DOJ concluded that Congress did have the power, constitutionally, to enter into mutually-binding agreements with non-state areas, such as an agreement to respect 

Puerto Rico’s status as a Commonwealth. In 1963, DOJ expressly took the position 

that such agreements were legally effective; DOJ concluded that Congress had the 

power to define the political status of a non-state area through a mutually-binding 

covenant that could not be revoked unilaterally. Once again, in 1973 DOJ confirmed 

this position—in a memorandum approved by then Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist—when Congress sought DOJ’s advice in conjunction with pending 

negotiations over the status of Micronesia. Based on DOJ’s constitutional analysis, 

Congress did insert a mutual-consent clause into Section 105 of the Covenant with 

the Northern Mariana Islands. Yet again, DOJ endorsed the constitutionality of mutual-consent clauses in connection with the First 1989 Task Force Report on the 

Guam Commonwealth Bill. This history of the DOJ’s consistent position is set forth 

in the DOJ Memorandum, Mutual Consent Provisions in the Guam Commonwealth 

44

Legislation n.2 (July 28, 1994) (written by Teresa Wynn Roseborough, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel). 

For reasons that remain difficult to understand, DOJ suddenly shifted its position 

in the early 1990s. That shift first occurred when then Attorney General Thornburg 

testified to Congress in 1991. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Political Status of Puerto Rico: Hearings Before the S. Comm. on 

Energy and Natural Resources on S.244, 102 Cong. 210 (1991). The fullest explanation for that shift is in the Roseborough memorandum, above. According to that 

document, the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Bowen v. Agencies Opposed to Soc. 

Sec. Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41 (1986), required this 180-degree change in DOJ’s 

position. I find that position mysterious. Bowen dealt with the routine context of a 

State’s participation in the Social Security system for its employees; in creating this 

system, Congress had initially permitted States to participate voluntarily and to terminate their participation at a later date. The Act also expressly reserved the right 

of Congress to amend these terms at any time. In the 1980s, Congress exercised this 

right to end the option of States to terminate their coverage. Bowen rejected a 

State’s argument that in doing so, Congress had unconstitutionally ‘‘taken’’ the 

State’s property. 

Bowen has nothing to do with mutual-consent clauses concerning the fundamental 

political status of non-state areas. Most obviously, in Bowen the statute expressly 

reserved Congress’ right to amend it at any time. By contrast, the whole point of 

mutual-consent clauses is that Congress expressly relinquishes the power unilaterally to amend the terms of the agreement. Not surprisingly, Bowen concluded that 

there could be no ‘‘vested right’’ in an arrangement in which Congress had expressly 

reserved the right to change that arrangement at any time. See 477 U.S. at 55. That 

alone is enough to make Bowen irrelevant when Congress instead chooses to enter 

into a mutual-consent clause over political status. In addition, Congress’ power to 

change, modify, or repeal routine regulatory programs is well-established. But congressional acts that distribute routine regulatory and welfare benefits and burdens 

are not of the same constitutional stature as those that address fundamental issues 

of political status. The latter are much more the analogue at the level of territories 

and non-state areas to what citizenship is at the level of the individual. And as 

Afroyim recognizes, once Congress changes the political status of individuals and 

confers citizenship on them, a later Congress no longer has the power unilaterally 

to revoke that status. One need not go as far as Afroyim to recognize the constitutionality of Congress’ adoption of mutual-consent clauses over political status. 

Afroyim suggests it would be unconstitutional for Congress to attempt to change 

such an agreement over political status. Without going that far, the doctrine strongly suggests that, at the very least, the Constitution does not prohibit Congress from 

entering into such agreements. 

In sum, H.R. 900 is fundamentally flawed and misleading. It rests on a mistaken 

constitutional premise. That premise is central to the Task Force report, on which 

H.R. 900 is based. Congress does have the power, should it choose to use it, to enter 

into a mutual-consent agreement that would create and respect a more autonomous 

form of Commonwealth status for Puerto Rico, in which Congress would pledge not 

to alter the relationship unilaterally. Congress’ power to do so is supported by longstanding historical practice, going back to the Northwest Ordinance and the period 

in which the Constitution was framed; it is supported by Supreme Court doctrine 

establishing the flexibility Congress has under the Territory Clause; it is supported 

by the longstanding position of the Department of Justice, before DOJ inexplicably 

changed positions; and it is supported, in my view, by sound constitutional analysis. 

H.R. 900 therefore does not give the people of Puerto Rico a full and informed 

choice of options concerning the potential future status of Puerto Rico. For that reason, Congress ought to reject H.R. 900. 

None of this is to state my own personal view on what future status for Puerto 

Rico would best serve the interests of the Puerto Rican people. That is an issue on 

which, I believe, the Puerto Rican people should first be permitted to express a free 

and informed opinion. Nor do any of my comments address questions concerning the 

current legal and constitutional status of Puerto Rico. But as I noted at the outset, 

it would be highly unfortunate, even tragic, for Congress to limit artificially the 

choices in any plebiscite of the Puerto Rican people based on confusion or mistakes 

about what options the Constitution would permit Congress to adopt. Because 

H.R. 900 does exactly that, I urge its rejection. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Professor Pildes. Our last speaker 

on this panel is Attorney Thomas E. Goldstein. 

45

STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. GOLDSTEIN, PARTNER,

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Madame Chairwoman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Thomas Goldstein. 

While I have written on matters of election law, even more relevant here my views are often sought on the question of how the 

Supreme Court will resolve difficult constitutional questions. And 

it is my view in that respect that H.R. 900 and its provision for 

a Federally defined status process is the better option before you. 

Better in the sense of it has a more realistic chance of surviving 

review in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Puerto Rico is of course an annexed, but unincorporated, territory with sovereignty retained by Congress. And thus, contrary to 

the premise of H.R. 1230, the residents of Puerto Rico do not, in 

fact, exercise—and this is perhaps regrettable—the inherent power 

or the natural right to make a decision on their political status. 

The powers of the people of Puerto Rico, under Article I of the 

Territorial Constitution, do not reach matters of national sovereignty, including the political status of Puerto Rico. That power 

is reserved to Congress and constrained by the Constitution, unless 

and until democracy is actually restored in Puerto Rico. 

H.R. 900 is, of course, status-neutral. It favors no legally valid 

status over any other, and, unlike H.R. 1230, does not place on the 

ballot a status that is precluded by the Constitution. And that is 

the reason that I favor it. 

H.R. 1230, by contrast, makes a promise that you cannot keep, 

and that is permanency. Enhanced commonwealth status under the 

Constitution is most analogous not to the admission of a state or 

to a compact between states, but to a treaty. And it is firmly settled in the law, and this is not a platitude, that Congress, having 

entered into a treaty, can later change it by statute. And therefore, 

it is not the case that under H.R. 1230 there could be a promise 

of a permanent enhanced commonwealth status that could not be 

abrogated by Congress. 

For those reasons, as well as those set forth in my written statement, it is my conclusion that H.R. 900 provides the best means 

to redeem government by the consent of the people of Puerto Rico, 

based on legally valid options under the U.S. Constitution. Those 

who contend that H.R. 900 is incomplete for failing to include a 

provision for enhanced commonwealth status undoubtedly have the 

best interests of the citizenry in mind, but regrettably, such an option is simply not constitutionally available under our system of 

government. 

I would like again to thank you, Chairwoman Christensen and 

the Members of the Subcommittee, for taking so seriously your responsibility to ensure that essential American democratic values, 

such as equality and self-determination, are fulfilled in Puerto 

Rico. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:]

46

Statement of Thomas C. Goldstein, Partner,

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP 

I. Puerto Rico and the Doctrine of Annexed but Unincorporated Territory 

Before addressing the constitutional and policy principles implicated by H.R. 900 

and H.R. 1230, I would like to direct the Subcommittee’s attention to what I believe 

is at the heart of the Puerto Rico status issue. It is that the interpretation and application of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution (the ‘‘Territorial 

Clause’’), has resulted in the current problem in which a population of U.S. citizens 

in Puerto Rico larger than that of half the states in the Union is being governed 

by Congress indefinitely without a full and equal national citizenship, or access to 

a democratic process to attain one. As such, the residents of Puerto Rico are, in effect, a disenfranchised subclass of American citizens, without, among other things, 

equal civil rights or legal status under law, a direct voice in U.S. policy, or voting 

rights in the election of U.S. national leaders. 

I believe this outcome would be a surprise to the Framers of our Constitution. The 

Framers, it must be recalled, were familiar only with the model of territorial incorporation embodied in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. For this reason we would 

have to explain to the Framers that: 

• Over the course of the 19th century the U.S. became a global power and by the 

dawn of the 20th century the U.S. had acquired sovereignty over remote island 

realms with large non-citizen populations; and 

• In a series of decisions in the first quarter of the 20th century, referred to as 

the ‘‘Insular Cases,’’ the Supreme Court created the unincorporated territory 

doctrine and ruled that Congress could govern such overseas possessions under 

the Territorial Clause as it had all earlier American territories, but without following the historical model of political status resolution through incorporation 

and without applying the Constitution to the unincorporated territories in the 

same manner as it had with prior territories; and 

• The unincorporated territory doctrine of the Insular Cases meant that the Constitution did not ‘‘follow the flag’’ to the annexed but unincorporated territories 

with non-citizen populations; and 

• Consistent with the Insular Cases, U.S. citizenship was withheld from the citizens of the Philippines as a step toward that island nation’s independence, and 

the conferral of U.S. citizenship for Alaska and Hawaii was part of the process 

of incorporation leading to statehood for those territories; and 

• In contrast to those precedents, the Supreme Court’s 1922 decision in Balzac 

v. Porto Rico interpreted the conferral of U.S. citizenship on the residents of 

Puerto Rico as neither putting Puerto Rico on the path toward incorporation nor 

extending to its residents the rights and protections of the Constitution that 

came with citizenship in incorporated territories on the path to statehood. 

As a result of these and other events, Congress now presides over Puerto Rico as 

an annexed but unincorporated territory populated by four million disenfranchised 

U.S. citizens who possess, essentially, the same constitutional status as aliens under 

the original Insular Cases doctrine. As discussed below, certain ‘‘fundamental 

rights’’ have been extended on an ad hoc basis by statutory policy and court decisions, but not by direct application of the Constitution. This reality—over one hundred years after the annexation of Puerto Rico and approximately nine decades after 

U.S. citizenship was conferred on the residents of Puerto Rico—is, arguably, a byproduct of legislative inaction and would concern the Framers, just as it concerns, 

among others, the sponsors of H.R. 900, H.R. 1230, and the members of the Subcommittee. 

II. The Importance of Resolving the Political Status of Puerto Rico 

It is in the historical context of the Insular Cases and the Balzac decision that 

this Subcommittee must address the constitutional and policy implications of 

H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. 

In combination these two bills present a question to Congress—Can the present 

dilemma regarding Puerto Rico’s political status be resolved through: (1) a status 

resolution process initiated at the local level like the one outlined in H.R. 1230; (2) 

a federally sponsored process based on status options and procedures defined by 

Congress as set forth in H.R. 900; or (3) a process that combines elements of (1) 

and (2)? It is my conclusion that the record on the Puerto Rico status question before the Natural Resources Committee is clear that Congress possesses the responsibility and exclusive constitutional power to determine the appropriate status resolution. I have further concluded that, although both bills raise important issues about 

the substance and process of status policy, H.R. 900 is the measure that can best 

47

accomplish the imperative of redeeming government by consent for the people of 

Puerto Rico based on legally valid options under applicable federal law and policy. 

A. H.R. 1230—Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2007

H.R. 1230 seeks to enact a resolution process initiated at the local level via local 

constitutional convention. Contrary to the language of H.R. 1230, as residents of an 

annexed but unincorporated territory under the Territory Clause, the people of 

Puerto Rico do not have ‘‘inherent’’ or ‘‘natural’’ rights of sovereignty recognized by 

Congress or the Supreme Court under the Constitution. Instead, Article I of the 

local territorial constitution, which empowers the local government of Puerto Rico 

to implement the will of the people, is limited to local territorial administration 

within the scope of powers of the territorial government instituted under federal 

law. While the considerable degree of self-government that the Puerto Rico territory 

has achieved under its local territorial constitution and the commonwealth system 

for administration of internal civil affairs of the territory is an impressive tribute 

to American democratization, the powers of the local government do not extend to 

affairs of national sovereignty or to the political status of Puerto Rico. Those powers 

are expressly reserved to and vested in Congress under the Territorial Clause, as 

expressly recognized in Article IX of the Treaty of Peace ceding Puerto Rico to the 

United States, which records that the ‘‘civil rights and political status’’ of Puerto 

Rico shall be determined by Congress. 

While I am convinced that only Congress has the authority to resolve the political 

status of Puerto Rico, I am not aware of any constitutional limitation that would 

preclude a local constitutional convention from being a part of a federally authorized 

status resolution process, particularly once Congress has defined the options and the 

procedural mechanism for status resolution. To the extent Congress elects to recognize such a convention within the status resolution process, I offer the following 

suggestions to minimize the risk of confusion and misinterpretation: 

• The inclusion of any local constitutional convention should be predicated on a 

clear recognition that: (1) the current commonwealth system of local government in Puerto Rico, while also adopted at the local level, was created by federal powers as a form for territorial government; and (2) the commonwealth system does not define Puerto Rico’s political status. 

• To the extent a local constitutional convention is recognized as a means to facilitate local democratic participation in the status resolution process, the participants should recognize that any proposed changes to the local territorial constitution that would purport to change Puerto Rico’s political status can be 

given legal meaning and effect only pursuant to federal statute, based on a federal status resolution policy and process, with options defined or accepted by 

Congress as compatible with federal law. 

• Any provisions in an act of Congress relating to a local constitutional convention should be based on the understanding that such a convention will operate 

subject to the supremacy of federal law and may not impair the local constitutional process with respect to other initiatives and measures meant to address 

the political status issue. 

• Unless otherwise explicitly agreed and intended, Congress should require that 

any such local convention operate in a manner compatible with the local territorial constitution and laws of Puerto Rico, so that the federal enabling act is 

not construed as a unilateral federal amendment of the local constitution as approved by Congress and the people in 1952. 

I suggest the foregoing caveats merely as a means to avoid creating any false expectation by the residents of Puerto Rico of congressional recognition of inherent 

rights or powers not granted to non-state territories by the Constitution or otherwise. Without similar protections, the inclusion of a local constitutional convention 

risks harming the status process from a political and constitutional perspective. A 

consequence of which would be to stymie the status process and invite re-submission 

to Congress of a proposal to give Puerto Rico a status combining features of statehood and sovereign independence—commonly referred to as enhanced commonwealth status—that does not exist under the Constitution and, notably, has never 

been endorsed by Congress as constitutionally or politically viable. In addition, the 

foregoing caveats will make clear that the adoption of the 1952 local territorial constitution simply created a system of limited local government and did not establish 

a constitutionally defined political status. 

B. Congress is Obligated to Provide a Lawful Political Status Resolution 

As noted above, the power to resolve the political status of Puerto Rico is vested 

exclusively in Congress and the local constitutional process must operate within any 

framework created by Congress. By accepting the unincorporated territory doctrine 

48

of the Insular Cases, however, Congress has acquiesced in prolonging a political status for Puerto Rico in which the sovereignty of its people is held in abeyance and 

residual sovereignty is retained by Congress by operation of the Territorial Clause. 

Pursuant to the unincorporated territory doctrine, Congress and the federal courts 

can, and indeed have, extended fundamental rights by statute or court decision, but 

this is essentially permissive and/or discretionary and can be modified or even reversed through subsequent statutes or court rulings. For example, the federal court 

decisions in Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, Mora v. Mejı ́as, and Rodriguez v. 

Popular Democratic Party appear to create a body of federal statutory policy and 

decisional jurisprudence that extend such fundamental rights as due process and 

equal protection to certain actions by the federal and local governments in Puerto 

Rico. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. Rosario, however, confirms the power 

of wide ranging power of Congress under the Territorial Clause to alter its treatment of Puerto Rico. In addition, cases such as U.S. v. Quinones and U.S. v. AcostaMartinez confirm that adoption of the local territorial constitution in 1952 did not 

change the status of Puerto Rico or carve out a zone of local sovereignty beyond the 

reach of the Territory Clause power of Congress. More importantly, the ‘‘fundamental rights’’ recognized under federal law in Puerto Rico are not part of a constitutionally defined citizenship equivalent to that secured through incorporation 

and statehood, or through separate nationhood, and, as such, are not part of a status leading to full and equal citizenship at the national level. Stated another way, 

the unincorporated territory doctrine has not enabled or empowered the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico to exercise many of the most fundamental rights of all, including 

the rights to self-determination and government by consent of the governed. 

Political status resolution is first and foremost a political question for Congress, 

and the Insular Cases and Balzac decision represent, if nothing else, a deferral by 

the federal courts to the political power of Congress under the Territorial Clause. 

However, like many legal decisions, the Insular Cases and Balzac decision venture 

into the realm of policy making. It is likely that that in deciding the Insular Cases 

or Balzac the Supreme Court felt a need not only to clarify the meaning of the territorial statutory policy at issue, but to fill a vacuum created by congressional inaction or ambiguities and inconsistencies created by congressional action. 

The organic acts and territorial policies adopted for Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico 

and the Philippines after 1900 illustrate this ambiguity and congressional inconsistency. Moreover, the disparate treatment of each of those territories in some respects 

represents a departure from the historical practices and constitutional law of the 

United States governing territorial status resolution. With regard to the Philippines, 

Congress declared in 1916 a policy of withholding U.S. citizenship from the Philippines and, on that basis, adopted a policy leading to a local constitutional government as a step to independence. With regard to Puerto Rico, however, Congress in 

1917, just months after adopting its policy for the Philippines, conferred U.S. citizenship on the residents of Puerto Rico and left unanswered the effect of citizenship 

on Puerto Rico’s future political status. 

Instead of treating the grant of citizenship to the residents of Puerto Rico as a 

step toward incorporation as it had done with regard to Alaska in Rassmussen v. 

United States, the Supreme Court, with its decision in Balzac, filled the vacuum on 

the issue of future status for Puerto Rico by concluding that, contrary to the assumption of the Insular Cases that conferral of citizenship led to incorporation 

which led to statehood, the extension of U.S. citizenship was not a step toward incorporation for Puerto Rico. There are credible arguments on both sides of whether 

the Insular Cases were ‘‘good law’’ or ‘‘bad law’’ in trying to resolve the exigencies 

of America’s experiment in imperialism and colonialism in the Philippines and 

Puerto Rico before U.S. citizenship was extended to Puerto Rico. However, the effects of those decisions on federal territorial policy become more conspicuous with 

each passing year and render it much more difficult to sustain a favorable view of 

the Balzac decision separating citizenship from the Constitution and its fundamental promise of government by consent for all U.S. citizens. Further undermining 

the continuing validity of the Balzac ruling is the questionable justification offered 

by Chief Justice Taft that any individual aggrieved by the decision could simply 

move to a State. According to Chief Justice Taft: 

It became the yearning of the Puerto Ricans to be American citizens...and 

the act gave them the boon. What additional rights did it give them? It enabled them to move into the continental United States and becoming residents of any state there to enjoy every right of any citizens of the United 

States, civil, social and political. 

This passage confirms that the Balzac decision created a class of U.S. citizenship 

under American sovereignty and under the America flag that could only be redeemed from a discriminatory state of inequality and disenfranchisement by migraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
49

tion to another part of America. That arguably was not really ‘‘good law’’ in 1922, 

and it should not be acceptable to Congress as federal law or policy in 2007. Put 

simply, when Congress’ past exercise or failure to exercise its Territorial Clause 

power gives rise to a constitutional detriment to Puerto Rico, Congress has a concomitant obligation to take responsibility for and ameliorate the failures of that political judgment. For all these reasons, a legally authoritative political status policy 

for Puerto Rico is not only within the exclusive power of Congress, as recognized 

by U.S. Senate Resolution 279, adopted September 17, 1998, but also the responsibility of Congress under the Territory Clause power. 

C. H.R. 900—Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007

As introduced, H.R. 900 meets the criteria for a federal statutory policy on status 

resolution for Puerto Rico. Implicit in H.R. 900 is the principle that all U.S. citizens 

are entitled to enjoy two of the most essential American democratic values—equality 

and self-determination. H.R. 900 accomplishes this by allowing voters to choose for 

Puerto Rico to either retain its current status or pursue permanent nonterritorial 

status. Pursuant to H.R. 900, if a majority of voters favors the continuation of existing territorial status, additional votes will continue to be held every eight years unless and until a majority votes to seek permanent nonterritorial status. In my view, 

this provision is necessary to ensure that a less than fully democratic status does 

not continue due to the failure of Congress to provide access to a federally sponsored 

mechanism for expression of the political will of the residents of the territory. Such 

periodic acts of self-determination as between options determined by Congress to be 

compatible with the Constitution and applicable federal law are vital to redeem 

America’s democratic principles and the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens in 

Puerto Rico. 

Alternatively, if, and only if, a majority of the voters choose for Puerto Rico to 

pursue a path toward permanent nonterritorial status, H.R. 900 mandates that a 

plebiscite be conducted that allows voters to choose between statehood or sovereign 

nation status, including the possibility of free association, subject to such terms as 

may be agreed upon by Congress consistent with U.S. constitutional practice and 

international legal criteria. It bears noting that free association as envisioned by 

H.R. 900 is based on an agreement between two sovereign nations, and recognition 

of separate sovereignty, nationality, and citizenship. It also must be terminable at 

will by either party in order to preserve the right of each nation to independence. 

Otherwise, if terminable only by mutual agreement, it would give each nation the 

power to deny the other nation’s right to independence, and would therefore not be 

non-colonial and non-territorial. When crafted within the bounds of these principles, 

free association can be a useful means for a former colony and a former colonial 

power to sustain a close and mutually beneficial postcolonial relationship. 

By approving H.R. 900, Congress can begin to correct the historical and constitutional dilemma created by the Insular Cases, the Balzac decision, and the incorporated versus unincorporated territory doctrines. Indeed, H.R. 900 is predicated on 

the need for a federally sponsored process in which Congress exercises it powers regarding a political status resolution for Puerto Rico based on informed self-determination between status options recognized as compatible with federal law and 

international criteria of decolonization in the modern era. For this reason, it is my 

view that H.R. 900 is a functionally status neutral approach. H.R. 900 neither favors a particular status nor gives rise to any sort of undue influence leading to a 

so-called artificial majority. Equally as important, H.R. 900 does not promote politically unrealistic or constitutionally unavailable status options for inclusion on a 

plebiscite ballot. H.R. 900 does, however, provide a clear path to end the current 

status policy for Puerto Rico that separates U.S. citizenship from the Constitution 

without any remedy based on consent of the governed. The end of this policy has 

the likelihood of leading to a democratically instituted unity of national citizenship 

and inherent sovereignty at the national level for the inhabitants of the Puerto Rico 

territory, if that is what a majority want when given the chance to express their 

will. 

It bears noting that, whether by direct right of referendum sponsored by Congress 

or through a combination to federal and local measures including, but not limited 

to, a local constitutional convention, there is precedent for periodic votes in order 

to achieve orderly political status resolution. For example, in 1889 Congress sponsored a status resolution process for Dakota, Montana and Washington. Congress 

required each territory to propose a constitution ‘‘not repugnant to the Constitution 

of the United States’’, and to keep submitting such proposals to the voters until one 

was approved and proclaimed compatible with the federal enabling act by the President of the United States. As I noted in my earlier testimony, Congress may want 

to enact H.R. 900 exactly as introduced, or it may want to recognize a possible role 

50

for a constitutional convention similar to that proposed in H.R. 1230. As long as the 

constitutional convention is in some manner compelled to advance proposals determined at the federal level to be compatible with federal law, and the local constitutional process is not impeded from other measures to resolve the status question, 

there would be no legal reason not to recognize the concept underlying H.R. 1230 

as part of an overall status policy. Of course, the local territorial constitution already authorizes constitutional conventions, and a convention called thereunder 

could possibly propose amendments that would change the status of Puerto Rico if 

approved by the people and Congress. With or without a local constitutional convention provision, a federally managed process is necessary to facilitate majority rule 

by the people of Puerto Rico in the determination of whether the current territorial 

status should continue, or a new political status should be pursued. 

CONCLUSION 

Congress now presides over Puerto Rico as an annexed but unincorporated territory. Currently, the people of Puerto Rico lack full and equal national citizenship 

and they lack a status resolution process through which they can acquire full and 

equal national citizenship. Congress possesses the exclusive constitutional power to 

determine the appropriate status resolution. Moreover, it is imperative that Congress exercise this power in a fashion that is compatible with the options made 

available by the Constitution. It is my belief that H.R. 900 provides the best means 

to accomplish the necessary goal of redeeming government by consent for the people 

of Puerto Rico based on legally valid options under applicable federal law and policy. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, panelists. I want to remind the 

Members that Committee Rule 3(c) imposes a five-minute limit on 

questions. 

The Chair will now recognize myself for questions, and follow up 

with recognizing Members for any questions they might have. 

I begin with Attorney Thomas. My first question to you is, in 

your view, does the Constitution prohibit Congress from entering 

into an arrangement that establishes a self-governing political status that cannot be changed by mutual consent? 

Mr. THOMAS. Madame Chairwoman, I would start first that absolutely the Congress could enter into such an agreement, and could 

choose by itself to honor the terms of those agreements. And as a 

matter of fact, I think that is what has principally been done in 

the case of Puerto Rico. 

As to whether Congress could bind itself or bind a future Congress from changing that agreement, my, I guess, essential point 

is one of locating that constitutional authority. 

I do agree with the comment of Professor Pildes that there is, 

there may well be nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the 

enhanced commonwealth; however, the Constitution is a document 

of both limits and powers. And the perhaps more relevant question 

is where does that power come from in the Constitution. 

And I do understand that there are, you know, significant gaps 

in our constitutional knowledge here because of the lack of case law 

on some of these issues. However, at this point I can’t confidently 

say that there is a place in the United States Constitution that 

would provide the authority for a mutual binding agreement between the Federal government and a territory. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. OK, but the first answer to the question is 

yes, it is possible, but you don’t know that it can bind the following 

Congress. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, that is correct. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I think that Professor Pildes responded in his 

testimony to how he feels about that, so I am not going to ask you 

that question right now. 

51

My question to you, though, is, for those territories that due to 

size or other reasons are not candidates for statehood or independence at this point, what is your view of the notion that such areas 

‘‘shall forever remain at the will of Congress?’’

Mr. PILDES. Well, Madame Chairwoman, I would say first that 

the territory clause itself is the source of power for Congress to decide on the appropriate relationship with various non-state areas. 

So to answer Mr. Thomas’s comment, precisely because the territory clause power is so broad and expansive, one of the ways in 

which Congress might choose to use that power, which is supported 

by Supreme Court precedent, is to create new forms of relationship, 

including in my view a binding mutual consent provision. 

For other areas, the territory clause gives the United States 

flexibility and pragmatic policymaking authority to determine the 

appropriate relationship over time, partly in response to the preference of the people who live in those non-state areas, if those preferences change over time. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Professor Gorrı ́n, since the people 

of Puerto Rico, as I understand it, have several times voted in at 

least a plurality to remain as a commonwealth, it seems to me that 

the people of Puerto Rico chose themselves to remain in that status; that it is not necessarily being imposed upon them by Congress 

or the Federal government. Do you disagree with that? 

Mr. GORRI ́N-PERALTA. Yes, I do, Madame Chairwoman. The original decision in 1950, when the people of Puerto Rico received Law 

600 adopted by this Congress, gave Puerto Rico the alternative of 

deciding whether it wanted to draw up domestic rules for the 

household, or whether it wanted not to draw up those household 

rules and wanted Congress to keep on drawing them. 

But it had no alternative. It was either a yes-no answer to a colonial relationship. And that, of course, cannot be legal under either 

constitutional or international law. 

So the only time that Congress has admitted to the people of 

Puerto Rico any kind of question was at that time, and that was 

an invalid question. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I am going to reserve my next questions for 

the next round, since I am almost out of time, and I will turn to 

the Ranking Member, Mr. Fortun ̃ o, for any questions he may have. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you, Madame Chair. And thank you for all 

the witnesses coming up today. 

My first question is for Mr. Thomas. And I read, last night I read 

your written statement that you had put into the record. And you 

mentioned, and actually you were commenting on H.R. 1230, 

which proposes that a non-territorial or enhanced colonial status be 

one of the status options. 

I believe in your written testimony that you stated that this at 

some point could require a constitutional amendment here in the 

United States. Could you expand on that, please? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. In my written testimony I was speaking to the 

language of H.R. 1230, which seems to provide a broad discretion 

to the convention as to the types of proposals they could make. And 

I would note that the H.R. 1230 speaks of the Congress passing a 

joint resolution in response to the convention’s proposals. 

52

And I just thought that that raised the possibility, and I wouldn’t 

say that this is necessarily the intent of the bill, but I would say 

it raises the possibility that the proposal which could be submitted 

from the convention could be one of a constitutional amendment. 

And that also has the advantages of avoiding some of the constitutional issues that might arise if the proposal was sent up in 

the form of a statute. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Mr. Thomas, so that everyone is here and actually 

hearing us in Puerto Rico understands, what does it take for a constitutional amendment to be approved in the United States? 

Mr. THOMAS. In the United States, the Congress, both Houses of 

Congress would pass the bill by two-thirds. It would not go to the 

President; it would go directly to the states for ratification by 

three-fourths of the states. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Last time the country tried this was ERA. Could 

you tell us what happened? 

Mr. THOMAS. In that case, the ERA failed, and I believe there 

were numerous states that did ratify it. The ERA legislation was 

actually amended to extend the opportunity for passage, but ultimately it did fail. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. When was the last time that the U.S. Constitution 

was amended? 

Mr. THOMAS. The 27th Amendment was fairly recent, although 

that is an interesting case because that actually was started over 

200 years ago as one of the original Bill of Rights, and was not actually ratified until fairly recently. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And the 27th Amendment, what does it state, if 

I may? 

Mr. THOMAS. The 27th Amendment speaks to whether the compensation of Members can be raised without an intervening Congressional election. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And it took 200 years to get through that. Thank 

you. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Mr. Goldstein, you have commented on the enhanced colonial status that has been proposed. Could you go further into, for example, the ability for Puerto Rico, non-territorial or 

enhanced colony of Puerto Rico, to have veto power over Federal 

legislation, and to invalidate Federal court jurisdiction? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I think that that would be in grave constitutional doubt, given, as has been said, the plenary power of the Congress under the territory clause. 

If Puerto Rico were to remain in some form of commonwealth 

status, the plenary power would remain with the Congress. And in 

addition to the points that were made earlier about the political 

will to give such a special status to Puerto Rico, I think that it 

would be highly questionable to give a territory effectively a veto 

over the application of laws that were passed by Congress. 

Congress, nonetheless, could itself provide, as it has, that certain 

laws don’t apply in Puerto Rico. But that is a very different question from giving Puerto Rico the opportunity to veto those laws 

itself. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. The things that the platform, 2004 platform of the 

party, of the Governor’s party, states that actually it will be the 

53

Puerto Rico legislature that will veto our laws here in Congress. 

That is what they are saying that could be done. Essentially you 

are saying that that is not doable. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That would not be possible. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. OK, thank you. Mr. Thomas, I know you—and 

again, I was reading this last night, and you looked at both bills. 

Do you have an opinion as to which of the two will actually have, 

are less likely to survive the constitutional scrutiny of the proposed 

options? That is, statehood, independence, or this type of free association, or an enhanced—well, basically, we keep it all, but we don’t 

give anything back? 

Mr. THOMAS. Well, again I should reiterate that I believe that 

both bills are constitutional in the sense, well, first of all, that they 

are really just establishing——

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I am sorry, my question is about the options, the 

actual options. I am sorry. 

Mr. THOMAS. Right. And if the Puerto Rican Convention under 

H.R. 1230 does choose a commonwealth option, and the commonwealth option they do choose is one that would withdraw the Federal jurisdiction, again, that is, in and of itself, not unconstitutional. 

But the question is whether it is effective. The question is if then 

a Congress later came and decided that it was necessary for whatever reason to change some aspect of the commonwealth in a way 

that the Puerto Rican Convention had decided was inappropriate, 

I think it would be very difficult to find an argument binding that 

later Congress from taking that action. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. I yield back, Madame Chairman. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. At this point, before I move to Mr. 

Faleomavaega, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 

Indiana, Mr. Burton, be allowed to sit on the dais and participate 

in the hearing. And hearing no objection, so ordered. Welcome. 

Next, Mr. Faleomavaega, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. And I 

guess you might say this is my maiden speech for this important 

hearing. And certainly I want to thank Chairman Rahall and 

Chairman Young; I do call the gentleman from Alaska as Chairman Young, because he was Chairman of this important committee. In fact, he has worn so many hats, I don’t know which one 

that I could really address properly the senior Member from our 

good friend and colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young. 

But I do want to thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for calling 

this very important hearing. Again, to figure out how we can best 

determine to give the people of Puerto Rico the best option or the 

best opportunity to determine for themselves as to what their future should be. 

I also want to say at the beginning, I have nothing but the highest respect for my good friend and colleague, Congressman 

Fortun ̃ o, who has represented his district in a most excellent way, 

not only before this body, but certainly before other members of 

this institution. 

I thank also the gentleman from Indiana, because these gentlemen all have institutional memories, excellent institutional memories, of what has happened for all these years in trying to deterVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
54

mine what can we do for Puerto Rico. And obviously, those of us 

who represent the insular areas take a tremendous interest always 

when we talk about political status for Puerto Rico, because it does 

have very serious implications on the future of the other insular 

areas, as well. 

So I welcome this opportunity again, and look forward to seeing 

where we are going to be, how we are going to make this determination. 

And one of the interesting twists that we find ourselves in, that 

we have two bills introduced by those who are originally from 

Puerto Rico—my good friend, the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Serrano, and also Ms. Vela ́zquez—for introducing both pieces of 

legislation. 

I have been here almost 20 years now, and there are so many 

different cross-currents going on, and as has been in the past and 

is true in the present. 

I have a grandson, very interestingly enough. He is part Tahitian, he is Samoan, and he is also Puerto Rican. So I just want to 

say how far our precenos have traveled, all the way from Puerto 

Rico to the South Pacific. So I am very proud and so happy that 

my grandson does have a sense of heritage, and a base or foundation from the good people of Puerto Rico. And I look forward to 

working with my colleagues here on the committee, and see how 

we can best resolve this issue of what should be the best option to 

pursue. 

Now, I look at it from a different perspective. The problem we 

have here so often is that we are almost like in a courtroom situation. You get expert witnesses. If I want someone who kind of 

bends a little bit toward H.R. 900, I will call Professor Pildes. If 

I want someone who bends on H.R.—wait a minute, the opposite—

900, it is Mr. Goldstein, and if it is 1230, maybe perhaps Professor 

Pildes. And I wish we didn’t have to do it this way, but this issue 

is not very simple. It is very complex. So many constitutional crosscurrents, under-currents, I don’t know what to call them. 

I recall years ago when we held a hearing right in Puerto Rico. 

And right in the middle of the hearing, all of a sudden an opinion 

or a commentary was written by one of the most noted conservative 

journalists or leader, activist, what you want to call him, by the 

name of Pat Buchanan. And he comes out and says you give Puerto 

Rico statehood, we are going to have a welfare state. And that 

caused a barnstorm, and then all kinds of things flared up and said 

my gosh, is this what we want to do, in the most—I say it was a 

very wrong way to look at it, perceive what options should be made 

available for the good people of Puerto Rico. 

The political implications are, to me, as the way I look at it, from 

why even the Congress has not dealt very well in dealing with this 

issue. 

What I am saying here, it is a political issue, more so than saying whether it is constitutional or right or wrong, to try to meet 

the needs of Puerto Rico. 

We are looking at seven potential Members of Congress. Are they 

going to be Republicans or Democrats? Two Senators; are they 

going to be Republican or Democrat? That is, from what I recall before Alaska became a state, the fear politically was whether Alaska 

55

was going to be a democratically controlled state. And guess what? 

They are Republicans. 

The same situation happened also with the State of Hawaii. The 

fear was that Hawaii was going to be Republican, and guess what? 

They are all Democrats. 

So to me, that seems to be the problem that we have here in the 

Congress, looking at it as a political issue, and not looking at the 

rightness of what should be done to meet the best course of action 

for the people of Puerto Rico and their future. 

I am sorry, my time is up. I didn’t even have a chance to ask 

questions, but I will hopefully wait for the second round. Thank 

you, Madame Chair. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thanks, and we will have a second round. I 

now recognize our Ranking Member on the full committee, Mr. 

Young, for any questions. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I will say that my 

good friend from American Samoa put it very well. This is a political issue. 

But I have one, other than Hawaii, one of the most recent territories that became a state. And I can say this is my interest in this. 

I make no apologies. I am a statehood person. Because I knew 

where we were as a territory, and what we could not do, and how 

we were being treated as a colony. 

It was a big fight in the State of Alaska. And we petitioned the 

Congress, and the Congress responded, and we became a state in 

1959. 

And in retrospect, if we knew we had as much oil as we had——

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG.—we would have probably become a nation, and I 

would have become Emperor. But I don’t think you would let us do 

it right now. 

But my goal here is to really try to allow Puerto Rico to advance. 

And I do not believe you can advance as a commonwealth. I say 

that from my heart. Because we were not able to advance as a commonwealth. We were a territory. And my goal is to listen to the 

Puerto Rican people, listen to witnesses like we have today. But my 

ultimate goal is to try to give the Puerto Rican people a choice. And 

my bill, H.R. 900, does give them a choice. 

And if they decide to be an independent nation, God bless you. 

If you decide to be a state, God bless you. If you decide to be a commonwealth, you are not going to grow. And I am not going to ask 

God to bless you in that case. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Before I move to Ms. Bordallo, I 

also have to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent, be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in 

the hearing. And hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I now recognize my colleague from Guam, the Congresswoman 

Madeleine Bordallo, for such questions as she might have. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman, and 

Ranking Member Fortun ̃ o, and of course our distinguished Mr. 

Young who just left the room, and Mr. Rahall, who was here earlier, and to all of the distinguished witnesses. 

56

It has been a very important morning for me to listen to some 

of the dialogue on this matter. I represent the territory of Guam. 

Guam has in the past gone through the same exercises as you have 

in Puerto Rico over the years. We have introduced a number of 

pieces of legislation in the U.S. Congress. So I don’t know what the 

future is for Guam, but this is a learning process again for us, and 

I am sure that in the future we will also be entertaining a status 

change for Guam. 

Now, in examining the, or first, I would like to ask Mr. Thomas 

a question. I want to thank you and your colleagues in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service for all of 

the professional work that you have done for the committee, for all 

of us. 

I have a general question. Much of your written testimony focused on potential interpretation by the courts of H.R. 1230. And 

you also touched upon H.R. 900, which is based on the President’s 

Task Force report. 

My question then, Mr. Thomas, in examining the task force’s report and recommendations, do you note any constitutional deficiencies in the options and the process presented, or in the legal 

basis that the task force cites for its recommendations? Are there 

any issues that you see in the task force report with respect to constitutional compatibility, or anything Congress should keep in mind 

in particular with respect to the legal bases cited by the task force 

report’s recommendations? 

Mr. THOMAS. Well, Congresswoman, I would note that the task 

force really does have two components. One is a process component, 

and the other is a component regarding status options. 

As to the process component, obviously there is a lot of different 

ways that plebiscites can be held, different variations, and I would 

certainly have no policy suggestions as to which plebiscite form 

would be most appropriate. 

As to the status options that are presented, as I indicated in my 

report, I did find that the three general options that are going to 

be available to Puerto Rico will probably be statehood, independence, and some form of territorial status, such as commonwealth. 

And I think that is consistent with the task force. 

There is, of course, extensive appendices associated with the task 

force report that goes into great detail regarding some of the legal 

issues in this. I read those appendices, and thought that they went 

into a lot of the arguments on both sides, and noted some of the 

opposing case law, some dicta, some different arguments that could 

be made. And I thought they did a reasonable job of setting forth 

that. So I found nothing that I would consider, that would contradict my testimony. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So in other words, Mr. Thomas, you found nothing unconstitutional. 

Mr. THOMAS. Again, I recognize that the Congress can enter into 

these agreements. But as to whether these agreements can bind in 

the future, I would agree with the task force’s conclusion on that 

matter. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Burton for five minutes. 

57

Mr. BURTON. First of all, I want to thank you, Madame Chairman, for allowing me to sit in on your meeting. I really appreciate 

that. 

I have worked with Mr. Fortun ̃ o and Congressman Young for 

many years on this issue. I have been to Puerto Rico many times, 

and I am a very strong supporter of Puerto Rico becoming the 51st 

state. 

But I am also a realist, and I realize that it is extremely important that the people of Puerto Rico have the options presented to 

them, so they can make the decision themselves. And for that reason, I am a very enthusiastic supporter of H.R. 900, and I certainly 

hope it passes the committee and goes to the Floor quickly. 

And with that, I will yield the rest of my time to the gentleman 

from Puerto Rico. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. I want to thank the gentleman from 

Indiana; thank you for your support, and certainly for being there 

for so long for this cause. Actually, for an unfinished matter that 

has to be dealt with. On behalf of the four million citizens that I 

represent, I thank you for your leadership in this. 

I also acknowledge the fact that one of the Members of our Subcommittee and committee is here, Mr. Flake. I am sorry I couldn’t 

make it to today’s press conference, but I certainly wanted to be 

there, and I commend you on your leadership on another important 

issue that this country, this nation of ours, is facing, immigration, 

and I support you wholeheartedly. 

If I may, coming back to Puerto Rico. Mr. Goldstein, I stayed up 

until late last night; I was reading all of your testimonies. And you 

mentioned something in H.R. 1230 there is language that talks 

about inherent powers of Puerto Rico as a sovereign to do certain 

things. And I wonder if you have been able to look at what is the 

authority for the nature of those inherent powers that H.R. 1230 

alleges. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, sir. The Territorial Constitution does give 

the citizenry of Puerto Rico certain autonomy and the ability to 

make certain decisions. But H.R. 1230 I think dramatically overstates, under the current legal regime, the authority of the citizenry to make sovereign decisions, because that power is vested in 

Congress. 

And I think it is unfortunately misleading to the citizenry to suggest that until democracy is restored, that Puerto Rico would have 

such great control over its destiny that it would be able to, for example, veto Federal legislation, because that is not the way the 

U.S. Constitution works, regrettably. 

So long as there was a commonwealth or enhanced commonwealth status, the power will remain in the Congress. Unless and 

until Puerto Rico becomes a state or becomes independent, Puerto 

Rico does not have this inherent sovereign power to exercise so 

much control as H.R. 1230 suggests. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. So essentially, you have serious qualms about 

whether what has been actually promised to the people of Puerto 

Rico in the platform of the Governor’s party, essentially that we 

will have veto power over Federal legislation, that we would actually be able as well to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal district 

courts in Puerto, actually that we will be able to, believe it or not, 

58

benefit from all these free trade agreements and other agreements 

that our nation enters into. 

But by the same token, if some of them are not of our liking, that 

we will be able to enter into separate agreements. Could you comment on those, as well? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I have more than serious qualms. I don’t believe 

that it is a constitutionally permissible arrangement. It is, no 

doubt, idealistic, in a sense; it would be a wonderful arrangement 

for the people of Puerto Rico, as it would be for all of the 50 states 

that currently exist. But it is not something that is recognized by 

the Constitution. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Actually, with this I will yield back. And I thank 

you again, Mr. Goldstein. I am convinced that if we could get all 

that, there will be 50 requests for that before this committee. 

I yield back, Madame, my time. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Fortun ̃ o. I now recognize Mr. 

Kennedy for five minutes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Madame Chair. And I want to thank 

you, Madame Chair, for allowing me to be here today. I also want 

to commend the Member from Puerto Rico, Mr. Fortun ̃ o, for his 

leadership on this issue. 

It was mentioned, the issue of fairness. The delegate from Puerto 

Rico, Mr. Fortun ̃ o, has been outspoken on behalf of the people of 

Puerto Rico. And I think all of us, as Members of Congress, are 

painfully, painfully aware of the fact that although he represents 

seven times the number of people that each and every one of us 

represents, there is only one of him. And he doesn’t get to go to 

the Floor of the U.S. Congress right now. 

We are about to go for a vote, and he doesn’t get to go and vote. 

If you want the truest test of where the power is under the Constitution right now, it is in this vote. Because we are going to have 

a vote, and he doesn’t get to go vote. The proof is in the pudding 

right there. He doesn’t get to go and vote on the Floor. 

So if you want to cut right through all of the talk, that is where 

the bottom line is. If you want to know where the sovereignty really is, that is where it is. Puerto Ricans don’t have the power. And 

until Congressman Fortun ̃ o—and he would actually have six other 

colleagues, Members of Congress, if the people of Puerto Rico had 

the right to vote—were able to go and vote right now, then you 

would have real democracy in Puerto Rico. That is the real issue 

here, and that is why we are listening to this bill, and why we need 

to act on this. 

Whether the people of Puerto Rico choose to have people go and 

vote as a state or whether they choose to have independence, that 

is their choice. But they can’t allow this current disenfranchisement to continue. 

And Delegate Fortun ̃ o, you have been outspoken on this issue, 

and I commend you for it. And I think your point on this 1230, the 

notion that under developed commonwealth, that Congress concede 

power to Puerto Rico to nullify Federal laws, let me ask Mr. Pildes 

a question, because you brought up the issue of the Northwest Ordinance. 

You said the territorial incorporation example of a mutual consent arrangement in the Northwest Ordinance was a statutory polVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
59

icy subject to alteration by Congress, despite the mutual consent 

provisions it contained. 

But isn’t it true that paragraph 14 of the Northwest Ordinance, 

Article IV of the so-called unalterable compact, expressly states it 

was subject to ‘‘such alterations as shall be constitutionally made 

to the Articles of Confederation and all acts and ordinances of the 

Congress of the United States.’’

And isn’t it also true that the Northwest Ordinance was amended in 1789 by Congress, without the consent of the territories? 

Mr. PILDES. Representative Kennedy——

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes or no? Well, the answer is yes, in case you 

needed to know. 

Mr. PILDES. May I respond? I am sorry. I just wanted to say that 

the terms of the ordinance do say that they cannot be altered except by mutual consent. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, it was altered without the consent of the territories, contrary to your testimony. 

Mr. PILDES. I don’t believe that is correct, Representative. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I can show you——

Mr. PILDES. Yes, we can——

Mr. KENNEDY. I have got it here in case you want it. 

Mr. PILDES. I would be happy to look at that, and I would be 

happy to submit a written response to it, if you want to give me 

that information. 

Mr. KENNEDY. We have got the Library of Congress right here, 

Ken Thomas is here. 

Mr. PILDES. Do you want to ask him the question? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No. I have got the Library of Congress here that 

has refuted your testimony that the Northwest Ordinance that you 

said had mutually consented to the Articles of Confederation being 

amended was not true. 

Mr. PILDES. Representative Kennedy, the United States Supreme 

Court has held constitutionally that the one time I am aware of 

that Congress did try to alter a mutual consent clause for a territory, when it came to Alaska, that that, in fact, was unconstitutional for Congress to do. That is an explicit express holding of the 

United States Supreme Court in the Rasmussen case. 

So as far as I am aware, the only time the U.S. Supreme Court 

has ever confronted the question, it has held that Congress is 

bound by a mutual consent clause when it makes that pledge in a 

statute to a non-state area. And again, that is the Rasmussen case, 

and there is a whole line of cases that follow Rasmussen which reaffirm that principle. 

Mr. KENNEDY. May I ask Mr. Goldstein—actually, my time is up. 

But if I could ask Mr. Goldstein, once again, does not the power 

to change the status of the people of Puerto Rico reside with the 

people or reside with Congress? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Congress controls the future of Puerto Rico, and 

the bills before you seek to take their views and let them make a 

choice. But it is a Congressional power. Unfortunately, that is true. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Kennedy, your time has expired. Thank 

you. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Flake for five minutes. 

60

Mr. FLAKE. I would like to thank the Chair for convening this 

hearing. 

Let me just go quickly to Mr. Thomas. You mentioned in your 

testimony that you thought that both bills were constitutional, but 

you expressed some concern, constitutional concern, in your testimony with regard to H.R. 1230. Are those concerns enough to give 

you pause about its constitutionality? Or do you still state that that 

bill is constitutional? 

Mr. THOMAS. I guess the best way to phrase it, I would be concerned about its enforceability. And again, this would not arise 

until such time as Congress chose, if 1230 again led to a plebiscite, 

led to a commonwealth, enhanced commonwealth status that was 

to be non-alterable, the issue would not be joined until Congress 

tried to alter it. And at that time I do believe that the courts would 

find that the Congress still had the power to alter even a solemnly 

entered-into agreement. 

Mr. FLAKE. So constitutional, but not enforceable. 

Mr. THOMAS. That might be the best way to describe it. 

Mr. FLAKE. Let me yield my remaining time to Mr. Dent. I know 

we have a vote quickly. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Flake. And also, at the outset I just 

wanted to say I am very pleased to see that included in today’s witnesses we will include representatives from our armed forces from 

Puerto Rico. I think that is very important. 

I do want to commend Madame Chairwoman and the committee 

staff for inviting these veterans who have done their duty, and are 

here to ask that we in Congress do our duty and uphold our oath 

of service as honorably as they did. 

That said, regarding the status of Puerto Rico, which is the subject of the hearing today, I am not here to advocate statehood or 

independence, or even the current status, for Puerto Rico. Instead, 

I support the process laid out in H.R. 900. And I think we need 

to clearly define the status options Congress is willing to consider 

if approved by a majority in a Federally recognized referendum. 

And if a majority of our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico are not 

ready to make the choice Congress is prepared to offer, they can 

choose to continue their current status, and we can continue to assist the commonwealth in its development goals as a territory, 

based on the democratic acceptance, and at least for now, the current political status. 

And I do again want to applaud Congressmen Serrano and 

Fortun ̃ o and their legislation, which will allow just that kind of 

freely expressed government by consent on the status issue. Indeed, there would be no vote on statehood or nationhood until a 

majority seek a new status, and an end to the current status. And 

this is a sound approach. It is a sound process. And that is why 

I strongly support H.R. 900. 

So why would a guy from Pennsylvania care about this legislation? Well, I, too, like many people, are concerned about the island. 

I represent a large number of people who have strong ties or roots 

to the island of Puerto Rico, and many of my constituents are following this issue very closely. 

And so as this debate unfolds, I certainly am going to listen to 

all sides on this issue. And again, I want to thank you, Madame 

61

Chairwoman, for putting on this hearing today. And again I want 

to applaud Congressmen Serrano and Fortun ̃ o for their strong leadership on H.R. 900. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Serrano for five minutes. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. There is not that much time 

left before the vote, but I will do some work here. 

Mr. Pildes, just a question probably more on American foreign 

policy than on anything else. 

Did I hear you say that the United States can hold a colony if 

it is in our best interest? 

Mr. PILDES. Well, unfortunately, that was the decision in the insular cases, as you know, in Downes v. Bidwell. And I actually 

think it would be perverse for the Constitution to be understood to 

permit that initial move. 

But now to be understood to deny Congress the power to expand 

the self-governing autonomy of Puerto Rico on the basis of some 

view that the one thing the territory clause does not do is permit 

Congress to expand the self-government, the autonomy, the political independence of Puerto Rico. 

So that is why in my view the Court’s decisions in the insular 

cases actually support an expansive power for Congress to cede 

some of its territory clause powers, and to respect the decision of 

the people of Puerto Rico if that is what they prefer in a free and 

informed process, to become self-governing in relationship with the 

United States. 

Some intermediate form, more autonomous than today, distinct 

from statehood, strong association with the United States distinct 

from independence. I believe whatever of these options is right, and 

whatever the people of Puerto Rico prefer, the Congress and the 

President, because both have to join in this decision, do have the 

constitutional power at least to give the Puerto Rican people these 

different options. And that is all I am really trying to insist on 

here. 

Mr. SERRANO. OK. To, very quickly, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Goldstein. The H.R. 1230 accepts the now well-known Serrano Amendment, which is in H.R. 900, that allows for those of us that were 

born on the island to vote. In fact, I think 1230 goes a step further 

and says the children of those born on the island. 

I suspect that will probably be the first thing that some people 

go after constitutionally. Is it your feeling that could hold constitutional muster? 

Mr. THOMAS. Congressman, I would be willing to submit a memo 

on that, not having looked at it closely in some time. 

However, the ability of a governmental entity—here a territory 

with Congressional authorization—to establish the parameters of 

the voting, of its vote, of who gets to vote, of suffrages, has quite 

a bit of discretion. And I wouldn’t say that there might not be some 

equal protection issues raised, but I think that as long as there is 

a rational basis for the extension of suffrage on an even-handed 

basis I think would survive constitutional scrutiny. 

But I would like to, if necessary, develop that further. Thank 

you. 

62

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Congressman, I think much would depend on 

the ultimate status of Puerto Rico and the degree of independence 

and autonomy that it ultimately elected to secure. 

I don’t think there would be an equal protection problem. And 

Congress does have the ability to extend citizenship. A lot would 

depend, I think, on what came with that citizenship, and the ability——

Mr. SERRANO. No, no. I am talking about during those votes, to 

have those of us who reside in the States vote in the plebiscites. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. No, I think that Congress could very likely—I 

apologize—could very likely, with some logical basis, such as that 

relationship to the island, choose to allow that level of participation. I don’t think that it would violate, it would dilute the votes 

of citizenry in any substantial way. 

I do think if, for example, the Congress were to say the citizens 

of the State of Indiana—not to pick on Indiana, which is a wonderful place—but were to pick some illogical relationship, there would 

be problems. But I expect that what you described would be constitutional. 

Mr. SERRANO. OK. Let me just close by saying that I will probably have a lot of people in Puerto Rico scratching their heads why 

I would bring up the subject, but part of the confusion has been 

seen in Congress in Major League Baseball. 

C.Q., a national journal, once published a list of foreign-born 

Members of Congress, and it listed Ms. Vela ́zquez and I as foreignborn, and it listed Mr. Gutierrez as native-born, because he was 

born in Chicago. 

Major League Baseball says that Bernie Williams is foreign-born, 

and they have got Martı ́nez as native-born. And so it dilutes the 

numbers of Puerto Ricans. 

So it really can be resolved by Major League Baseball first, and 

then we can move on to take care of it. Thank you so much. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SERRANO. Sure. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I was introduced by one of the Member’s colleagues on the Floor of the House as the gentleman from Somalia. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, I represent the Puerto Rican capitol of the 

world, the South Bronx. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Would you yield again? 

Mr. SERRANO. Absolutely. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. As far as I know, Bernie Williams’ family is 

from the Virgin Islands. He just happens to be born in Puerto Rico. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, and we gave you a great Governor for a 

while, right? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Sir, would you yield for just a moment? I am also 

known as the Representative from Guatemala. 

Mr. SERRANO. I think I started something here. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. We are going to entertain a second round of 

questions. And fortunately, four of us sitting here do not have to 

vote right now. 

63

But I would like to ask Mr. Nieves, as far as I know, none of the 

other freely associated states have continuing U.S. citizenship. And 

I noticed that that is number four in your principles. 

Why do you think that that would be possible, to continue to be 

U.S. citizens under a freely associated state? 

Mr. NIEVES. OK. The issue of citizenship is very hard to discuss. 

But the things that, the decision to grant citizenship to Puerto 

Ricans was not made by us; it was made by the United States in 

1917. 

In the case of Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans, for several historic reasons, have come to value their American citizenship. The things 

that any movement toward a form of sovereignty, free association, 

must take into account a historical reality, that Puerto Ricans 

value American citizenship. Although it could be said that it is a 

kind of second-class citizenship, but that is the historical reason. 

We should make that American citizenship, that there are no 

constitutional problems for a new arrangement within Puerto Rico 

and the United States, based on the sovereignty of Puerto Rico, 

whereby in the free association, there could be a recognition of continued American citizenship. 

We submit, Madame Chairwoman, that this is not a legal issue, 

per se; it is a political decision that could be made by the United 

States. There are no legal——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Impediments. 

Mr. NIEVES.—impediments to making that decision. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Thank you for your answer. 

Mr. NIEVES. Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Goldstein, would you agree that should 

the new enhanced commonwealth be the choice through whatever 

process, that it would have to be negotiated? And through that negotiation, can you say with any certainty that none of those provisions of commonwealth could be successfully negotiated? Could you 

with certainty say that any one of them cannot be negotiated with 

the United States Government? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. No, Madame Chairwoman. My concern is only 

with two things. One is the fundamental promise that H.R. 1230 

would be making to the citizens of Puerto Rico that this would be 

permanent, and that they could count on the U.S. Congress never 

being able to change the deal. And I don’t think that is a promise 

that could be made. 

And my second point is that there are important promises there 

about the ability to veto Federal laws and Federal jurisdiction that 

might be at the heart of the citizens’ desire to adopt that proposal 

that would be very problematic under the Constitution. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. But your answer was no, that you can’t say 

with certainty that they could not be negotiated. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That no provision of that could be negotiated, no, 

that is not my point. But the fundamentals are very doubtful. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Professor Pildes, can you explain—I would like to go back to some of the conclusions of the 

President’s Task Force. And can you explain in more detail why the 

Bowen case contradicts many of the conclusions of that task force? 

Mr. PILDES. Well, the task force relies on recent Justice Department memoranda in the 1990s that assert that the decision in this 

64

Bowen case by the Supreme Court from the 1980s required a dramatic change in position of the Justice Department regarding 

whether Congress has the power to enter into these mutual consent 

clauses over political status. 

I gather the theory of the Justice Department as to why Bowen 

suddenly required this about-face in Justice policy is that Bowen 

held that California did not have the right permanently to choose 

to remove itself from the Social Security system once it had entered 

into that system. 

One of the obvious problems with reasoning the Justice Department analysis is that the Social Security system, the relevant Congressional statutes expressly reserve the right of Congress to 

amend those statutes and change them at any time. So the argument of California, that somehow it had a pledge from Congress 

never to alter the Social Security system was refuted by the very 

statute on its face. 

And for that reason alone, it seems to me the Bowen case is utterly irrelevant to a statute that would say we pledge to respect the 

autonomy of Puerto Rico in this particular form, whatever form 

was adopted. I just find it utterly inexplicable, unless there is some 

political or policy judgment that is not reflected in the legal analysis, as to how one could conclude that that decision dramatically 

changed the constitutional doctrine about whether Congress could 

create one of these mutual consent agreements. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you for your answer. Mr. Fortun ̃ o, I 

recognize you for five minutes. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you, Madame Chair, again. Mr. Goldstein, 

just to finish on the question that Madame Chair just asked you. 

Is there a legal impediment to Congress guaranteeing a million dollars to each Puerto Rican for life? Legal impediment? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. There is a different rule that would apply to 

when you promise someone property, which has been something 

that, an analogy that has been made for the enhanced commonwealth status. There would be a significant impediment to promising permanent autonomy that Congress could never revisit, and 

the ability to veto Federal laws and the like. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And the bottom line here is that even if we can 

have our cake and eat it, too, the next Congress could take it away. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is right. And this could be a promise that 

could not be kept. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Exactly. That is why it is not permanent. That is 

the reason why, there are two words in our H.R. 900, permanent 

and non-territorial. And there is a reason for each word in that legislation, to make sure that we finish this discussion once and for 

all. 

And talking about finishing the discussion once and for all, if I 

may, Professor Gorrı ́n, even though we differ on the final outcome 

of this situation, not only our families tied for a long, long time, 

but I have the utmost respect for you. I would like for you to expand even further on whether we changed our status back in 1952, 

and whether we selected our status in 1952. 

Mr. GORRI ́N-PERALTA. Well, the committee would do well to go 

back to the legislative history of Law 600. That record is quite 

clear. Everybody was very clear at that time. The Senate comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
65

mittee that recommended the legislation, the House committee, the 

State Department, the hearings, the Interior Department at the 

hearings, and even the Representatives of the Puerto Rican Government at that time, referred once and again that the purpose of 

that legislation was to give the people of Puerto Rico a greater degree of self local government, and to obtain some kind of collective 

consent to the current relationship back then. In other words, a 

consent to the territorial status at that time. 

And all those reports and all those positions reiterated that the 

fundamental relation between Puerto Rico and the United States 

would not be changed. Even the Governor of Puerto Rico told, in 

a hearing just like this one at that time, if the Puerto Rican people 

should go crazy, Congress will always have the power to go back 

and legislate again. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. That is why, indeed, what we have today is not 

permanent in nature, because Congress any day can change it. 

I have just one more question, and that is to Mr. Pildes. Your 

name sounds familiar. Were you involved in the case stemming out 

of the 2004 election, by any chance? 

Mr. PILDES. I absolutely was, Representative Fortun ̃ o. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Who did you represent? 

Mr. PILDES. I represented the Puerto Rico Electoral Commission 

in the First Circuit, on behalf of the Commission’s view about how 

to resolve that disputed election, which was the position that the 

First Circuit ultimately endorsed. 

And I should also add I have represented Puerto Rico in litigation over its status in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit. And that litigation centered on the 

question you were just asking, which is——

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. During what time did you represent in those cases 

before the District of Columbia? 

Mr. PILDES. That is in my testimony, but I believe it was in the 

last two years, that litigation. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. So under this Administration. So you have worked 

for this Administration. 

Mr. PILDES. In that litigation, I did represent the Government of 

Puerto Rico. That is correct. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Governor Anı ́bal Acevedo Vila ́’s administration. 

Mr. PILDES. That is correct. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PILDES. That is OK. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Faleomavaega 

for five minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madame Chair. I appreciate the 

opportunity again. I do have some questions I would like to share 

with the members of the panel. 

I have the famous or infamous pleasure, when people ask me 

well, what is your territorial status, you representing American 

Samoa. And I say we are an unincorporated and unorganized territory of the United States. 

[Laughter.] 

66

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Which leads me to my first question to the 

members of the panel. With my limited understanding of the insular cases, I remember the doctrine of incorporation was first instituted during the insular cases, especially in Downes v. Bidwell, as 

I recall. And this is where the Supreme Court invented what was 

known as whether you are an incorporated or unincorporated territory. 

And as I recall clearly, Puerto Rico was classified as unincorporated territory. Which means, if I understand that correctly 

again, that any territory that is to be considered as an unincorporated territory will never see the day of ever becoming a state. 

That is my understanding of the doctrine of incorporation. 

But I would like to ask the members of the panel, what do they 

understand the doctrine of incorporation. Because it does have serious implications on the whole realm of constitutional court cases 

and problems of whether or not some provisions or all provisions 

of the Constitution apply to the insular areas. And Puerto Rico has 

always been the lead case in anything dealing with insular areas. 

And especially I would like to ask my good friend, Professor 

Peralta, if you could help me with this. Am I correct that the current status of Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory? 

And second, wasn’t there a tremendous reluctance on the part of 

the Congress even to entertain the idea of statehood for Puerto 

Rico, because they were from a different culture? They didn’t speak 

English? Their whole relationship was more toward Spain than it 

is with our own country? I just wanted to ask you that question. 

Mr. GORRI ́N-PERALTA. You are absolutely right, Downes v. 

Bidwell was the first judicial expression of the theory of non-incorporation, which actually originated in this Congress, when, in 1900, 

the first organic act for Puerto Rico was approved by Congress. 

And a tax was established, which was not a uniform tax, as the 

Constitution orders, for any, for the United States. 

Thus, the validity of that tax depended on whether Puerto Rico 

was part of the United States or not. That is the issue in Downes 

v. Bidwell. And the United States said that unincorporated territories are not part of, but merely are pertinent to, the United 

States. 

Contrary to the incorporated territories, which had been all previous territories, including the Northwest Territory, which was 

Federalized in 1784 through the first Ordinance for the Northwest, 

and thus became part of the United States. It was just a matter 

of time. The ordinance established that that territory would become 

several states. The ordinance was amended a few years later, and 

the number of states increased. 

From then on, since the Louisiana Purchase, the acquisition of 

Mexican territories, the acquisition of Florida, the acquisition of 

Washington State, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, all territories had 

been acquired through instruments of annexation that referred to 

the rights of the inhabitants of the Northwest Territory, which 

meant that all new territories during the 19th Century had been 

annexed as part of the United States. It was just a matter of time 

before they were to be admitted as states. That was the case also 

with Alaska and Hawaii. That is why——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That is where we are right now. 

67

Mr. GORRI ́N-PERALTA. That is where we are. And in 1952, that 

situation did not change, as I said before, because everybody was 

clear in Congress that the fundamental relationship would not 

change. The only thing that would change was the local government would not be dictated by Washington through an organic act, 

but through an exercise of constitutional government by the people 

of Puerto Rico. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would you say—and my time is running 

down, so I just—would you say that this proposed enhanced form 

of commonwealth that other faction is trying to pursue here is really almost the same as the current status of a compact of free association? That the three entities Micronesia currently have with the 

United States—Palau, the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, and also the Federated States of Micronesia. 

In fact, the term compact of free association was derived from the 

word commonwealth, which I understand, I am not very good in 

Spanish, but it means free association, if I am correct on that definition. And the Micronesians just simply adopted the term and expanded it now in terms of having literally a treaty relationship between the United States and these three Micronesian entities that 

for every 15 years, they will then renegotiate or come back to the 

table and find out where we go from there as far as their futures 

are concerned. 

But they are independent and sovereign nations. They are members of the United Nations. They participate in international organizations. And the people even there can join the military. But they 

are not U.S. citizens. 

And I am sorry, my time is out again, Madame Chair. I will try 

to come back again. I know we have got two more panels, but I 

really want to welcome our members of the panel, Madame Chair. 

They have been very, very good, and I wish we would have more 

time to pursue with more questions. 

But thank you again. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bordallo for 

five minutes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

Attorney Goldstein, this question is for you. The task force report 

seems to relish in the language if you are a territory, you are at 

the will of Congress. What are the boundaries of the will of Congress? Could Congress remove the Governor of Puerto Rico, or any 

of its elected officials from office? Or for that matter, a Governor 

or any officials from any other territory? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. To intervene in the ongoing politics of the island 

could create due process problems for rights that have already been 

exercised. But it is perfectly clear, I think, that Congress could prospectively dictate what the form of government on the island would 

be. 

So Congress’s powers are very, very broad in this respect. And 

it is regrettable that the citizenry itself doesn’t have the kind of autonomy that it deserves. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I am gathering that you are saying yes to that. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, I think it would present, if you were to remove someone from office it could present constitutional problems 

for the rights of the citizens that have already been exercised to 

68

elect that person in the first place. I think it would be a very, very 

close constitutional question. It would be at the outer bounds probably of Congress’s authority. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, say that the answer more is leaning to an 

affirmative. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Do you think any Federal court in this country 

would actually allow that? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Do I think that, on the assumption that Congress has the power to do it, do I think that a Federal court would 

actually let them do it? The answer is probably yes; that a Federal 

court would express its dismay at the continued mistreatment of 

the citizens of Puerto Rico, but it would conclude that Congress’s 

power here is exceptionally broad, if that is the premise of your 

question. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. And I do have a question for Professor Pildes. I am sure you are familiar with the legislation that 

is pending before Congress, and which is scheduled, I think, to 

come to the Floor of the House for a vote tomorrow, as a matter 

of fact, that would grant the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives based on Article I of the 

Constitution’s broad authority over D.C. 

In your opinion, Professor, is the analysis employed in the deliberations over this bill in any way illustrative of the process and 

issues that we are discussing here? 

Mr. PILDES. I think that that is a fairly unique issue, which 

poses specific problems. Because when Congress, by statute, tries 

to enhance representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, 

then I think there are quite serious constitutional questions about 

whether the Constitution does or does not permit that particular 

act. 

Congress can treat D.C. as a state for purposes of many Federal 

statutes, which is has. But the extension of voting rights always 

means that someone else’s voting power is being diminished as a 

formal matter. And as Mr. Goldstein said earlier, when vote dilution issues are present, there are always very difficult and very serious constitutional issues. 

So I don’t tend to think, at least as far as I have studied the D.C. 

bill at this point, that the resolution of that very specific issue 

about voting power by statute in the House has any direct implication for these issues about the process Congress might set up to 

allow the people of Puerto Rico, in the first instance, to make their 

judgment about what political status they would like going forward. 

Can I just, for the record, I would like to state one thing? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes, sure. 

Mr. PILDES. I am here testifying in my own capacity as an academic. I am not being paid to be here. My expenses are not being 

paid by anybody. 

When I testify as an academic, I place a very high value on my 

credibility and my academic statements. And I just would like the 

record to reflect that. 

69

I have learned about these issues in part through my experience 

litigating cases, as well as my academic study. But I am here testifying as an academic. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you, Professor. Thank you, 

Madame Chair. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I would like to thank the panelists. And as I dismiss you, I wanted to point out that this panel, 

as the other two, are made up of individuals recommended by all 

three political parties, plus the MAS, and with the intention of trying to bring a balanced view on the issues before us. 

And as such, we recognize that different panelists may have relationships or affiliations with political parties or organizations representing one view or another. And in the interest of full disclosure, I would just like to say that Akin Gump also has contracts 

with the Citizens Educational Foundation of Pro Statehood, a lobbying group that works on behalf of Puerto Rico. 

So with that, I would like to thank the panelists. You are dismissed. 

We are going to take just a five-minute break as we bring up the 

second panel. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. The Subcommittee on Insular Affairs is now 

back in session. Members will be coming in and out. Those who are 

voting will be coming back and going back and forth, and we may 

expect to be rejoined by our fellow delegates. And the rest of the 

commissioners will be right in. 

So I would now like to recognize our second panel. And on that 

panel we have Mr. Manuel Mejı ́a, the Chairman for the Puerto 

Rico Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Enrique Baquero, the President of 

the Puerto Rico Foundation for Democratic Action; and Mr. Jose ́

Luis Ferna ́ndez, President of the Inter-American Entrepreneurs 

Association. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Mejı ́a for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MANUEL A. MEJI ́A, CHAIRMAN,

PUERTO RICO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. MEJI ́A. Good morning. Madame Chairwoman and Members 

of the Insular Affairs Subcommittee, my name is Manuel Mejı ́a. I 

am the Chairman of the Board of the Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce. 

We want to thank you for the opportunity to express the views 

and positions of our Chamber regarding the political status of 

Puerto Rico. 

I would like to briefly summarize the salient points of our statement. However, we have submitted our full statement to the Subcommittee, and would appreciate its inclusion in the printed record 

of these proceedings. 

At the outset, I would like to state that I am appearing here not 

in my personal capacity, but as Chairman of the Puerto Rico 

Chamber of Commerce. It has 2500 members, plus over 60 affiliate 

associations who together employ over two-thirds of the island’s 

labor force. 

70

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr. 

Christensen on becoming the first female Chairwoman of this Subcommittee. 

This hearing is also truly historic for another reason. It is the 

first where both a Chairwoman and the Ranking Minority Member 

are delegates from territories. 

I would also like to thank you for promptly scheduling a hearing 

on the two bills before us. Each of those bills implements a different process for resolving the longstanding political status issue. 

However, because the Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce does not 

favor any particular form of political status, I will not discuss here 

today the merits or the merits of any of those bills. I will focus my 

presentation on a discussion of those general procedural principles 

that must be included in each of the bills to ensure a prompt and 

fair resolution of the status issue. 

I will also address the Chamber’s concerns regarding the economic and commercial effects of any transition. The first principle 

must be the principle of informed consent. This requires Congress, 

regardless of the process chosen, whether a constitutional convention or a referendum, to provide clear guidance regarding constitutional limits. This guidance will enable either the members of the 

convention or the voters to be fully informed regarding the alternatives before them. 

In addition, Congress must provide for a thorough educational 

program to acquaint voters with the consequences attendant to 

each alternative. The wider the educational program, the more voters that will participate. An educated electorate assures our nation 

and the international community that the process has been fair, 

transparent, and in accordance with international law. 

The second principle is the principle of transition. By this I mean 

that no matter what status is selected by the members of the constitutional convention or by the electorate directly in the referendum, Congress must provide for an orderly transition in order 

to avoid economic and other dislocation. 

The Chamber and its members have a particular concern regarding the effects that a lack of a proper and smooth transition may 

have on the economy. This transition, depending on the status selected, may affect such matters as taxation, citizenship, language, 

public entitlement, educational benefits, migration, obligation of 

terrorists, capital [ph] laws, Federal infrastructure expenditures on 

the island, Federal procurement, conditions and restriction to the 

island’s access to United States and foreign markets. 

The economic well-being of Puerto Rico and its ability to compete 

in a global market are among the principle concerns of the Puerto 

Rico Chamber of Commerce. Accordingly, we are extremely concerned about the effects that an improper transition may have on 

our multi-sectoral economy. You are responsible for providing for a 

transition in any legislation. Please bear in mind that an orderly 

transition will be very beneficial to the island, whereas an improper transition can gravely affect Puerto Rice’s economy. 

In conclusion, the Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce sincerely 

hopes that this historic hearing marks the beginning of a new and 

definite process for resolving the island’s political status. We welVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
71

come any prompt action that you can take to assure the prompt 

passage of legislation toward that end. 

We do urge, however, that any such legislation contain clear constitutional guidelines, a thorough education program, and an orderly transition if a new status is chosen. 

The Chamber stands ready to assist this 110th Congress in the 

drafting of appropriate legislation by providing such data and information as this Subcommittee may require. 

I would like to again thank the Subcommittee for its prompt 

scheduling of this hearing, and for the interest demonstrated in 

Puerto Rico’s future. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mejı ́a follows:]

Statement of Manuel A. Mejı ́a, Chairman of the Board,

Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce 

Madam Chairman and Members of Congress, my name is Manuel Mejı ́a; I am the 

Chairman of the Board of the Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce. We want to thank 

you for the opportunity to express the views and positions of our Institution on this 

most important issue; Puerto Rico’s Political Status. 

The issue of the political status has been an open and unresolved question in the 

history of Puerto Rico. It creates serious divisions among our society, forcing us to 

devote valuable human and economic resources in its debate, without reaching yet 

a definite solution. The Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce certainly appreciates the 

present Congressional efforts to find a democratic solution to this issue. 

Before I enter into the discussion, of the principal issues, allow me to say that 

today we stand before this distinguished committee as representative for over 2,500 

businesses and professionals of all sector and university students as well as a federation of over 60 private sector organizations in the Island jointly employing two 

thirds of the workforce. 

The Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce does not favor any particular form of political status. Its membership includes individuals from all political perspectives. In 

this diversity, chamber members have reached a consensus on the need to resolve 

the status issue and bring emotional and economic stability to our society. Without 

an organized congressionally sanctioned process, locally celebrated plebiscites on the 

status issue will continue to create much uncertainty among present and potential 

investors. Such situation hinders economic prosperity; therefore, this should be resolved as quickly as possible. Neither Congress nor the Puerto Rican people should 

wait another decade to decide this issue. Once the status question is resolved, efforts could be efficiently channeled to deal with the various social and economic 

problems of our society. 

The Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce will not address the provisions of 

H.R. 1230 regarding the process to exercise the right to self-determination thru a 

Plebiscite versus a Constitutional Convention. Further, we will not address the provisions of H.R. 900 on the two federally sanctioned plebiscite processes. For this 

reason our comments will be limited to the issues which have to be considered in 

the transition to any given status formula selected by the people of Puerto Rico. The 

central focus in our analysis is the economic and social circumstances of our members and, what is more important, those of the people of Puerto Rico. Before entering into the discussion of the process here are some pointers regarding Puerto Rico 

present economic structure. 

Puerto Rico’s economic model dates back to the early 1980s. During such years, 

most developing country governments, with a few exceptions, as well as many international organizations, had in mind a similar model of the development process as 

they went about their work. That model of how development goals should be attained greatly influenced government policies and institutions. It also profoundly affected national legal systems and the way government officials, lawyers, and legal 

scholars thought about law and its role in development. Since the late 1980s, most 

developing countries, in varying degrees, have abandoned that first model of development (Development Model I) and have evolved to a new model (Development 

Model II) that supersedes it. That has not been the case of Puerto Rico. This fundamental change in development models was in many ways as significant a transformation for developing countries as was the movement in the 1950s and 1960s 

from dependent to independent political status. This transformation is partially reflected in the change of name used to describe the ‘‘Third World: the ‘‘developing 

72

countries’’ of the 1960s have become the ‘‘emerging markets’’ of the 1990s. (The 

International Lawyer Winter 1999; Volume 33; Number 4 page 876). 

Probably all Third World countries entered the decade of the 1960s with a fundamental belief that their governments had the primary responsibility for bringing 

about economic development. In the minds of most officials, lawyers, and scholars, 

the belief in government’s dominant role evolved into a definite model about the nature of the development process. This model had four elements: (1) public ordering 

and state planning of the economy and society; (2) reliance on state enterprises as 

economic actors; (3) restriction and regulation of private enterprise; and (4) limitation and control of the country’s economic relations with the outside world. Puerto 

Rico’s model still has these elements present to certain extent. (The International 

Lawyer Winter 1999; Volume 33; Number 4 page 877) 

The position of our institution revolves around two main concerns. One is that the 

process ought to be fair and well informed, for the people to make an enlightened 

decision. The other is that, should the people of Puerto Rico decide to change the 

present status, an orderly and well-defined transition has to be clearly stated. This 

is of outmost relevance, because the people should know, not only the final outcome 

of their decision, but the road to reach it, if they are going to issue a responsible 

vote. 

The Process 

The self determination process should be dealt on its own merits. It should not 

be mixed with the normal electoral process. Voters have to be able to focus upon 

the status issue, apart from any distractions and confusions with other issues. All 

political parties in the Island have different positions with regard to their desired 

solutions to the status question. Indeed, each one of them uses the status as the 

principal issue in their political platforms and as their main identifier. As a result, 

the issues of governance and administrative policies are mingled in the electoral 

process with those related to the status and the type and form of future political 

relations between Puerto Rico and the United States. This situation creates confusion among voters, obscuring their ability to focus on the real issues to be decided 

at each electoral process. The status question is an ideological and emotional issue, 

becoming one of the most divisive issues in Puerto Rico. Too many human and economic resources have been spent in debating this issue. It is clear that a final solution is of foremost relevance for the future of our people. By solving the status issue, 

we will be deciding not only our future, but also the one for the generations to come. 

The long-term process to address the status issue in Puerto Rico requires that voters be well-informed on the consequences of their decisions throughout the entire 

process. Before Puerto Ricans are asked to stamp their status preference on a plebiscite ballot, it is necessary to clearly spell-out the cultural, political and socioeconomic consequences of each political status alternative to be presented. 

The information transmitted to the people should be based upon accurate and unbiased data. The data that the Federal Agencies provide with respect to the costs 

and benefits of each status alternative must be consistent in terms of objectivity and 

basis. Some examples where consistency and objectivity are of utmost importance 

are statements about the nature of our American citizenship. Statements on the implications of federal corporate and personal taxation under statehood must be based 

on scientific estimates. We hereby offer the resources of our institution to help in 

obtaining additional information about the socioeconomic impact of each status alternative to supplement what has already been obtained, and what needs to be 

gathered in order to allow the people to make an informed decision. 

The only viable alternative to solve Puerto Rico’s status issue is a federally sanctioned process. This process must outline very specific steps to accomplish its objectives, the participating institutions for each step in the process, and, very importantly, the responsibility and role of each participant at each step. Our institution 

believes that the private sector must have a role and a consequent responsibility 

in this important undertaking. Political parties should welcome the private sector’s 

contributions to this process. On this issue we would like to congratulate Madam 

Chairman and the distinguished members of this commission for allowing us to testify this morning. We feel that this is an initial step, to encourage a broader participation of private sector institutions in Puerto Rico to complement the views and recommendations of our local government and political parties. 

73

The Outcome and Its Transition 

1. The transition

Puerto Rico’s economy has been directed and structured on the basis of its present 

status. Our economy has achieved a high degree of integration to the U.S. economy. 

Our total exports in the year 2005 were $56.5 billion. It should be noted that, on 

the average, 82.6% percent of our exports of merchandise go to the U.S. market. 

Most of our imports come from the continental U.S., and our financial markets are 

totally integrated to the national market. The capital stock of Puerto Rico, and the 

investments made considering the reduction of political risk due to the stability of 

our relationship with the U.S. and the application of federal laws in interstate cannot be changed overnight. To do otherwise risks grave dislocations and suffering for 

the people of Puerto Rico if the change is not accompanied with countervailing 

measures. 

Our local tax system is based upon the present flexibility granted to the states 

and is administered considering local economic conditions as any tax system ought 

to be. Any change in political status will require a major restructuring of the tax 

system in Puerto Rico. A drastic and fast change in the local tax system could affect 

the whole economy. 

2. U.S. Citizenship 

We are U.S. citizens since 1917, accepting with honor the rights and responsibilities of such citizenship. Our great participation in U.S. military conflicts from 

World War I to the most recent interventions in Iraq is a clear evidence of this 

point. 

Contradictory statements have confused our people on the nature of our citizenship and its future under different status options should be avoided. We feel that 

Congress has the duty to state without ambiguity what will happen to our present 

U.S. citizenship under each status alternative. A clear expression from Congress is 

necessary to spell out the confusion created by federal and local officials, so that 

Puerto Ricans can make the appropriate decision. 

3. The Federal Tax Treatment of U.S. Corporations 

Our industrialization program was developed on the basis of preferential federal 

tax treatment of U.S. corporations doing business in Puerto Rico. Drastic modifications were made in 1993 and 1996 to Section 936 until its eventual phase out in 

2005. These modifications have severely eroded industrialization initiative, not only 

because tax benefits were diminished, but also because they created uncertainty 

about the stability of federal policies toward Puerto Rico. Since uncertainty is a formidable enemy of productive investment and economic growth, we now face more 

difficult conditions to promote the prosperity for our people. 

No matter if Puerto Rico chooses to maintain the present commonwealth status, 

or to become a state or a republic, there is a common interest in promoting the economic development of the Island. We obviously want to prosper. It is not in the best 

interest of the United States to have a territory, state or an independent neighbor 

plagued with poverty. Over the past half century Puerto Rico has made, with the 

assistance of the federal government, big efforts to promote its economic growth. We 

have worked hard, and achieved great improvements in economic conditions. But 

more efforts are needed to improve our economic development under our competitive 

global economy. Even the status quo should be regarded as a transition from poverty to progress, and our economic development strategies are designed from this 


34236.001
74

perspective. Any change in status has to provide instruments to achieve our common goal of economic development. 

It is important for Congress to realize that any successful transition requires an 

efficient instrument. For that reason, we actively support the efforts of private organizations and of the Government of Puerto Rico to develop new and efficient and 

effective economic development model, to transform our Island into a developed and 

prosperous economy. At the very least, Congress ought to clearly state what will be 

the federal tax treatment to U.S. corporations under each status formula, as well 

as under the corresponding transition periods, including the period of time for which 

the corresponding tax treatment is guaranteed. 

4. Federal Tax Treatment to Residents and Local Business 

People know that the local tax system will have to be adjusted if there is a change 

in status. We all realize that the present tax structure is consistent with existing 

conditions, and that any transformation in conditions, as it will be the case if the 

political status is changed, will result in deep modifications in taxation. The problem is that no reliable information has been produced about what those changes 

might be. 

The role, functions and activities of government differ under each status formula. 

In a state, the U.S. federal government is in charge of many activities that are the 

responsibility of local authorities, and federal taxes will be levied on local residents. 

In a republic, all or most of the activities actually performed by the federal government in Puerto Rico will be transferred to the local government, and it won’t be subject to federal laws and regulations. Both scenarios drastically change the needs and 

tax system for government financing. Transformations of that nature cannot be done 

overnight without a great risk of serious economic dislocation. 

We know of no serious study to document and analyze this most important aspect. 

It is unfair to ask people to choose between status options and not tell them the 

consequences of their decisions. At the very least, Congress ought to clearly establish which will be the federal tax treatment to residents under each status, as well 

as during the different stages of each transition period. 

5. Access to U.S. Commercial and Financial Markets 

Over the past century, Puerto Rico integrated its economy to the U.S., with obvious mutual benefits. It has been already shown that 82.6% percent of our exports 

of merchandise are sold in the U.S., and that we depend upon external trade to 

achieve a reasonable rate of economic growth. Our monetary and financial systems 

are also totally integrated to the U.S. Most of our productive and infrastructural investments are financed with funds lent from U.S. individuals and institutions, while 

Puerto Rican savers hold over $20 billion in assets issued by the federal government 

and private U.S. institutions. 

Any modification in the status quo will have consequences in our financial institutions and in the asset values of all citizens. These effects ought to be clearly identified, and measures designed to take advantage from favorable opportunities and to 

minimize any adverse effect. Again, limited information has been produced in this 

respect. Here it is necessary to clarify what will be the terms and conditions for 

Puerto Rico’s access to the United States commercial and financial markets under 

each status formula, including what will be its position with respect to present and 

future trade agreements that the U.S. engages with foreign countries. 

6. Access to Foreign Commercial and Financial Markets 

Puerto Rico’s economic model is predicated upon the diversification of our economy. It calls for promoting growth in all industrial sectors, and diversifying manufacturing by strengthening the Life Sciences and Biotechnology Sectors. It also seeks 

to diversify export markets and sources of investment funds. Such policy is consistent with U.S. interests in reducing its trade deficit. 

A change in status would modify conditions for the implementation of this economic model. In order to know what modifications we will have to make in our economic development strategies, it is necessary to know which will be the conditions 

and restrictions to Puerto Rico’s access to foreign commercial and financial markets 

under each status formula, as well as the market penetration of foreign goods in 

our economy. 

7. Long Term Public Debt 

The topic of the long term public debt under each status formula is important by 

itself, as well as in relation to the design of modifications in our tax structure. Our 

long term public debt has been issued to finance investments in infrastructure. 

Many of these investments are the responsibility of the federal government in the 

states of the Union. A sovereign nation in order to benefit from the international 

75

trade agreements will have to establish a level playing field through the rule of law, 

but harmonized and unified with a free market economy and free market system 

which in itself will require that investments be made. On the other hand, some of 

these investments were made to comply with federal laws and regulations. Also, the 

design of local projects would have to meet or exceed federal regulations, thus constructions costs would be higher, increasing the needed for debt financing.

Long term public debt represents 68.8 percent of Puerto Rico’s GNP. Given the 

tax structure presently available, the Island has no problem in paying for the service of that debt. But with a change in status, the government’s ability to raise revenues will also change, and adjustments have to be made to recognize that fact. 

Also, Puerto Rico needs to continue its present aggressive program to enhance its 

infrastructure. That is essential for the competitiveness of our economy. It is, therefore, necessary to know if there will be any constraints for issuing new public debt 

under the transition periods of the different status formulas. 

8. U.S. Transfers

The issue of federal transfers is another that should be properly addressed before 

the Puerto Rican people are asked to make a decision about the status. Federal 

transfers to individuals totaled $9,862.1 million in Fiscal Year 2005, accounting for 

20.2% percent of personal income in the Island. Of these transfers, 79.0% percent 

were earned benefits, such as Social Security pensions and Veterans benefits. 

It is essential for the people to know what will be the amount and terms of U.S. 

transfers to Puerto Rico under each status option. That information is vital for the 

persons to make an informed decision. Particular attention has to be paid to what 

is going to happen to the contributions that Puerto Rico makes to earmarked funds, 

such as Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance, among others. 

9. Travel and Migration 

Almost all families have close relatives living in the continental United States. 

For family ties to be maintained, it is necessary to keep unrestricted travel between 

the U.S. and Puerto Rico. 

Migrations of Puerto Ricans to the continent happened as a derived effect of U.S. 

citizenship, a significant demand for employment in the United States coupled to 

high unemployment and low income levels in the Island. In consequence, the issue 

of migration is related to the previously mentioned U.S. citizenship and economic 

development, but has a humanitarian dimension by itself. Hence, voters must know 


34236.002 34236.003
76

conditions for travel and migration between Puerto Rico and the United States 

under each status alternative. 

Final Remark 

In finalizing this presentation it is important to conclude that no law should be 

approved and consequently the proposed process should not be held if these basic 

concerns are not properly addressed. Not covering these basic concerns will not have 

afforded the Puerto Rican voters an opportunity to make an informed decision in 

selecting among the status options at the time. 

The Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce realizes that some of the key factors that 

have contributed to our economic development are subject to changes as circumstances vary over time, but we are also aware that drastic changes over a short 

period of time could prove to be disastrous if the changes occur at a rate faster than 

the ability of our economy to adjust to them. 

Whatever alternative is democratically chosen by the people of Puerto Rico will 

probably result in economic adjustments and could entail sacrifices on our part. Private enterprise is ready to shoulder its responsibility; however, even in times of 

budgetary restrain, Congress should be sensitive to our needs and economic realities. Self-sustained economic development can only be achieved through a long term 

process. With your help, and a great deal of work on our part, we are confident that 

we can achieve our mutual goal of human progress for the people of Puerto Rico. 

But an adequate transition period is necessary. It ought to be designed in all relevant details and informed to the people before they are asked to choose. 

Once again we would like to express our most sincere gratitude to Madam Chairwoman and the distinguished members of this Committee. The status issue needs 

to be solved if Puerto Rico is to offer a secure long term investment environment 

to interested individuals and organizations. Congress needs to act now. Our immediate goal at the Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce is to focus on the preparation 

of a strategic plan for Puerto Rico’s future economic development. A plan which is 

capable to adapt and transition into any status alternative and that will guaranty 

our fellow Puerto Ricans future economic prosperity and a better quality of life. 

Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Mejı ́a. Next I recognize Mr. 

Enrique Baquero for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ENRIQUE BAQUERO, PRESIDENT, PUERTO 

RICO FOUNDATION FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION, SAN JUAN, 

PUERTO RICO 

Mr. BAQUERO. Good afternoon, Madame Chair, Dr. Donna 

Christensen, distinguished Subcommittee Members. Thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss my organization’s stance on the two 

measures before this committee relating to the political status of 

Puerto Rico. We especially thank you for spreading the net wider 

to hear other voices on this important matter that affects four million Puerto Ricans in particular residing in Puerto Rico. 

My name is Enrique Baquero, and I am here as President of the 

Foundacion Accion Democratica Puertorriquena, a civil society nonpartisan group that advocates national self-determination for the 

people of Puerto Rico, and also supports a constitutional assembly 

or convention of Puerto Rican delegates to initiate the process of 

self-determination. 

By way of background, we have been active since 1984, and have 

participated in previous Congressional hearings on Puerto Rico’s 

political status favoring the inclusion of the sovereign free association option as a separate option in itself, which is different from 

traditional independence and recognized as such by the United Nation’s General Assembly Resolution 1541 of 1960 and 2625 of 1970. 

77

In addition, we have also been active in international activities 

seeking solidarity for Puerto Rico’s right to national self-determination, and for the right of the residents in Vieques to live in peace. 

With respect to bills H.R. 1230, sponsored by Congresswoman 

Nydia Vela ́zquez, and H.R. 900, sponsored by Congressman Jose ́

Serrano, we believe strongly that these two measures ought to be 

viewed against certain guiding principles. Let me elucidate. 

First, we feel strongly that any process of self-determination 

should be respectful of international law if it is to meet the true 

test of a valid self-determination process for the people of Puerto 

Rico. This means that any territorial status leaving Puerto Rico 

under U.S. sovereignty violates in essence the inalienable right of 

national self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico to choose 

among sovereign non-territorial and non-colonial options, such as 

those recognized by the United Nations and by international law 

precedents. 

The plain fact is Puerto Ricans are clearly a distinct people, and 

cannot be excluded from exercising this right which has been reaffirmed in 2004 as an erga omnes right by the International Court 

of Justice; that is, a right which pertains to all peoples without exceptions, and generates obligations and responsibilities to all 

states, without exceptions, with reference to the international community. 

Therefore, we urge this Subcommittee and Congress to exclude 

territorial commonwealth as an option in any future consultation 

to the people of Puerto Rico. To ask Puerto Ricans if we wish to 

continue being a territory, as stipulated in Section 3[a] of H.R. 900 

in its present form, is as absurd and cynical as it would be to ask 

an inmate due for parole whether he or she would prefer to stay 

in jail instead of exercising the right to parole. 

If the United States sincerely wishes to comply with international law standards, territorial status must be excluded as a 

valid option. We are persuaded that this is the only way to resolve 

this stubborn issue between the United States and Puerto Rico in 

a satisfactory manner, and end what the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said about Puerto Rico in a letter to former 

President Clinton on territorial status, characterizing the relationship as ‘‘this remnant of 19th Century imperialism.’’

Second. Prior to any consultation or plebiscite on Puerto Rico’s 

future political status, Congress ought to recognize the inalienable 

right of the people of Puerto Rico to elect, in an exercise of its natural right to sovereignty, a constitutional convention of delegates 

to deliberate on the political future of Puerto Rico. The constitutional convention as a mechanism will give due course to the initiative of the people of Puerto Rico to provide an educational process 

for a national discussion, as well as multiple opportunities to engage in fruitful conversations and negotiations with Congress. 

We recommend that in both the constitutional convention and in 

all subsequent referenda on political status options, mechanisms be 

established to allow the inclusion of native-born Puerto Ricans not 

residing in Puerto Rico, but interested in participating in the process of national self-determination of the Puerto Rican people. 

Finally, we reiterate most emphatically that the options of sovereign free association be considered as an option in itself, for this 

78

option is vastly different from independence, statehood, or any 

other non-territorial option. Free association conveys a special and 

particular political economic relationship, rendering this option distinct from the other sovereignty-based alternative as is independence. 

H.R. 900 version of free association implies that this is identical 

to independence, thus ignoring important substantive and procedural fundamentals, leading to necessary confusion and distortion, 

particularly among nonastute [ph] advocates. 

In conclusion, a final point. We want this committee to fully understand and appreciate that our organization and similar groups, 

as well as civil society groups in Puerto Rico, are prepared to reorganize and promote an international campaign against any process 

of pretended self-determination that includes territorial status as 

an option, or that resorts to unfair manipulations to obstruct or impede a democratic, just, and rightful level playing field for the competition among the different non-territorial options. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baquero follows:]

Statement of Enrique Baquero, President,

Fundacio ́n Accio ́n Democra ́ tica Puertorriquen ̃ a 

Chairwoman Dr. Donna Christensen, distinguished subcommittee members, thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss my organization’s stance on the two measures before this committee relating to the political status of Puerto Rico. We especially 

thank you for spreading the net wider to hear other voices on this important matter 

that affects 4 million Puerto Ricans, in particular, residing in Puerto Rico. 

My name is Enrique Baquero, and I am here as President of the Fundacio ́n Accio ́n 

Democra ́tica Puertorriquen ̃ a (ADP), a civil society non partisan group that advocates national self-determination for the People of Puerto Rico and also supports a 

Constitutional Assembly or Convention of Puerto Rican delegates to initiate the 

process of self determination. 

By way of background, we have been active since 1994 and have participated in 

previous Congressional hearings on Puerto Rico’s political status favoring the inclusion of the sovereign free association option as a separate option in itself, which is 

different from traditional independence and recognized as such by the United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 1541 (XV) of 1960 and 2625 (XXV) of 1970. In 

addition, we have also been active in international activities seeking solidarity for 

Puerto Rico’s right to national self-determination and for the right of residents in 

Vieques to live in peace. 

With respect to bills H.R. 1230 sponsored by Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez 

and H.R. 900 sponsored by Congressman Jose Serrano, Accio ́n Democra ́tica 

Puertoriquen ̃ a believes strongly that these two measures ought to be viewed against 

certain guiding principles. Let me elucidate: 

(1) We feel strongly that any process of self-determination should be respectful 

of international law, if it is to meet the true test of a valid self-determination 

process for the People of Puerto Rico. This means that any territorial status, 

leaving Puerto Rico under U.S. sovereignty violates in essence the inalienable 

right of national self-determination of the People of Puerto Rico to choose 

among sovereign non-territorial and non-colonial options, such as those recognized by the United Nations and by international law precedents. The plain 

fact is Puerto Ricans are clearly a distinct People, and cannot be excluded 

from exercising this right which has been reaffirmed in 2004 as an erga omnes 

right by the International Court of Justice, i.e. a right which pertains to all 

peoples, without exceptions, and generates obligations and responsibilities to 

all states, without exceptions, with reference to the international community. 

Therefore, we urge this sub-committee and Congress to exclude territorial 

Commonwealth as an option in any future consultation to the people of Puerto 

Rico. To ask Puerto Ricans if we wish to continue being a territory, as stipulated in Section 3 (a) of H.R. 900 in its present form, is as absurd and cynical 

as it would be to ask an inmate due for parole whether he or she would prefer 

to stay in jail instead of exercising the right to parole. If the United States 

79

sincerely wishes to comply with international law standards, territorial status 

must be excluded as a valid option. We are persuaded that this is the only 

way to resolve this stubborn issue between the United States and Puerto Rico 

in a satisfactory manner and end what the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said about Puerto Rico in a letter to former President Clinton on 

territorial status, characterizing the relationship as ‘‘this remnant of 19th 

Century imperialism.’’

(2) Prior to any consultation or plebiscite on Puerto Rico’s future political status, 

Congress ought to recognize the inalienable right of the People of Puerto Rico 

to elect, in an exercise of its natural right to sovereignty, a Constitutional 

Convention of delegates to deliberate on the political future of Puerto Rico. 

The Constitutional Convention as mechanism would give due course to the initiative of the People of Puerto Rico to provide an educational process for a national discussion as well as multiple opportunities to engage in fruitful conversations and negotiations with Congress. 

(3) We recommend that in both the Constitutional Convention, and in all subsequent referenda on political status options, mechanisms be established to 

allow the inclusion of native born Puerto Ricans, not residing in Puerto Rico 

but interested in participating in the process of national self-determination of 

the Puerto Rican people. 

(4) Finally, we reiterate most emphatically that the options of sovereign free association be considered as an option in itself. For this option is vastly different 

from independence, statehood or any other non-territorial option. Although 

from the point of view of the United States, both independence and free association would mean disposing of the territory and hence ending U.S. sovereign 

powers over the territory, it is important to bear in mind that under the option of sovereign free association a special political and economic relation is 

maintained, between the two sovereign nations, through a bilateral treaty of 

free association as has been done in the case of the freely associated states 

of Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands with the United States. The nature and content of such a treaty of free association establishes a clear difference between Puerto Rican sovereignty in free association with the United 

States and Puerto Rican sovereignty under the option of independence. We believe that H.R. 900 attempts to mislead and confuse the people by considering 

free association as a form of independence status. The foregoing is regarded 

as a palpable direct and unacceptable manipulation to avoid a level-playing 

field for all options in order to favor statehood by making people associate 

free-association with independence. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, a final point. We want this committee to fully understand and appreciate that our organization and similar groups, as well as civil society groups in 

Puerto Rico are prepared to organize and promote an international campaign 

against any process of pretended self-determination that includes territorial status 

as an option or that resorts to unfair manipulations to obstruct or impede a democratic, just and rightful level-playing field for the competition among the different 

non-territorial options. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss our firm position 

on this very important topic, and I am happy to answer your questions. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jose ́ Luis 

Ferna ́ndez for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOSE ́ LUIS FERNA ́ NDEZ, PRESIDENT, INTERAMERICAN ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATION, PUERTO RICO 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. Madame Chair and distinguished Members, 

thank you for inviting such a representative group of citizens to 

testify. 

My name is Jose ́ Luis Ferna ́ndez, President of the Inter-American Entrepreneurs Association in Puerto Rico, an organization 

founded 46 years ago to promote free enterprise and international 

business development. We, like most other Puerto Ricans, hope you 

will provide us with a serious process to answer the question of the 

territory’s status preference. 

80

Our primary interest is the serious deterioration of our island’s 

economic situation due to the lack of resolution as to what the territory’s ultimate status will be. 

This basic political question denies us the economic advantages 

of statehood or nationhood needed to compete in the greater American and global economies, distracts attention from economic and 

social issues, raises questions about what the appropriate economic 

and social policies are, and discourages investment in Puerto Rico 

while encouraging investment elsewhere. 

A state of confusion, indifference, and uncertainty has permeated 

over the years. Territory status stopped benefitting Puerto Rico 

long ago. That is why the status quo only obtained 0.06 percent of 

the vote the only time it was ever voted on, in 1998. And all other 

status proposals, including commonwealth proposals, have been for 

a different governing arrangement. 

Dissatisfaction with Puerto Rico’s current situation is so great 

that now there are as many people of Puerto Rican origin in the 

States as in the islands. Over 3,000 Puerto Ricans a month move 

to Florida, and a recent poll revealed that at least a third of all 

Puerto Ricans are seriously considering leaving the territory. 

Past local processes to answer the question of our status preference have failed because they have included proposals not attuned to what the Congress would accept based on the Constitution 

and basic laws and policies of the United States. In most cases, 

these options have included commonwealth proposals later rejected 

by the U.S. Government, which would have to act to change Puerto 

Rico’s status. 

In the 1998 referendum, the impossible option was a none-of-theabove line, when all of the options that U.S. officials have ever said 

they would be willing to implement were on the ballot. 

H.R. 1230 would repeat the mistake by inviting us to choose a 

non-territory commonwealth status that would not be statehood or 

nationhood, when there is no precedent for such a status, and the 

President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, the Clinton Administration, and the first Bush Administration have all said that 

there cannot be such a status. 

Further, the local political minority that requested H.R. 1230 

has repeatedly made it clear that their intent is that the non-territory commonwealth status be their development of the commonwealth proposal. Chairman Don Young and Ranking Democrat Miller of your full committee reported in 1999 that the proposal is 

based on principles that the committee rejected in 1998. The Clinton Administration specifically rejected it as impossible for constitutional and other reasons in testimony, and in a report to the 

full committee in 2000 and 2001. And the President’s Task Force 

on Puerto Rico’s Status rejected it in December 2005. 

The proposal would permanently bind the U.S. to Puerto Rico determining the application of most Federal laws and court jurisdiction; Puerto Rico entering into international trade and other agreements and organizations that states and territories cannot; replacing tax exemptions for the income of U.S. companies in Puerto Rico 

that Congress just repealed; granting an additional subsidy for the 

insular government; and continuing all current programs of assistVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
81

ance to Puerto Ricans, totally free entry to any goods shipped from 

Puerto Rico, and citizenship. 

It would be counter-productive and irresponsible for Congress to 

invite Puerto Rico to propose a non-territory commonwealth status 

when it knows that the intent of the proponents for such a status 

is a proposal that Congress would not, and cannot, implement. 

By contrast, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, H.R. 900, proposes 

a process that includes only real statuses: statehood, independence, 

and nationhood, in a true free association with the U.S. in addition 

to the current territory status quo, all of the real statuses that 

have support in the island. 

It would continue the current status if, and for as long as, Puerto 

Ricans vote for that instead of voting to seek one of the real status 

alternatives. 

My one concern about H.R. 900 is that it would enfranchise noncitizens of Puerto Rico to vote in the determination of Puerto Rico’s 

status preference, even though they may have no real connection 

with the islands, other than birth, and may never. Like citizens of 

Puerto Rico, these citizens of the States would also have voting representation in the U.S. Government decision of whether to implement the preference. 

Madame Chair and distinguished Members, Puerto Ricans want 

to finally be able to choose among real statuses that can be implemented by Congress. The ongoing political impasse divides and 

holds down our people, and only benefits a few select economic interests, some external companies and a select few who work for 

them, and some lobbyists here in Washington, versus most Puerto 

Rican entrepreneurs and most Puerto Ricans. 

The business community, representative of our people as a 

whole, abhors the uncertainty of the present status and; abhors the 

unrealistic process implied by the constitutional convention proposal. Congress should not be in a position to raise expectations 

that eventually would not be willing to fulfill. 

Madame Chair, I appreciate your openness and willingness to listen to the citizens. People need to regain confidence. They are looking for trust, and they are expecting a true commitment. 

Please help put an end to this limbo that has forced so many of 

us to leave the island, consigns almost half of those who remain to 

poverty, has resulted in Puerto Rico slipping further and further 

behind the States economically, as reported last year by the Brookings Institution and the Government Accountability Office, and denies us the democracy for which so many Puerto Ricans have sacrificed on behalf of the United States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferna ́ndez follows:]

Statement of Jose ́ Luis Ferna ́ndez, President,

Inter-American Entrepreneurs Association in Puerto Rico 

Madame Chair and Distinguished Members: 

Thank you for inviting such a representative group of citizens to testify. 

My name is Jose ́ Luis Ferna ́ndez, President of the Inter-American Entrepreneurs 

Association in Puerto Rico, an organization founded 46 years ago to promote free 

enterprise and international business development. We—like most other Puerto 

Ricans—hope you will provide us with a serious process to answer the question of 

the territory’s status preference. Our primary interest is the serious deterioration 

82

in our islands’ economic situation due to the lack of resolution as to what the territory’s ultimate status will be. This basic political question: • Denies us the economic advantages of statehood or nationhood needed to compete in the greater American and the global economies; • Distracts attention from economic and social issues; • Raises questions about what the appropriate economic and social policies are; 

and • Discourages investment in Puerto Rico while encouraging investment elsewhere. 

A state of confusion, indifference and uncertainty has permeated over the years. 

Territory status stopped benefiting Puerto Rico long ago. That is why the status quo 

only obtained 0.06% of the vote the only time it was ever voted on—in 1998—and 

all other status proposals—including ‘‘Commonwealth’’ proposals—have been for a 

different governing arrangement. 

Dissatisfaction with Puerto Rico’s current situation is so great that now there are 

as many people of Puerto Rican origin in the States as in the islands; Over 3,000 

Puerto Ricans a month move to Florida; and a recent poll revealed that at least a 

third of all Puerto Ricans are seriously considering leaving the territory. 

Past local processes to answer the question of our status preference have failed 

because they have included proposals not attuned to what the Congress would accept based on the Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States. 

In most cases, these options have included ‘‘Commonwealth’’ proposals later rejected by the U.S. Government, which would have to act to change Puerto Rico’s status. 

In the 1998 referendum, the impossible option was a ‘‘None of the Above’’ line—

when all of the options that U.S. officials have ever said they would be willing to 

implement were on the ballot. 

H.R. 1230 would repeat the mistake by inviting us to choose a non-territory 

‘‘Commonwealth status’’ that would not be statehood or nationhood—when there is 

no precedent for such a status and the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, the Clinton Administration, and the first Bush Administration have all said 

that there cannot be such a status. 

Further, the local political minority that requested H.R. 1230 has repeatedly 

made it clear that their intent is that the non-territory ‘‘Commonwealth status’’ be 

their ‘‘Development of the Commonwealth’’ proposal. Chairman Don Young and 

Ranking Democrat George Miller of your full Committee reported in 1999 that the 

proposal is based on principles that the Committee rejected in 1998, the Clinton Administration specifically rejected it as impossible for constitutional and other reasons in testimony and in a report to the full Committee in 2000 and 2001, and the 

President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status rejected it in December 2005. 

The proposal would permanently bind the U.S. to: 

• Puerto Rico determining the application of most federal laws and court jurisdiction; 

• Puerto Rico entering into international trade and other agreements and organizations that States and territories cannot; 

• Replacing tax exemptions for the income of U.S. companies in Puerto Rico that 

Congress just repealed; 

• Granting an additional subsidy for the insular government; and 

• Continuing all current programs of assistance to Puerto Ricans, totally free 

entry to any goods shipped from Puerto Rico, and citizenship. 

It would be counter productive—and irresponsible—for Congress to invite Puerto 

Rico to propose a non-territory ‘‘Commonwealth status’’ when it knows that the intent of the proponents for such a status is a proposal that Congress would not—

and cannot—implement. 

By contrast, the ‘‘Puerto Rico Democracy Act’’, H.R. 900, proposes a process that 

includes only real statuses—statehood, independence, and nationhood in a true free 

association with the U.S. in addition to the current territory status quo—all of the 

real statuses that have support in the island. 

It would continue the current status if—and for as long as—Puerto Ricans vote 

for that instead of voting to seek one of the real status alternatives. 

My one concern about H.R. 900 is that it would enfranchise non-citizens of Puerto 

Rico to vote in the determination of Puerto Rico’s status preference even though 

they may have no real connection with the islands (other than birth) and may 

never. Unlike citizens of Puerto Rico, these citizens of the States would also have 

voting representation in the U.S. Government decision of whether to implement the 

preference. 

Madame Chair and Distinguished Members, Puerto Ricans want to finally be able 

to choose among real statuses that can be implemented by Congress. The ongoing 

83

political impasse divides and holds down our people and only benefits a few select 

economic interests—some external companies and a select few who work for them—

and some lobbyists here in Washington—vs. most Puerto Rican entrepreneurs and 

most Puerto Ricans. 

The business community—representative of our people as a whole—abhors the 

uncertainty of the present status and abhors the unrealistic process implied by the 

Constitutional Convention proposal. Congress should not be in a position to raise 

expectations that eventually would be unwilling to fulfill. 

Madame Chair, I appreciate your openness and willingness to listen to the citizens. People need to regain confidence, they are looking for trust and they are expecting a true commitment. Please help put an end to this limbo that: has forced 

so many of us to leave the island; consigns almost half of those who remain to poverty; has resulted in Puerto Rico slipping further and further behind the States economically, as reported last year by the Brookings Institution and the Government 

Accountability Office; and denies us the democracy for which so many Puerto Ricans 

have sacrificed on behalf of the United States. 

Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I thank all of the panelists for your testimony, 

and I recognize myself for five minutes. 

Mr. Mejı ́a, you talked about the fundamental changes that have 

taken place in development models and the transformation for developing countries over the last 50 years. Do you believe that the 

current political status of Puerto Rico harms or helps its economic 

development, in spite of or because of its economic model, which 

you say dates back to the early 1980s? 

Mr. MEJI ́A. The situation in Puerto Rico is basically one of uncertainty, and that hinders any economic developments. So it all depends, in the actions of Congress, the future of Puerto Rico. 

I certainly want the future, the progress and the future of Puerto 

Rico to be better than it is right now, and that the people of Puerto 

Rico have the conditions and the competitive advantage that has 

been, has been changing through years. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. But under the current, do you think that the 

commonwealth in and of itself, the political status was harmful to 

the economy of Puerto Rico? Or helpful? 

Mr. MEJI ́A. It has been for some time very beneficial. But time 

changes, and it is a time for Congress to act. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Mr. Ferna ́ndez, in your statement 

you make reference to the plebiscite, where you state that commonwealth got only .6 percent of the vote. Isn’t that not quite accurate, 

since the PDP was not happy with the definition in that plebiscite, 

and the fact that none of the above got more, 50 percent or a little 

over 50 percent? Doesn’t that really contradict what you are trying 

to imply by that .6 percent? 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. Madame Chair, if you look at the numbers 

throughout history, there has been a significant change in terms of 

how people feel about the different options. Regardless of the ideology, regardless of who belongs to which party or some ideology, 

people are reflecting in these local elections which have not been 

valid elections, because people really haven’t had any confidence in 

these, unless Congress really guides us through a real serious process leading to that. 

But regarding that particular one, where I point out that 0.06 

percent only voted for the commonwealth, is according to what the 

Constitution of the United States and the policies and laws of the 

United States consider that as a reasonable option, as a reasonable 

84

option. The fact that a lot of people voted for none of the above, 

and that a lot of people supported statehood, and people supported 

independence and free association, does imply that people do want 

to change. Regardless of the outcome of the election, the fact that 

none of the above, I mean, that is a very, very strong message. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. But it was a message that was generated by 

opposition to the definitions by the supporters of commonwealth. So 

I think it is a pretty strong statement that they could get supportive of commonwealth generally—I am maybe making an assumption here—to vote for none of the above, because they were 

dissatisfied. 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. But the fact that we have a none of the above 

again, and we have people, and over the course of history the different local plebiscites that we have had, numbers have significantly changed. In fact, none of the above, support for other 

statuses that were not previously considered as part of the options 

presented to the people, do reflect that people do want to change. 

The issue and the point here is that people want to make sure 

that the process that they are confronted with is a serious process, 

and that the options that they will be voting for will be respected, 

and will be accepted by the Congress of the United States. And 

that is the bottom line. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I just wanted to try to get in another question to Mr. Baquero. Why do you believe that the option 

of choosing to continue being a territory, in Section 3[a] of 

H.R. 900, which you say is absurd and cynical, was included in the 

bill? Shouldn’t the democratic process afford a people the opportunity to choose something that they believe works for them? 

Mr. BAQUERO. I think definitely the actual territory is colonial. 

Following principles established by, as I quote here from the 

United Nations international law precedents, I think we need to 

change that. I don’t think it is an option. 

The only option under the commonwealth status would be free 

association developed as such. I don’t see a territorial status being 

prevailing in Puerto Rico as an option. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I am not sure that territory and commonwealth quite, as being defined, are exactly the same. But my time 

is up. I am going to recognize Mr. Fortun ̃ o for five minutes. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. And again I want to thank all the 

members of the panel for flying up here and joining us this afternoon. 

One of the purposes for which I commend again the Chairperson, 

Madame Chair of the Subcommittee for this hearing, one of the 

purposes of the hearing is to allow for Congress to understand 

what is going on in Puerto Rico. So if I may, even though it may 

sound unrelated to the topic, I believe it is certainly related to it, 

I will ask, if I may, the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce to 

briefly describe the economic situation in Puerto Rico as we speak 

right now, with the latest numbers that have been put out, official 

numbers, in terms of negative growth for two consecutive years in 

our economy. 

So if you may, Mr. Mejı ́a. 

Mr. MEJI ́A. For the last couple of years we have certainly lost a 

competitive advantage due to the uncertainty of our status. 

85

In the 1980s we were the economic example of the under-developed, of the countries that were looking for some type of progress. 

I mention Singapore Island, such countries. And from that point 

on, from the nineties on, Puerto Rico has been losing that competitive advantage. And probably the reason for that is that the status 

issue hasn’t been resolved. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Actually, Madame Chair, if I may, I would like to 

introduce for the record—and we will do so in the next 24 hours, 

if that is OK with you—a chart with the growth rate in the last 

40 years in Puerto Rico. And we will show that since the early seventies on, our economic performance has been lackluster. And actually at this moment, for the first time in our history, our economy 

is not following the national trend. The national economy has been 

growing for 43 consecutive months, and now we have had two 

years where we have had negative growth. 

But I believe it will be good for us to understand what has happened to the economy in the last 50 years or so, so we can compare 

it to the national economy, if I may. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Without objection, admitted. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you, I appreciate it. 

[The information submitted for the record has been retained in 

the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Mr. Ferna ́ndez, in your statement you talk about 

uncertainty, unrealistic processes and expectations. And actually 

there were some statements somewhat similar in Mr. Mejı ́a’s comments relating to the effect of that uncertainty of the present status has over the economic climate in Puerto Rico. Could you expand on that, please? 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. Sure. I must first say that uncertainty is not 

good for people, and it certainly is not good for business. 

The fact that uncertainty permeates, and the fact that people are 

concerned about the economic situation of Puerto Rico, the social 

situation, the situation with public safety and all these other 

things, that uncertainty unfortunately has driven a lot of professionals, youth, people who would be responsible for the direction of 

public and private institutions in Puerto Rico, to leave the island. 

Unfortunately, we are losing that capital that we need in order 

to grow our infrastructure in all areas: economic, social, and educational, as well. 

The fact that this uncertainty has been leading people is because 

they look at the political situation, they look at the economic situation, how education is affected by all of this, the social problems 

that are structural to the situation in Puerto Rico, and they have 

just lost faith. And I think that we need to give some injection and 

some hope back to the people. 

And that is why a serious process I believe will lead to that direction. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Certainly we need a change, and most people are 

dissatisfied with what we have. 

Final question, if I may, to you, Mr. Ferna ́ndez. What happened 

to the economies of Hawaii and Alaska once they became states? 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. Once they became—increasingly, they have 

grown dramatically. I mean, and I am sure that Congressman 

86

Young, and I am sure that the Congressmen of Hawaii and Alaska 

and the Senators, could talk about that more in general. 

But we see it. And I have been to Hawaii. I have seen how they 

have been able to grow their economy, how they have been able to 

foster their values, their cultural values as well. 

But at the same time, the fact that that unresolved business that 

was happening back then in Alaska and Hawaii gave some stability, gave some security, gave some direction to the people. And 

that is why they say, you know, if I know where I am going, if I 

know that things are going to stay stable, I know that I will have 

an opportunity for growth. 

But in the matter that uncertainty permeates, in the matter that 

people don’t know what is going to happen, don’t know if their 

pockets will be filled any time soon, they will have no hope for 

their families, they will have no hope for the future. We need to 

change that. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. Thank you again. Madame, I yield 

back. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Faleomavaega for five minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madame Chair. And I do apologize for not being here while our distinguished members of the 

panel had testified before the committee, but I sense that the whole 

gist of this panel’s expertise in terms of their positions or opinions 

is in reference to the economic conditions and the status of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

As indicated in the White House Task Force report, going back 

again to the three plebiscites that were held, at least in terms of 

the records that were taken in 1967, the people of Puerto Rico 

opted for commonwealth status with 60 percent of the vote, statehood at 39 percent, and for independence, 1 percent. 

And then there was a 1993 plebiscite for which people opted for 

commonwealth at 48 percent, those who wanted statehood was at 

46.3 percent, and independence, 4.4 percent. 

I thought that perhaps after the 1993 plebiscite that there would 

be a runoff between commonwealth and statehood. But that was 

not made possible, so we are right back again to square one. 

I understand also I think the latest plebiscite, if you consider it 

as such, but because of a lot of misgivings and misunderstandings 

about definitions were in the 1998 plebiscite, where people opted 

for territorial commonwealth at 6 percent, free association at 29 

percent, statehood at 46.49 percent, but none of the above was 

some 50.3 percent. So here again we are kind of fuzzy in terms of 

exactly where do the people of Puerto Rico desire to opt for whatever future that they may want to have. 

As we hold this hearing, there is a big, big debate, furious as it 

is, in trying to determine even to give the delegate of the District 

of Columbia full voting rights. And Eleanor Norton-Holmes represents 600,000 U.S. citizens. They all pay Federal income taxes, 

and yet they have no full voting rights. So even the Congress is 

having a little problem even doing this, and there are some very 

serious constitutional issues. Just as we now find ourselves in, and 

have been for how many years now, in dealing with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

87

I had asked some previous questions about the doctrine of incorporation. I don’t want to get into the legal stuff, but I think I did 

mention that years ago, in the middle of a hearing that we held 

in Puerto Rico—and I was there—that this conservative columnist 

by the name of Pat Buchanan issued a commentary, saying that if 

Puerto Rico was to become a state tomorrow, it would become a 

welfare state, and the United States were going to have to provide 

a tremendous amount of funding to upkeep the people. Which, you 

know, it came at the wrong time, and I felt it was very unfair, especially not only to the people of Puerto Rico, but even to the 

American people, because that was just one opinion. 

But my basic position is this. I want to ultimately, whatever option that the people of Puerto Rico want, that is what we should 

do. 

Here is the question that I have for our members of the panel. 

Suppose the option of statehood is presented in such a way that 

this is ultimately what the people of Puerto Rico have decided. But 

are you aware of the fact that just because the people of Puerto 

Rico opted for statehood, there is no guarantee that Congress is 

going to grant you statehood? 

Mr. BAQUERO. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Are you aware of that fact? Because that is 

another side of the coin, so to speak. 

So we are back again with the situation of commonwealth status 

in terms of however you may want to interpret it. Some have said, 

as I stated earlier, that it seems to me that this enhanced form of 

commonwealth is almost similar to what the compact of free associations have now been developed by the Republic of Marshall Islands, Palau, as well as the Federated States of Micronesia. 

And I want to ask my good friends here on the panel, do you 

honestly believe that the economy of Puerto Rico will stabilize if 

Puerto Rico was to become a state tomorrow? Is this the basic tenets of our members of the panel and their opinions on this issue? 

Mr. BAQUERO. I think the basic question here is give the people 

the opportunity. We have to educate a lot. I think we have fallen 

prey to the political parties’ status orientation, and that type of politics in Puerto Rico has created negative effects in the development 

of democracy. 

I think that is why a civil society has to take a role in this, more 

active than now, and make an issue of this. Because the way to develop Puerto Rico basically through the political status is one option, but we have to create also a new economic plan for the island 

based on the real facts, not illusions. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madame Chair, just one comment I wanted 

to make. I have the highest respect for my good friend and colleague, Resident Commissioner Fortun ̃ o, and the fact that he does 

support statehood. And I have the utmost respect for his position 

that he has taken. There is nothing wrong with that. 

His predecessor also sat on this committee. He is now the Governor of Puerto Rico. But he opts for a different status, which is 

primarily commonwealth and however you want to define it. 

So we are torn between these two. And this is not being disrespectful for those who advocate independence, as well. But we 

have been going through this now for 50, 60 years, among these 

88

three options. And I am tortured and really hopeful that some way 

or somehow we are going to have a major breakthrough that maybe 

combining the two pieces of legislation that is now before the committee, taking the pluses of both proposed legislations, so that 

there is fairness in the process. 

If there is anything that I think that I would like to advocate 

very strongly, as I am sure it is the feeling and sentiments of all 

the Members of Congress, is that we come up with a proposed bill 

that will be fair to all the people of Puerto Rico. And let the people 

of Puerto Rico make that decision in terms of their option for their 

future. 

I am sorry. Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. The Chair now 

recognizes Mr. Serrano for five minutes. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. I didn’t hear the testimony, so I apologize. But I will just stick with some of the concerns that are always 

voiced. 

As you know, I am clear on my opposition to the commonwealth 

status, and I am clear on opposition to any status that doesn’t remove Puerto Rico from the colonial territorial status that it finds 

itself in now. And that is the one thing that everybody agrees with 

now on the island, finally. They may not call it a colony, but people 

understand that this has to change. 

Now, one of the arguments always presented is, one, could 

Puerto Rico survive as an independent nation; and two, can Puerto 

Rico carry the burden of being a state, in terms of its economy. I 

don’t know if that question has been asked; if it has, I apologize 

for asking it again, or perhaps asking it differently. 

But I would like for you to comment on both, with the full understanding, incidentally, that if Puerto Rico was a state, obviously it 

would immediately share in all that states share in, within certain 

responsibilities that it may not have now. And if it was an independent nation, I doubt that after 109, 110, 111 years, the U.S. 

would simply say goodbye, see you later. There would be a close relationship, probably the closest we would have with anyone in the 

world, I would say, because it is, you know, a member of the family 

doesn’t leave and totally become not a member of the family. 

So can you, any of you, comment, or all of you, on that whole notion? The economy under statehood, and the economy under——

Mr. BAQUERO. I think the basic issue here has to be a transition 

period for both equations, both for statehood or for independence. 

Because the economy is right now in a state of like an appendix 

to the American economy. And to develop properly as a republic, 

as an independent nation, Puerto Rico needs to have fully transition. 

The same with the statehood. That is my opinion. 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. Well, I think particularly, going back to uncertainty, I think the fact that there is uncertainty in the environment 

and in the business community, that the citizens in general have 

no idea as to what is going to happen, has frustrated a lot of people. That is why we are getting our professionals and youth to 

leave the island. 

In terms of the final decision, I think what is really most important is to have a fair process, a serious process, where people could 

89

feel confident that the options that they are voting for are going to 

be accepted by the Congress. And if people openly express that they 

favor statehood, or they favor independence, or they favor free association, or the status quo, then that there is a fair process to accept and assimilate that will from the people. 

But I think until the people are confronted with that, uncertainty 

is really fading away hope in general, in Puerto Rico. And I think 

that that is the key issue that we need to address. 

Mr. MEJI ́A. The Chamber’s concern at this point in time is the 

process should be fair, and that transition should be a smooth one. 

Education is power; thus, that will allow the people of Puerto Rico 

to make an enlightened decision. So whatever process Congress decides to do, it is very important that the people are educated in 

what are the choices. 

Mr. SERRANO. Would it be fair or unfair to suggest that the business community may never truly favor statehood because of the tax 

issue that it would impose on the island, on that state? Is that a 

fair statement, or is that an unfair statement on my part? 

And please understand, if that was the case, it would be, you 

know, I have made a career out of pointing out that corporate 

America every so often thinks of itself first, and the people somewhere down the line, maybe never. So you know, corporate America 

would now be corporate-new state America or territory America. 

So my question is, if you had a vote amongst Puerto Rican businessmen—and I don’t mean, you know, Don Pepe or Comer Icoco 

[ph] and Dutrieri Esso [ph]—just on the tax issue, would they not 

be in favor of statehood? 

Mr. MEJI ́A. At this point in time, the Chamber of Commerce is 

only concerned with a fair process and a smooth transition. 

Mr. SERRANO. OK. 

Mr. BAQUERO. I think the key is I come back to education. We 

have to really put the numbers and educate the people as to the 

real effect of all the alternatives. Because that way, our people will 

know what is the reality that we are talking about, not illusions. 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. Let me add, also, Congressman. I think economic stability and growth for business community as well has to 

do as well with the developments in the political arena. They are 

not excluded. 

I mean, and in the way that the citizens, including the business 

community, are involved in the political decision-making process 

for things that have an impact over the economy, over social development, over education, over public safety, over everything that is 

around us, that is kind of a big statement just right there. 

And when people are fully able to either engage in international 

treaties and be able to do that to expand the economy, or fully integrate as a state, then that sort of full participation in the political 

decision-making process will get more people to be confident for 

economic development of Puerto Rico, and that will also be helpful 

for foreign investment, as well, as to the stability of the island. 

Mr. SERRANO. May I just take a few seconds more? If you don’t 

smile, I won’t take a second more. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SERRANO. OK, thank you for smiling. See, here is my concern. We get to the nitty-gritty, as we say, we get to a vote. And 

90

that vote then becomes an issue of independence and statehood. 

And then you see the business community pour a lot of money into 

that vote. That is why I would hope, and we shouldn’t discuss this 

now, that those both be totally funded to keep people from having 

to donate to those campaigns. 

Then you will get the business community to say well, what do 

we support? Do we support getting to the burden of paying taxes? 

Or do we support the uncertainty we think of an independent nation, that it will be another Cuba? You are going to hear all of 

these silly arguments that have nothing to do with anything, and 

it will be just the agenda of the business community, which scares 

the hell out of me. 

And then last, I have noticed that if you take a survey, you may 

find out that a lot of New Yorkers retire in Florida, but they don’t 

retire in Puerto Rico. Non-Puerto Rican New Yorkers. Is that also 

linked to—I mean, some people may say good that they don’t retire 

here, you know, in droves. But is that linked to the status issue? 

The uncertainty over political situations? 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. Or why do we have more Puerto Ricans stateside, on the mainland, than in Puerto Rico, as well? 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, that is because of my leadership. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. But I feel, and that is my personal feeling, that 

Puerto Rico has a lot to offer. And it is a beautiful place. It is a 

place with a great infrastructure. It is a place with great opportunities for the region and the international marketplace, as well. 

But the fact that people don’t feel comfortable in Puerto Rico, 

and we are losing as much—I mean, the most recent poll that I 

read was 36.5 percent of people are seriously considering leaving 

the island—is because of the uncertainty, is because of the public 

safety, because of the lack of, the uncertainty with the economy, 

education, and anything related to that. They want to make sure 

that their families have a share in that. And they are looking for 

that elsewhere, unfortunately. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. You are welcome, Mr. Serrano. I am going to 

do another round, because I have a couple of questions that I wanted to ask. 

Mr. Mejı ́a, you said that in recent years, I believe you said four, 

that it is in recent years that an uncertainty has, and the economy 

of Puerto Rico has seen a decline. 

To what extent do you think that is related to our removal of 

936? 

Mr. MEJI ́A. The benefits of 936 helped the economic development 

of Puerto Rico for many years. For reasons of a decision by Congress, that has changed. There was a phase-out of 10 years, and 

at this point in time Puerto Rico doesn’t have the necessary benefits, tax benefits, to be able to improve their economic development. 

Although I believe Puerto Rico still has a lot to offer, and I believe 

in the human capital and the desire of all the Puerto Ricans to become entrepreneurs and to move forward. That made a change. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. 936 did make a change. 

Mr. MEJI ́A. It did make a change. 

91

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Mr. Baquero, I believe you said 

that what Puerto Rico needs is a real economic plan. What prevents it from happening under the current status? 

Mr. BAQUERO. You have to have a clear definition of purpose, 

and we don’t have it right now. 

The way we operate in Puerto Rico with the political system creates, well, they already said uncertainty, in terms of a stability, in 

terms of doing things in one direction. There is no sense of direction. 

One party comes over, change the policy. The other comes back, 

change the policy again. We need to work together, and that is the 

problem. 

So I think it is obviously establishment. Once we have a clearcut definition of what we are, what we are going to do, then we can 

establish the economic plan that Puerto Rico needs and deserves. 

And it is getting late. It is getting late. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Once the choice is decided and stability established because that choice has been made, Puerto Rico can move 

ahead. It doesn’t seem to me that it has to be one or the other. 

Mr. BAQUERO. Then we don’t have too much fighting among ourselves. That is keeping us divided. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Ferna ́ndez, you 

did say in your testimony that you have one concern about 900, is 

that it would enfranchise non-citizens of Puerto Rico to vote in the 

determination of Puerto Rico’s status. And then 1230 would enfranchise not only persons born in Puerto Rico, but also possibly children of parents. 

I suspect that, you know, that that may be a concern of others 

in Puerto Rico. How would you suggest we resolve that issue? 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. I honestly feel, I mean, I wake up in Puerto 

Rico, go to work in Puerto Rico, have to live the consequences of 

what permeates around the environment these days. I go to sleep 

and wake up the next morning in Puerto Rico. 

I think it is very important that the people of Puerto Rico, that 

people who are living in Puerto Rico and who aspire to live in 

Puerto Rico and further develop their families and their economic 

environments in Puerto Rico, are able to decide the ultimate status 

option for Puerto Rico. 

As I say, more than the current population of Puerto Rico live 

in the mainland and abroad. And the fact that we could probably 

extend that vote to over four million Puerto Ricans who have fully 

integrated into a state, and now have their kids and everything, 

they already, they live in a different scenario. 

The scenario that we live in Puerto Rico right now is very different. And I think that the desperation or the frustration of the 

people of Puerto Rico should be respected in the regard that these 

are, we who live in Puerto Rico need to make sure that we feel confident about the final status decision. Because our aspiration is to 

remain there. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Mr. Fortun ̃ o, do you wish five 

minutes? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes, very briefly. I have a concern that I believe 

is shared by many of us. At the rate that we are losing, and it has 

92

been touched upon briefly here, we are losing the best and brightest of Puerto Rico, at a fast pace. 

And in addition to Mr. Serrano’s leadership certainly, which is I 

know is the number one reason for it, I have no doubts about it——

Mr. SERRANO. I don’t want another person to leave, believe me. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. But certainly, I do have—not to Florida, anyway, 

I know. Which is where most of them are living. 

But certainly, what we are discussing here has a direct impact 

on that. And actually, I have, there are a number of things we need 

to do. 

I believe the issue of uncertainty has been actually raised by all 

three in one way or another. That is out there, has been out there 

for a while. 

We have been under-performing. Actually, if we look at it, none 

of the last two years, since the early seventies on, we have been 

under-performing as an economy. 

I just filed a couple weeks ago H.R. 1340. And I will use this to 

pitch my bill. And essentially that bill is status neutral. That bill 

doesn’t get economic development in the middle of politics, or politics in the middle of economic development. That bill tries to provide for an economic development tool to create jobs in Puerto Rico. 

And I have discussed it with Chairman Rahall and Ranking 

Member Jim McCrery. I invite all of you here to look at it. It would 

apply to pockets of poverty, not just in Puerto Rico, I mean around 

the country, including the territories. 

And I believe we can do both things. We can try here to try to 

address the issue of status, and provide for a pathway to solve it; 

and we can try in this Congress to address, at least in part, the 

issues of economic development that are affecting Puerto Rico’s 

economy right now. 

Having said that, I will again stress what has been mentioned 

by all three: that this uncertainty provides for what a friend of 

mine calls the Puerto Rico discount rate. And you know, if this existed in the mainland, it would cost so much more. The value of 

it would be so much more. And I hear that over and over and over. 

On top of that, our tax rates. Oftentimes the issue of taxes has 

been used as an excuse, saying we cannot move on on status. And 

actually, if we were to move on to statehood, that would be detrimental. Well, we have proven, and history has proven, that in the 

country we pay more taxes than anybody else under the American 

flag. So we have ended up with the worst of both worlds, actually. 

And my question here is, Mr. Ferna ́ndez, if you feel that once we 

have a process, even before we have a status change, if we have 

a process that is mandated by Congress, if you feel that that sense 

of that things will get better will commence to permeate the business sector right away. 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. A process for providing——

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Status, economic. 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. Definitely. I mean, the fact that the local—

again, I want to stress that again. The fact that previous plebiscites, people have been confronted with definitions that have not 

been approved. People have not had confidence in the process. 

People really aspire to participate or engage in a process that 

they feel confident about. And I think that H.R. 900 clearly, clearly 

93

outlines a process that includes all the possible constitutionally viable options for the people of Puerto Rico in a way that allows, you 

know, gives space for all sectors of society to be involved, and to 

look at all constitutionally viable options to the people. 

If the people of Puerto Rico are not confronted with a serious 

process, fully supported by the U.S. Congress, we will keep having 

elections, keep having elections with local plebiscites and local political parties making, writing the definitions, and there will be 

more confusion, more frustration. And people will not be confident 

about a future resolution of this matter. 

I think this is a historic time. It is a historic time that we are 

really taking a serious step into considering this process. And I 

fully feel confident about the U.S. Congress presenting options that 

are viable, and that they are willing to accept. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Mr. Serrano, I think you took up 

half of this round already, but we are willing to recognize you for 

any questions you might have. 

Mr. SERRANO. By the way, I want to thank you for that letter for 

those items that you want in your district, that you sent to me, to 

the Appropriations Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SERRANO. I am learning the system well. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Ferna ́ndez, you broke my heart. 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. As a child, I remember during the Luis Administration, sound trucks going around in Barrio Parisa Majagues telling my parents that there were jobs available in Brooklyn and in 

the Bronx. That is why they left. 

They didn’t leave because El Coqui was making too much noise; 

they didn’t leave because the hot water in mani were too hot for 

them. They didn’t leave because El Parma, and I don’t mean El 

Parma you have today, but El Parma was upsetting them. 

They left because they had no choice; because of economic conditions. And you should understand that better than anyone else. 

Those economic conditions I claim were the direct result of the 

relationship. So when the relationship is going to be defined—and 

statehood is forever, and independence is forever, and hopefully 

there will be no more colonial forever—when that is to be defined, 

then all the children of the colony should be allowed to participate. 

It is no different than to ask an American Jew to turn his back on 

Israel. It is no different to tell African-Americans to turn their back 

on Haiti or on the Continent of Africa. 

But I ask you the difficult question. If you are willing to keep me 

from voting, are you willing to go on the record now and say that 

any Cuban, Dominican, Colombian, Mexican who came to Puerto 

Rico and made a deal with the U.S. Government for citizenship—

not for the people of Puerto Rico—that they should be allowed to 

vote on that plebiscite, and not me? 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. Congressman, I believe that the Cubans, the 

Guatemalans, the Salvadorans, and all of the people who became 

citizens and now live in Puerto Rico; they work in Puerto Rico——

94

Mr. SERRANO. But they became American citizens, not Puerto 

Rican citizens, right? 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. They became American citizens and live in 

Puerto Rico. No, I mean, U.S. citizens and residents, as well, of 

Puerto Rico, of course. 

But my point is in the regard that they live in Puerto Rico, and 

that everything that happens around them, in terms of the economy, in terms of the social structures, has an impact over them. 

We have millions of Puerto Ricans living abroad. 

Mr. SERRANO. And you don’t think the conditions that Puerto 

Rico lives under has an impact on us? What the heck am I doing 

on this panel right now? 

Everything that happens in Puerto Rico has an impact on those 

of us who were born there, and our generations to follow. I did not 

have to prove my worth in New York because I was a white, blueeyed, blond, Anglo Saxon-type American. I had to prove my worth 

because I was seen as a Puerto Rican. 

I had to explain that it was under the American Flag day after 

day, and still do. Everything that happens in Puerto Rico has an 

impact on what happens throughout this nation to Puerto Ricans. 

That is why we left or were forced out by our own government in 

cahoots with the Federal government, but we were forced—do you 

think we created the Puerto Rican parade in New York because we 

like to take a Sunday and march down a big street? Do you think 

we created a Fiesta Forclorica in Hartford because they had nothing better to do? It was a reaffirmation of who we are. 

And may I remind you that before Puerto Ricans discovered, except for some people in this audience, the Puerto Rican Flag in the 

eighties, the Puerto Ricans were keeping it on the fire escapes in 

New York since the 1920s. 

So really think that out, because whether one party likes it or 

the other, somo solo una sola nacion, you know. And that has to 

be remembered forever. 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. And that leads me—thank you, Congressman. 

And that leads me to two points. 

First, the sense of urgency to come with a serious process to resolve this matter, so that we don’t have hundreds of thousands of 

Puerto Ricans to keep leaving the island because they have no future or they feel they have no future for them. 

The sense of urgency—and I really respect your opinion, as well, 

and because of the situations that they went through in Puerto 

Rico, as well—sometimes I feel uncomfortable when I get into debates with Puerto Ricans who I admire very much, as well, in the 

mainland, and have fully integrated to the States, and talk——

Mr. SERRANO. With all due respect, because my time is running 

out. I really think you need to do more work on this. Fully integrated, I don’t know what that means. I am as American as apple 

pie, and I am a Member of the U.S. Congress. I served in the military. I am as American as apple pie. 

But I never stopped being as Puerto Rican as—I mean, we wrap 

it in paper, but it never changed on the inside. It just changed on 

the outside. 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. I refer to the integration to the States. 

95

Mr. SERRANO. So why do you insist on assuming that we have 

integrated somewhere else, and no longer belong to the nation? We 

are one nation. And that, I am not asking to vote for Governor or 

for President of the Republic once it is established. I am not asking 

for that. I am not asking to vote for any Member of Congress there 

if Puerto Rico is a state. 

But I am saying when this decision is going to be made, it belongs to all the children of the colony. And you shouldn’t try to 

keep some of us out. 

Mr. FERNA ́ NDEZ. If I might say just one thing. I would really like 

to have an opportunity to share more thoughts about this, Congressman. I really feel that this is a very important issue. It is a 

very important issue. 

But I want to stress and end with the statement that there is 

a sense of urgency to come into a conclusion of this matter. A sense 

of urgency. 

But I do agree that we have some common ground, and I would 

like to talk to you about that. 

Mr. SERRANO. I am afraid you might convince me. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I would like to thank this panel 

for your testimony and your answers to our questions. And this 

panel is dismissed. 

And we are ready to recognize the third panel of witnesses. I believe we can get through on one round. We are going to finish before 4:00. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I would like to now recognize the third panel 

of witnesses. They are Mr. Jorge Pedroza, the State Council President of Vietnam Veterans of America; Mr. Luis E. Gonza ́lez Vales, 

the Official Historian of Puerto Rica; Ms. Veronica Ferraiuoli, the 

President of the Puerto Rico Chapter of the Federal Bar Association; Ms. Celina Romany, the President of the Puerto Rico Bar Association; and Ms. Aida Dı ́az, the President of the Puerto Rico 

Teachers Association. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pedroza to testify for five minutes, 

and we are going to follow the lights on the table. 

STATEMENT OF JORGE E. PEDROZA, STATE COUNCIL 

PRESIDENT, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA 

Mr. PEDROZA. Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee 

on Insular Affairs, Committee on Natural Resources of the House 

of Representatives. My name is Jorge Pedroza. I am the President 

of the Vietnam Veterans of America, Puerto Rico State Council. 

I appear before this Congressional committee on behalf of my organization. I served in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968 with the U.S. 

Army Pathfinder Detachment, Fourth Infantry Division, and proud 

of it. 

Those of us who served in Vietnam performed our duty with 

honor and pride, to defend and preserve our democratic values and 

way of life. Hundreds of my brothers-in-arms died in that conflict, 

and thousands were wounded. 

For those of us who came back, there were no parades or celebrations. It took many years and the dedication of the Vietnam Memorial monument in Washington, D.C., which we have in the back, 

96

and a memorial monument in San Juan and many cities around 

the nation, for the American people to at last extend the Vietnam 

veterans the recognition and remembrance they justly deserve. 

Today I come before the U.S. Congress to request a similar recognition on behalf of over 200,000 veterans who live in Puerto Rico, 

and the thousands of brave young men and women from Puerto 

Rico deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout all the world, 

who proudly wear the U.S. Armed Forces uniform. 

Our request is simple. Give us the opportunity to actively participate in American democracy. Veterans of Puerto Rico who have so 

proudly fought in the past, and continue to do so in the present, 

approve legislation authorizing a plebiscite to provide the veterans 

and the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to determine a noncolonial and non-territorial political status. 

Puerto Rico is a non-incorporated territory of our nation. It has 

been such since 1898, when the island was invaded by the U.S. 

forces under General Miles. U.S. was entrusted with two obligations: civil rights of the inhabitants will be determined by Congress, and political status will be determined by Congress. It 

means that the obligation accepted by the U.S. Representatives in 

the Treaty of Paris was to resolve the political status of the island, 

and that rested in Congress. 

The time has come to empower the Puerto Rican men and 

women to make a decision regarding the island’s ultimate destiny. 

Let the people of Puerto Rico, with your authorization, decide they 

want to become a State of the Union or an independent republic. 

This request for self-determination is supported by the National 

Organization of the Vietnam Veterans of America. A resolution entitled Self-Determination for Puerto Rico was unanimously approved at the National Convention held on August 3 at St. Louis, 

Missouri. It calls for the U.S. Congress to define the legal status 

options available for Puerto Rico, and authorize a plebiscite regarding the island’s future. I am including with my remarks a copy of 

said resolution, which is this that I have at this moment. 

I understand you have two bills under consideration. The bill 

that represents the position adopted by the Vietnam Veterans of 

America is H.R. 900, introduced by Congressman Jose ́ Serrano and 

93 co-sponsors, including Chairman Nick Rahall and Puerto Rico 

Resident Commissioner Luis Fortun ̃ o. We believe this bill affords 

the people of Puerto Rico with the opportunity to make an informed decision and directly vote on their status preference on constitutionally valid options, as defined by Congress. 

Until you, my honorable ladies and gentlemen of this committee, 

act, Puerto Rico will continue suffering of being a second-class territory of the Union. And we, the U.S. citizens who have served in 

the U.S. armed services, have paid our greatest tribute of all—be 

willing to give our lives for our nation—lack the rights to vote for 

he who sends us to battle, to he who sends us to defend this nation 

and the right to decide our political status. 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity. God bless our veterans 

and our soldiers at home and around the world. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pedroza follows:]

97

Statement of Jorge E. Pedroza, President, Vietnam Veterans of America 

Council of Puerto Rico 

I was born in Cayey, Puerto Rico on November 6, 1947. 

After graduating from high school in May 1967, I volunteered to serve my country 

in the United States Army in June 1967. I served in the Vietnam War, participating 

in the 1968 Tet offensive as an U.S. Army Pathfinder 4th Infantry Division in 

Pleiku South Vietnam. I was honorably discharged from service in June 1970. 

Married with 3 children and 2 granddaughters I have lived in Guaynabo, Puerto 

Rico since then. 

In 1987 I joined the Vietnam Veterans of America Organization as President of 

Chapter 59, which held only 11 members. Today the membership counts 380 hundred. 

By 1988, I started a protest movement on behalf of my fellowship veterans 

against the Department of Veterans Affairs that lasted 4 years. The conclusion was 

the Giusti Bravo lawsuit vs. U.S. Department of Veterans Affair. 1,000 compensations, which were taken away from our Vietnam veterans in Puerto Rico, were restored as a result by 1992. During that same period; 1993 to 1996, I was able to 

start new chapters around the island; Yauco, Ponce, and Arecibo. In 1993 I demanded the need for a State Council in Puerto Rico becoming it’s president until 

1996 and regaining the position unanimously again in May 2001 to present. 

At the age of 59 I still have the strength and pride of being a contribution as a 

servicemen to the greatest country in the world, to all the veterans and to my brothers at war. 

STATEMENT 

Madame Chair and members of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Committee 

on Natural Resources of the U.S. House of Representatives. 

My name is Jorge E. Pedroza, President of the Vietnam Veterans of America 

Puerto Rico State Council. 

I appear before this Congressional Committee on behalf of my organization. I 

served in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968 with the U.S. Army Pathfinder Detachment, 

4th Infantry Division. 

Those of us who served in Vietnam performed our duty with honor and pride to 

defend and preserve our democratic values and way of life. Hundreds of my brothers 

in arms died in that conflict, and thousands were wounded. For those of us who 

came back there were no parades or celebrations. It took many years and the dedication of the Vietnam Memorial Monument in this Capital city and the Memorial 

Monument in San Juan and many cities around the nation, for the American people 

to at last extend to the Vietnam Veterans the recognition and remembrance justly 

deserved. 

Today, I come before the U.S. Congress to request a similar recognition on behalf 

of over 200,000 thousand veterans who live in Puerto Rico and the thousands of 

brave young men and women from this island deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 

through all the world who proudly wear the U.S. Armed Forces uniforms. Our request is simple: give us the opportunity to actively participate in the American Democracy. Veterans of Puerto Rico have so proudly fought in the past and continue 

to do so in the present. Approve Federal Legislation authorizing a plebiscite to provide the veterans and the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to determine a noncolonial and non-territorial political status. 

Puerto Rico is a non-incorporated territory of our nation. It has been such since 

1898 when the island was invaded by the U.S. Forces under General Miles. U.S. 

was entrusted with 2 obligations: Civil rights of the inhabitants will be determine 

by Congress, Political status will be determine by Congress. 

It means that the obligation accepted by the U.S. representatives in the Treaty 

of Paris to resolve the political status of the island of Puerto Rico rests in Congress. 

The time has come to empower the Puerto Rican men and women to make a decision regarding the island’s ultimate destiny. Let the people of Puerto Rico with your 

authorization decide if they want to become a State of the Union or an independent 

republic. 

This request for self determination is supported by the National Organization of 

the Vietnam Veterans of America. A resolution entitled ‘‘Self-Determination for 

Puerto Rico’’ was unanimously approved at the National Convention held on 

August 3, 2003 in St. Louis, Missouri. It calls for the U.S. Congress to define the 

legal status options available for Puerto Rico and authorize a plebiscite regarding 

the island’s future. I am including with my remarks a copy of said resolution. 

I understand you have (2) two bills under consideration. The bill that represents 

the position adopted by the Vietnam Veterans of America is H.R. 900 introduced 

98

by Congressman Jose Serrano and 93 co-sponsors, including Chairman Nick Rahall 

and Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Luis Fortun ̃ o. We believe this bill affords 

the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to make an informed decision and directly 

vote on their status preference on constitutionally valid options as defined by Congress. 

Until you my honorable ladies and gentleman of this committee act, Puerto Rico 

will continue suffering of being a second class territory of the union and we the U.S. 

citizens who have served in the U.S. Armed Services having paid our greatest tribute of all: Be willing to give our lives for our nation, lack the rights to vote for he 

who send us to the front lines in combat and the right to decide our political status. 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity. God bless our veterans and our soldiers 

at home and around the world. 

NOTE: Additional information submitted for the record by Mr. Pedroza has been 

retained in the Committee’s official files. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Pedroza. We will now hear 

from Mr. Luis Gonza ́lez Vales, the Official Historian of Puerto Rico. 

Five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LUIS E. GONZA ́ LEZ VALES,

OFFICIAL HISTORIAN OF PUERTO RICO 

Mr. GONZA ́LEZ VALES. Madame Chair, Members of the committee, I am speaking as the Official Historian, a position created 

by the Legislature in 1903, with tenure for life and not subject to 

recall by any party. 

I am not advocating any status or side. The only consideration 

that has prompted me to appear before the committee is my feeling 

that this may be a historic moment in the possible solution to the 

island’s long-standing status controversy. 

There is unanimity among all leaders and political groups that 

after 109 years of U.S. sovereignty over Puerto Rico, it is time to 

find a solution that provides a democratic form of government at 

the national government level. 

I am confident that from a historical perspective, the Puerto Rico 

Democracy Act, H.R. 900, would provide a process that addresses 

this central question in a more direct and precise way than 

H.R. 1230. In my judgment, it is more democratic, for it places in 

the hands of all Puerto Rican voters the decision. In addition, it 

provides at each stage clearly defined alternatives to choose from. 

Since 1967, there has been a number of status referendums and 

plebiscites which have been inconclusive, because the political parties have defined each status option without considering their constitutionality. Therefore, it is the Government of the United States 

who has to act to change Puerto Rico’s status. 

The fundamental flaw of H.R. 1230, in my humble opinion, is 

the inclusion of a new or modified commonwealth status not subject to Federal territory governing powers as an option for Puerto 

Rico’s future status. 

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. 

Commonwealth is a word in the formal name of its local government adopted with the adoption of the territorial constitution. It is 

not now a status in the sense that territory, State of the United 

States, and nations are statuses. And very early—and it has been 

stated here before—Governor Munoz and Resident Commissioner 

Fernos agreed with the U.S. Representatives of both Houses of 

Congress, including this Subcommittee’s predecessors and with a 

99

precedent and Federal powers, regarding the territory was not 

being, the powers regarding the territory were not being relinquished, and that Puerto Rico remains subject to U.S. Government 

powers under the territory clause. It has been also the conclusion 

of the Supreme Court and Justice and State Departments. 

Puerto Rican proposals for an enhanced commonwealth status 

have been rejected by the U.S. Government repeatedly since soon 

after the local constitution was adopted in 1952. In my opinion, 

there would be a significant difference between the constitutional 

convention proposed by the H.R. 1230 and the 1950 Convention 

that resulted in the drafting of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

Constitution. 

Public Law 81.600 included specific parameters to guide the 

work of the convention. Then a consensus was reached among all 

convention delegates, regardless of their political affiliation, as to 

how the local government should be organized, and unanimity was 

nearly achieved. 

Today, with the present polarization among the major political 

parties, there is a strong possibility that a convention may end 

deadlock, making the solution to the status question nearly impossible. 

H.R. 1230 also excludes one of Puerto Rico’s status options: nationhood in a true free association with the United States, which 

has been recognized by President Clinton and the President’s Task 

Force on Puerto Rico. 

H.R. 1230 would further recognize an inherent authority of the 

people of Puerto Rico to call a constitutional convention in the territory, authority which is provided by U.S. Public Law 81.600. 

H.R. 900 otherwise would provide a good process for determining 

Puerto Rico’s status preference, the process recommended by the 

Presidential Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, established initially by President Clinton and continued by President Bush. It includes all the options for Puerto Rico recognized to date. It provides 

for the current status to continue if, and as long as, the voters 

want it. It provides a process for the issue to be resolved in the future if there is not a majority for seeking the territory’s ultimate 

democratic status in an initial or subsequent vote. 

Finally, it is my opinion that Congress, after more than a century of being entrusted with the responsibility by Article IX of the 

Treaty of Paris of 1898, must act to provide a viable solution to this 

longstanding issue which has consumed a lot of energies that could 

be better spent addressing the island’s social and economic problems. 

I have appeared before you, for I strongly believe that it is time 

that Puerto Rico ceases to be foreign in a domestic sense. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonza ́lez Vales follows:]

Statement of Luis E. Gonza ́lez Vales,

Official Historian of Puerto Rico 

I am speaking as the Official Historian, a position created by the Legislature in 

1903, with tenure for life and not subject to recall by any party. I am not advocating 

any status or side. The only consideration that has prompted me to appear before 

the Committee is my feeling that this may be a historic moment in the possible solution the Island’s long standing status controversy. 

100

There is unanimity among all leaders and political groups that after 109 years 

of U.S. sovereignty over Puerto Rico is time to find a solution that provides a democratic form of government at the national government level. 

I am confident that from a historical perspective the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, 

H.R. 900, would provide a process could resolve this central question ‘‘the ultimate 

solution to the status issue ‘‘whereas H.R. 1230 might not. In my judgment it is 

more democratic for it places the decision directly in the hands of all Puerto Rican 

voters. In addition it provides, at each stage clearly-defined ‘‘and real status—

alternatives to choose from. 

Beginning in 1967, the Commonwealth has held a three (3) status referendums 

which have been inconclusive because the status options have been proposed without considering their constitutionality. It is the Government of the United States 

who has to act to change Puerto Rico’s status, so the federal positions on local status 

proposals are needed to ensure a meaningful choice. 

The fundamental flaw of H.R. 1230 is the inclusion of a ‘‘new or modified Commonwealth status’’ not subject to federal territory governing powers as an option for 

Puerto Rico’s future status (that could be chosen by what is called a ‘‘constitutional 

convention’’ even thought it would not draft a constitution). 

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. ‘‘Commonwealth’’ 

is a word in the formal name of its local government adopted with the adoption of 

the territorial constitution; it is not now a status in the sense that territory, State 

of the United States, and nation are statuses. Puerto Rico’s representatives in the 

U.S. legislative process that authorized and approved the local constitution, Governor Munoz and Resident Commissioner Fernos, agreed with the U.S. representatives of both houses of Congress—including this Subcommittee’s predecessor—and 

the President’s administration that federal powers regarding the territory were not 

being relinquished. That Puerto Rico remains subject to U.S. Government powers 

under the Territory Clause has been the conclusion of the Supreme Court, the Justice and State Departments, successive Presidents, the Congress, Government Accountability Office and Library of the Congress, the House of Representatives, and 

the Senate committee. 

Puerto Rican proposals for a ‘‘Commonwealth’’ status have been rejected by the 

U.S. Government repeatedly since soon after the local constitution was adopted in 

1952. Past proposals were made in: legislation in the 1950’s; negotiations between 

Gov. Munoz and the Kennedy White House; legislation in the 1960’s; legislation in 

the 1970’s based upon the results of a referendum in 1967 that result in a majority 

for a ‘‘Commonwealth’’ with some national government powers with continued U.S. 

jurisdiction benefits; legislation between 1989 and ‘‘91; a referendum in 1993 that 

resulted in a plurality—not a majority—for a ‘‘Commonwealth’’ immune from federal 

tax and other laws and for restoration of tax exemptions for the Puerto Rico income 

of companies based in the States that had just been cut by the President and Congress, trade protection for Puerto Rican products that contradicted NAFTA and 

GATT, and $1.5 billion a year in additional social programs funding; legislation that 

passed the U.S. House in 1998; and unsuccessfully arguing before the federal court 

that the definition of the current status on a 1998 referendum ballot was erroneous. 

In my estimation there would be a significant difference between the constitutional convention proposed in H.R. 1230 and the 1950 convention that resulted in 

the drafting of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Constitution under which our Government has functioned during the past fifty five years. Public Law 81–600 included 

specific parameters to guide the work of the Convention. Then a consensus was 

reached among all convention delegates regardless of their political affiliation as to 

how the local government should be organized and unanimity was nearly achieved. 

Today, with the present polarization among the major political parties there is a 

strong possibility that a convention may end deadlock making the solution to the 

status question nearly impossible. And this ‘‘constitutional convention’’, unlike de 

1950-2 convention would not have the purpose of writing a constitution for an 

already-determined status; it would have the purpose of choosing a status from 

among proposals that cannot be reconciled—a choice that should be made by the 

people directly. 

H.R. 1230 also excludes on of Puerto Rico’s status options: nationhood in a true 

free association with the United States, which has been recognized by President 

Clinton, the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s status; and H.R. 900. 

H.R. 1230 would, additionally, define the ‘‘People of Puerto Rico’’ differently than 

the reference in the local Constitution of Puerto Rico approved by U.S. Public Law 

82-447. The bill includes individuals who do not live in Puerto Rico who were born 

in the island or who had one parent born in the island. And it would provide for 

these ‘‘non-resident Puerto Ricans’’ to vote in the determination of the future status 

of Puerto Rico even if they had no other connection with the island, diluting and 

101

skewing the vote of the actual people of Puerto Rico. There is no precedent in the 

U.S. law for persons resident in one U.S. jurisdiction to vote in another U.S. jurisdiction. 

H.R. 1230 would, further, recognize an ‘‘inherent authority’’ of ‘‘the People of 

Puerto Rico’’ to call a ‘‘Constitutional Convention’’ in the territory. The authority for 

Puerto Rico to call a constitutional convention is provided by U.S. Public Law 81–

600. 

The one questionable provision of H.R. 900 would enfranchise individuals who are 

not residents of Puerto Rico but who were born in the island to vote in the determination of Puerto Rico’s status preference. 

H.R. 900 otherwise would provide a good process for determining Puerto Rico’s 

status preference, the process recommended by the President’s Task Force on Puerto 

Rico’s Status established by President Clinton through Executive Order 13183 and 

comprised of senior appointees of President Bush. 

It includes all of the options for Puerto Rico recognized to date ‘‘continued territory status, U.S. statehood, and nationhood, although it could be argued based on 

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1541 that the nationhood option should be separated into separate independent and free association options. 

It provides for the current status to continue if—and for as long as—the voters 

want it. 

It provides a process for the issue to be resolved in the future if there is not a 

majority for seeking the territory’s ultimate, democratic status in an initial or subsequent vote on whether to seek a not-territory status. 

Finally it is my opinion that Congress, after more than a century of being entrusted with the responsibility by Article IX of the Treaty of Paris of 1898, must 

act to provide a viable solution to this long standing issue which has consumed a 

lot of energies that could be better spent addressing the island’s socials and economic problems. I have appeared before you for I strongly belief that is time that 

Puerto Rico ceases to be ‘‘Foreign in a domestic Sense’’. Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonza ́lez. Next I 

would like to recognize Ms. Veronica Ferraiuoli for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF VERONICA FERRAIUOLI, PRESIDENT, PUERTO 

RICO CHAPTER OF THE FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION 

Ms. FERRAIUOLI. Good afternoon. My name is Veronica 

Ferraiuoli. I am the President of the Puerto Rico Chapter of the 

Federal Bar Association, and appear before you on its behalf. 

The Federal Bar Association is a voluntary non-partisan organization whose main objective is to serve as the representative of the 

Federal legal profession in Puerto Rico. Currently our chapter 

boasts about 800 members, and it includes practitioners, judges, 

and students from all political ideologies. 

As a representative of the Federal Bar Association, I am not here 

to advocate any particular status choice. However, I am here to 

urge you to protect the integrity and the jurisdiction of the United 

States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. 

The options under H.R. 900 are clear with respect to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in Puerto Rico. If status quo is chosen, 

the Federal Court in Puerto Rico will remain unchanged. If the 

people of Puerto Rico choose statehood, the Federal Constitution 

will determine the Federal Court’s jurisdiction. 

If independence or free association is the choice of the people of 

Puerto Rico, international law will divest the Federal judiciary of 

jurisdiction in Puerto Rico. In contrast, the constitutional convention to be held under H.R. 1230 provides no safeguard or guarantee of the Federal Court’s continued jurisdiction in Puerto Rico. 

Without such a guarantee that the Federal Court’s current jurisdiction will be respected, as long as Puerto Ricans continue to be citiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
102

zens of the United States, the Federal Bar Association cannot support this bill. 

Changes in the political relationship between Puerto Rico and 

the United States may necessitate changes in the jurisdiction of the 

Federal Courts in Puerto Rico. Historically, discussions regarding 

changes in Puerto Rico’s political status have been accompanied by 

attempts to limit or abolish Federal Court jurisdiction in the island. This, even when the proposals sought to maintain or to grant 

United States citizenships for Puerto Ricans. 

Our written statement details the many attempts at this, all of 

which have failed to date. Suffice it to say that what began as a 

court for the foreigners and the wealthy in Puerto Rico has become 

the court of choice for persons seeking redress or protection from 

commonwealth action. 

After the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act especially, the 

number of cases seeking redress from commonwealth action filed 

before the Federal Court has increased substantially. In addition, 

that court has experienced an increase in the filing of constitutional challenges to both Federal and commonwealth law. 

But even in the face of the growing popularity and prestige of the 

Puerto Rico Federal Court in the minds of the general population, 

limitations to its jurisdiction continue to be advanced. Veiled in 

H.R. 1230 is a proposal for a new commonwealth, which provides 

that while Puerto Ricans will continue to be citizens of the United 

States by birth, the Puerto Rico District Court’s jurisdiction will be 

limited to matters arising from the Federal Constitution and 

whichever Federal laws apply in Puerto Rico and are not inconsistent with the laws of the commonwealth. 

It would appear that under this proposal, the Federal Court in 

Puerto Rico would be divested of diversity jurisdiction. In addition, 

it appears that under this proposal, the Federal Court will lack jurisdiction over statutory challenges to commonwealth law, such as 

actions under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

Further, under this proposal the Federal Court’s jurisdiction will 

be left to the whim of the commonwealth, who could enact statutes 

which would strip the Federal Court of its jurisdiction. 

Despite a history of constant attempts to limit the jurisdiction of 

the Federal Courts in Puerto Rico, it currently holds a privileged 

place among the Federal District Courts in the United States, territories, or commonwealth-affiliated unions with the United States. 

The District Court for the District of Puerto Rico is the only Article III Court in the territories. Moreover, the very differences which 

have been used in the past to support the integration of Federal 

jurisdiction to the local court system have placed the Federal forum 

in a privileged place within the life of the citizens of Puerto Rico. 

The Federal right to a jury trial in civil cases is unavailable in our 

local courts, and has made the Federal Courts the forum of choice 

for plaintiffs in diversity cases. 

This notwithstanding, the Federal Court continues to be the preferred forum for American and foreign corporations, which language and practice are more familiar than that of the local courts. 

Moreover, the fact that commonwealth judges are appointed for 

terms, as opposed to lifetime tenure, has led to a perception of 

politicization in the local judiciary cases involving the commonVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
103

1The position taken herein is that of the Puerto Rico Chapter of the Federal Bar Association 

only. The National Council of the Association has not taken any public position regarding these 

bills. 

wealth, since they, the judiciary, depend on the favor of the executive to be reappointed, and of the Legislative Assembly to be confirmed. 

Puerto Rico remains subject to Federal powers under the territory clause of the United States. The government initially established pursuant to the Foraker Act, and continued by the Puerto 

Rican Federal Relations Act, has left many questions unanswered 

regarding the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United 

States. 

However, the Federal system interacts and coexists with local 

law. It has become the preferred forum for the people of Puerto 

Rico to obtain relief from their grievances, and it has become an 

integral part of the system of justice of Puerto Rico, despite all attempts at abolishing it. More than in any state it has come to represent the liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution 

and the Federal laws. 

For this reason, the Federal Bar Association, Puerto Rico Chapter, cannot support H.R. 1230. We cannot support a bill which, unlike H.R. 900, fails to guarantee the continued existence of a Federal court system in Puerto Rico, with jurisdiction consistent with 

that of all states so long as Puerto Ricans continue to be United 

States citizens. 

I thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ferraiuoli follows:]

Statement of Veronica Ferraiuoli,

Puerto Rico Chapter of the Federal Bar Association 

Good morning. My name is Veronica Ferraiuoli. I appear before you on behalf of 

the Puerto Rico Chapter of the Federal Bar Association (the ‘‘FBA’’). 1

The FBA is a voluntary, non-partisan organization whose main objective is to 

serve as the representative of the Federal legal profession in Puerto Rico. Currently, 

our Chapter boasts about 800 members and it includes practitioners, judges and 

students from all political ideologies. 

As a representative of the FBA, I am not here to advocate any particular status 

choice. However, I am here to urge you to protect the integrity and the jurisdiction 

of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico as an integral part 

of the proceedings before this Subcommittee. 

Since all of Puerto Rico’s status proposals involve changes in federal law and policy, Puerto Ricans need to know federal positions on the proposed options so they 

can make an informed, meaningful, and fair choice. 

The options under H.R. 900 are clear with respect to the jurisdiction of the federal court in Puerto Rico. If the status quo option is chosen by the people of Puerto 

Rico, the federal court in Puerto Rico will remain unchanged by this choice. If the 

people of Puerto Rico choose statehood as their option, Article III of the United 

States Constitution and federal law will determine the federal court’s jurisdiction. 

If independence is the choice of the people of Puerto Rico, international law will prevail and will divest the federal judiciary of jurisdiction in Puerto Rico. 

In contrast, the Constitutional Convention to be held under H.R. 1230 provides 

no safeguard or guarantee of the federal court’s continued jurisdiction in Puerto 

Rico. Without such a guarantee—that the federal court’s current jurisdiction will be 

respected as long as Puerto Ricans continue to be citizens of the United States, the 

FBA cannot support this bill. 

The History of Federal Jurisdiction in Puerto Rico 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has its genesis in the U.S. 

Provisional Court for the Department of Puerto Rico. It was established by Governor 

Davis on June 27, 1899 with judicial power extending to all cases that would otherVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
104

2General Order No. 88, San Juan, P.R. June 27, 1899, Brigadier General George W. Davis. 

3Foraker Act, Ch. 191, 31 Stat. 77, 48 U.S.C. § 731; Organic Act of 1099, April 12, 1900, Historical Documents, P.R. Statutes Annotated, Vol. I, 24-29 (1999). 4 An Act of Congress of March 2, 1901, P.R. Statutes Annotated, Historical Documents, Vol. 

I, 52-54. 5 Jose ́ Trias Monge, Historial Constitucional de Puerto Rico, Vol. I, (Ed. U.P.R. 1980), at 295. 6Guillermo A. Baralt, History of the Federal Court in Puerto Rico: 1899-1999 (Publicaciones 

Puertorriquen ̃ as 2004), at167-168. 7The Olmstead Bill had various versions. The principal ones were H.R. 22554 and 

H.R. 23000, 61st Cong., 2nd Session. 8 H.R. 13818, 63rd Cong., 2nd Session. 

9Trias Monge, Historia Constitucional de Puerto Rico, Vol. II (Ed. U.P.R. 1981), at 61. 

10 Baralt, op. cit., at 161. 

wise fall within the jurisdiction of the United States circuit or district courts, over 

violations to the United States Constitution and all common law offenses. 2 The Provisional Court followed the same law and equity principles as the United States 

courts and, for its procedures, rules, and case management, it was to follow as closely as possible those of the federal courts. Three judges were appointed to the Provisional Court, who were vested the with the same powers as the judges of the other 

federal circuit or district courts. Spanish citizens still residing in the Island welcomed the Provisional Court; they saw the federal court as the only forum which 

would guarantee their property rights under the Treaty of Paris. The Provisional 

Court was, thus, the safe heaven of foreigners seeking protection from the perceived 

injustices of the local governing body. 

Puerto Rico was under military rule from October 18, 1898 through April 30, 

1900. On May 1, 1900, the Foraker Act came into effect. 3 This first Organic Act established that the Island was a territory belonging to the United States and contained no provisions for the Island’s political development towards statehood or 

independence. Puerto Ricans were denied U.S. citizenship at that time; a political 

body was created under the name of the ‘‘People of Porto Rico’’ entitled to the protection of the United States, with no provisions for the implementation of the 

United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights. 

With respect to the federal judiciary, Congress provided for the judicial District 

of Porto Rico, created pursuant to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution, to be the successor of the Provisional Court. Although, this court initially 

enjoyed the same ordinary jurisdiction on all matters that would come before the 

district courts or the circuit courts of the United States, Congress extended its jurisdiction to civil matters ‘‘where the parties or either of them, are citizens of the 

United States, or citizens or subjects of a foreign State or States, wherein the matter in dispute exceeds’’ $1,000. 4 Under this expanded diversity jurisdiction, United 

States citizens residing in Puerto Rico were granted the option of suing in the insular courts or in federal courts, a right not extended to Puerto Ricans. 5 The establishment of a federal forum where foreign and U.S. citizens could take their civil 

and constitutional claims proved to be a necessary tool to attract foreign capital 

since American investors felt wary of a language they did not understand and a 

legal system with unfamiliar procedures. 6

It was not long after the Foraker Act came into effect when the deficiencies of 

the governmental structure established thereunder came to light and local voices 

started crying out for reform. The structure of the Puerto Rico district court was 

one of the matters that often came up during the debates to amend the Foraker Act. 

For example, the Olmstead Bill to amend the Foraker Act, introduced in March 

1910, included a clause to limit the federal court’s diversity jurisdiction to causes 

involving American citizens who were not domiciliaries of Puerto Rico. 7 The bill for 

a new organic act introduced in 1912 by Senator Jones also originally included a 

provision to limit diversity jurisdiction in the same manner provided for in the 

Olmstead Bill. 8

During this period, the federal court came under strong opposition from local institutions. On March 9, 1915, the P.R. House of Delegates approved a resolution 

calling for the President and Congress to grant Puerto Rico a republican form of 

government; and further called for the ‘‘exclusive jurisdiction of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court...in all matters pertaining to the District and Circuit Courts of the 

United States.’’ 9 In 1916, the Puerto Rico Bar Association publicly supported the 

abolition or limitation of the federal court’s jurisdiction in Puerto Rico stressing the 

efficiency and integrity of the insular court judges and the problems caused by the 

use of the English language in the federal court on the Island, objected to the court’s 

broad jurisdiction, and recommended that the Puerto Rico Supreme Court hear all 

cases involving federal questions. 10 On April 18, 1916, the House of Delegates again 

105

11Trias Monge, Historia Constitucional de Puerto Rico, Vol. II (Ed. U.P.R. 1981), at 61-62. 12Organic Act of 1917, March 2, 1917, Ch. 145, 39 Stat. 951. 13Organic Act of 1917, Sec. 41. 14 Agu ̈ eros v. Sanjurjo, 11 P.R. Fed. 574 (1920). 15 Alvarez v. Madera, 12 P.R. Fed. 278 (1921). 16This special grant of jurisdiction, which was unique to Puerto Rico’s district court, was repealed by Public Law 91-272 of June 2, 1970, 84 Stat. 294, § 13. 17 1966 U.S. Cong. and Adm. News 2787. 18 Id., at 2788. 

called for the suppression of the federal court in Puerto Rico and the transfer of its 

jurisdiction to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court based on the later’s ‘‘prestige’’. 11

The Organic Act of 1917 came into effect on March 2, 1917. 12 The final, approved 

version of the Organic Act of 1917 ratified the presence of the federal court in 

Puerto Rico, even over the strenuous objections of the House of Delegates and of 

the Puerto Rico Bar Association and their requests for the elimination of the federal 

court. The federal court was granted jurisdiction over ‘‘all controversies [exceeding 

$3,000] where all of the parties on either side of the controversy are citizens or subjects of a foreign State or States, or citizens of a State, Territory, or District of the 

United States not domiciled in Puerto Rico’’ and ‘‘of all controversies in which there 

is a separable controversy involving such jurisdictional amount and in which all of 

the parties on either side of such separable controversy are citizens or subjects of 

the character aforesaid.’’ 13 This notwithstanding, the United States Supreme Court 

did limit the federal court’s jurisdiction soon thereafter. In late June 1920, the Supreme Court interpreted the Organic Act of 1917 to exclude from federal jurisdiction 

those cases involving aliens domiciled in Puerto Rico. 14 A year later, that court also 

found federal jurisdiction to have been denied to American citizens domiciled in 

Puerto Rico. 15

The federal court’s jurisdiction remained basically unchanged through the status 

proceedings related to Public Law 600 and the establishment in 1952 of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, except for one thing: Public Law 600 granted the federal 

court in Puerto Rico jurisdiction over diversity cases where neither of the parties 

were residents of Puerto Rico, even if they resided in the same state. 16 But the ink 

was not yet dry on Public Law 600 when the jurisdiction of the federal court was 

challenged. Less than ten years after its enactment, changes to the court’s jurisdiction were prominently included in the amendments to Public Law 600 contained in 

the Fernos-Murray Bill; the applicable provisions provided for the federal court for 

the District of Puerto Rico to share the same jurisdiction as those of the other 

States. Federal jurisdiction was also challenged in court, where it was alleged that, 

as a result of the creation of the Commonwealth, Congress had voluntarily and irrevocably granted Puerto Rico full and absolute responsibility over all internal affairs and, thus, abandoned federal jurisdiction over matters involving strictly Commonwealth law. None of these attempts prospered. 

Not long after, though, the federal court in Puerto Rico underwent an important 

transformation. On September 12, 1966, Public Law 89-571 was signed, making judiciary appointments in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto 

Rico lifetime appointments under Article III of the United States Constitution. The 

Senate Report stated that 

Federal litigants in Puerto Rico should not be denied the benefit of judges 

made independent by life tenure from the pressures of those who might influence his chances of reappointment, which benefits the Constitution guarantees to the litigants in all other Federal courts. 17

Another reason for lifetime appointment was the following: 

the court is now the only judicial agency on Puerto Rico which is independent of the Commonwealth government and it will aid the district 

judges to perform their functions impartially, particularly in those cases involving the Federal Government on one side and the Commonwealth government on the other if they have the full independence inherent in a lifetime tenure. 18

At that time, the prototypical petitioners before the federal court also began to 

change. After the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the number of cases seeking redress from Commonwealth action filed before the federal court increased substantially. In addition, the court has experienced an increase in the filing of constitutional challenges to both federal and Commonwealth law. 

What began as a court for the foreigners and the wealthy, has become the court 

of choice for persons seeking redress or protection from Commonwealth action. However, even in the face of the growing popularity and prestige of the Puerto Rico federal court in the minds of the general population, limitations to its jurisdiction continue to be advanced. For example, in the 1998 plebiscite on status, the Popular 

106

19Governor Acevedo Vila ́, the proponent of H.R. 1230, has recently stated that the new ‘‘Commonwealth status’’ he proposes is that adopted by his party’s governing board on October 18, 

1998, and included in his party’s platforms of 2000 and 2004. The President’s Task Force and 

the Department of Justice called this proposal’s constitutionality into question because, among 

other reasons, it would empower Puerto Rico to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts and nullify the application of federal laws in many areas. 20 48 U.S.C. § 1821 et seq. (District for the Northern Mariana Islands); 48 U.S.C. § 1612 et seq. 

(District for the Virgin Islands); 48 U.S.C. § 1424 (District of Guam). 21 Baralt, op. cit., at 125-126. 

Democratic Party proposed a new Commonwealth providing that, while Puerto 

Ricans will continue to be citizens of the United States by birth, the federal court’s 

jurisdiction will be limited to matters arising from the United States Constitution 

and whichever federal laws apply in Puerto Rico and not in violation with the laws 

of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 19 It would appear that—under this proposal—

the federal court in Puerto Rico would be divested of diversity jurisdiction. In addition, it appears that—under this proposal—the federal court would lack jurisdiction 

over statutory challenges to Commonwealth law, such as actions under the 1964 

Civil Rights Act. Further, under this proposal, any laws that the Commonwealth 

might enact in the future would strip the federal court of its jurisdiction under the 

Constitution and federal laws of the United States. 

Despite a history of constant attempts to limit the jurisdiction of the federal court 

in Puerto Rico, it currently holds a privileged place among the federal district courts 

in the United States’ territories or commonwealth in affiliated unions with the 

United States. The territory of American Samoa has no federal district court. On 

the other hand, while the territories of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands do have federal district courts, they are 

territorial courts in every sense of the word. Although they enjoy the same jurisdiction as all other United States district courts, they are also courts of general jurisdiction for all causes which jurisdiction is not otherwise vested in the local courts 

and their judges are appointed to ten-year terms. 20 In contrast, the District Court 

for the District of Puerto Rico is an Article III court, with all the benefits and limitations appurtenant thereto. 

The very differences which have been used in support of the integration of federal 

jurisdiction to the local court system, have placed the federal forum in a privileged 

place within the life of the citizens of Puerto Rico. The federal right to a jury trial 

in civil cases—unavailable in local court—has made the federal court the forum of 

choice for plaintiffs in diversity cases, in light of the inadequate damage determinations made by local courts. This notwithstanding, the federal court continues to be 

the preferred forum for American and foreign corporations, whose language and 

practice are usually more familiar than that in local courts. Moreover, the fact that 

Commonwealth judges are appointed for terms—as opposed to lifetime tenure—has 

led to a perception of politization of the local judiciary since they depend on the 

favor of the Executive to be reappointed and of the Legislative Assembly to be confirmed. 

Conclusion 

Puerto Rico remains subject to federal powers under the Territory Clause of the 

United States according to the Supreme Court, Justice and State Departments, Congressional Research Service, Government Accountability Office, and successive 

presidents. The government initially established pursuant the Foraker Act, and continued by the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act, left many questions unanswered 

regarding the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. Professor 

Guillermo A. Baralt summarizes some of these questions as follows: 

Does the Constitution of the United States follow the flag? What is the nature and scope of Congress in governing Puerto Rico? Do constitutional 

amendments apply to the territory of Puerto Rico? What is the constitutionality of this new territorial status, or of the limitations on the rights 

of the citizens of Puerto Rico? 21

More than 100 years later and substantial changes to the law, we are still grappling with these questions. 

However, we do know what role that the federal court plays in this relationship. 

The federal system interacts and coexists with local law. It has become the preferred forum for the people of Puerto Rico to obtain relief for their grievances. It 

has become an integral part of the system of justice of Puerto Rico—despite all attempts at limiting or abolishing it. More than in any State, it has come to represent 

the liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the federal laws. 

For this reason, the FBA cannot support H.R. 1230. We cannot support a bill 

which, unlike H.R. 900, fails to guarantees the continued existence of a federal 

107

court system in Puerto Rico with jurisdiction consistent with that of all States so 

long as Puerto Ricans continue to be United States citizens. 

I thank you for your time. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Celina 

Romany for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CELINA ROMANY-SIACA, PRESIDENT,

PUERTO RICO BAR ASSOCIATION 

Ms. ROMANY-SIACA. Good afternoon, Madame Chairwoman and 

Members of the committee. My name is Celina Romany, and I appear before you as President of the Puerto Rico Bar Association, an 

organization founded in 1840. It is one of the oldest professional associations in the Americas, approximately groups 14,000 lawyers of 

diverse political and ideological preferences. And notwithstanding 

this reality, the Colegio de Abogados, as we call it, has historically 

been an advocate of the decolonization of Puerto Rico, and has advocated for a solution that emerges from Puerto Rico, from its people, the ultimate depository of political sovereignty. 

It has consistently supported the need to seriously address this 

issue with the political will required for correcting the democratic 

deficit inherent in the denial of a people’s fundamental human 

right to sovereignty and self-determination. 

Our Bar Association has provided a constitutional and democratic theoretical and practical perspective, as well as an international law dimension, to a passionate debate that often ends up 

stationed in parties and political allies. 

The long trail that precedes today’s Congressional effort speaks 

for itself, and reflects the U.S. officials’ inability to grasp the essential components of a colonial relationship. But more importantly, it 

also reflects the dangerous paths of the control exercised by partisan politics. The Puerto Rican people have not been able to enter 

the stage on the political status question, and H.R. 1230, the 

Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, constitutes a first entrance. It 

lays out a significant foundation toward the eradication of a colonial relationship, out of sync with democratic values, and which 

give voice to all Puerto Ricans, from here and there, in the design 

and elaboration of their political destiny. 

H.R. 1230 additionally provides a first opportunity to build a 

mechanism for the democratic deliberations of all political sectors. 

It also represents the first Congressional acknowledgment of a people’s natural right to self-determination, the contours of which have 

been amply refined by an international society much different to 

the one existing at the U.N. of the fifties, the time when Puerto 

Rico was removed from the list of non-self-governing territories. 

This is the first time in more than 100 years, and this Congress, 

increasingly representative of a diverse Latino population, increasingly learning to walk the tightrope of national and cultural identities, of plurality and difference, increasingly aware of Latin-American neighbors watching the inconsistencies in our backyard, must 

rise to the occasion. 

A first scenario, that by granting our people the status convention assembly option provided in H.R. 1230, offers a remedy for a 

108

whole century witnessing the egregious violations of basic political 

human rights. 

H.R. 1230 acknowledges the fairness and legitimacy of said convention assembly as a vehicle of expression which allows the articulation of non-colonial alternatives not bound by the straitjacket 

of the territorial clause and its plenary powers. 

In light of this morning’s discussion, I might add that the issue 

before you and before your consideration is how to channel that expression, and avoid destructing historical discussions about the 

specific contours of substantive status options that stirs passions 

and misinformation. We should be here today talking about implementing a consensus, as Commissioner Fortun ̃ o pointed out, toward the decolonialization, and must underscore as well that the 

constitutional analysis that has been discussed here today has 

missed a central point of our constitutional law: specifically, the 

recognition of a dynamic constitution that distances itself from a 

strict constructionist approach in dissonance with basic international human rights principles, and which imprisons in an invalid box a territorial clause that, as Professor Pildes suggested, 

has correctly characterized as one demanding the pragmatism, the 

flexibility long recognized in foreign policy relations. 

I think that the deliberative mechanism proposed by H.R. 1230 

proposes the unleashing of a political and negotiation process that 

guarantees a non-colonial outcome. That is why the Puerto Rico 

Bar Association has its Board of Governors approve such bill, and 

has also supported a similar bill in the Puerto Rico Legislature. 

Puerto Rico is our nation, a Latin-American and Caribbean nation, 

which has been denied its right to self-determination, notwithstanding several U.N. decolonialization resolutions translating recognized international principles. Regardless of the systematic and 

prolonged violations of basic and universal human rights, the Executive Branch of this government insists that Puerto Rico is a U.S. 

commodity, which can indeed be freely trafficked and ceded in any 

international exchange. 

The President’s Task Force report, presented to Congress in December 2005, constitutes an unfortunate reminder of the stagnation of the colonial relationship. That task force discourse is not far 

removed from Senator Joseph Foraker’s words of 105 years ago, 

when he stated that we have a right to legislate with respect to 

them as we may see fit. Nor is it far removed from the Supreme 

Court of 106 years ago that justified the territorial clause on the 

basis of alien races. 

Madame Chairwoman, to privilege a constitutional clause that 

clashes against the wall of basic universal principles and of the political lessons brought about by the convulsions of the 20th Century, amounts to nothing else but to the privileging of imperial periods, an empire camouflaged in self-serving interpretations of the 

rule of law. 

And to conclude, there is no more time to waste. No more detours 

or delays are acceptable. For the first time this Congress has the 

opportunity to legitimize the entrance of the Puerto Rican people 

to the deliberative stage and the outcome of its self-determination 

deliberation as an equal sovereign. 

Thank you. 

109

1 H.R. 900 is silent as to what Congress should do in case either the ‘‘statehood’’ or the ‘‘sovereign nation’’ option wins; is silent as to the implementation of the winning alternative; and 

thus it does not map out the direction that the relations between the two nations would follow. 

In contrast, H.R. 1230 requires Congress to respond to the options previously approved by the 

People of Puerto Rico and for the expiration of the Convention only when one non colonial status 

is finally approved by both the People of Puerto Rico and Congress. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Romany-Siaca follows:]

Statement of Celina Romany-Siaca, President,

Puerto Rico Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados) 

My name is Celina Romany and I appear before you as President of the Puerto 

Rico Bar Association. Our organization, founded in 1840, and one of the oldest professional associations in the Americas, approximately groups on a compulsory basis, 

14,000 lawyers of diverse political and ideological preferences. Notwithstanding this 

reality, the Colegio de Abogados has historically been an advocate of the 

decolonization of Puerto Rico, both under the Spanish and United States regimes. 

It has advocated for a solution that emerges from Puerto Rico, from its people, the 

ultimate repository of political sovereignty. It has consistently supported the need 

to seriously address this issue with the political will required for correcting the 

democratic deficit inherent in the denial of a people’s fundamental human right to 

sovereignty and self-determination. 

Our Bar Association has played a key advocacy and educational role in the public 

debate. Through its Constitutional Development Commission has provided a constitutional and democratic theoretical and practical perspective as well as an international law dimension to a passionate debate that often ends up stationed in partisan political alleys. 

The long trail that precedes today’s congressional effort speaks for itself and reflects the United States officials’ inability to grasp the essential components of a colonial relationship. But more importantly, it also reflects the dangerous paths of the 

control exercised by partisan politics. The Puerto Rican people have not been able 

to enter the stage on the political status question and H.R. 1230, the Puerto Rico 

Self Determination Act, constitutes a first entrance. It lays out a significant foundation towards the eradication of a colonial relationship, out of sync with democratic 

values which give voice to all Puerto Ricans—from here and there—in the design 

and elaboration of their political destiny. 

H.R. 1230 additionally provides a first opportunity to build a mechanism for the 

democratic deliberations of all political sectors. It also represents the first congressional acknowledgement of a people’s natural right to self-determination, the contours of which have been amply refined by an international society much different 

to the one existing at the United Nations of the 50’s, the time when Puerto Rico 

was removed from the list of non-self-governing territories. 

This is a first in more than a hundred years, and this Congress, increasingly representative of a diverse Latino population; increasingly learning to walk the tightrope of national and cultural identities—of plurality and difference; increasingly 

aware of Latin American neighbors watching the inconsistencies in our backyard, 

must rise to the occasion. A first scenario that, by granting our people the Status 

Convention/Assembly option provided in H.R. 1230, offers a remedy for a whole century witnessing the egregious violations of basic political human rights. 

H.R. 1230 acknowledges the fairness and legitimacy of said Convention/Assembly 

as a vehicle of expression which allows the articulation of non-colonial alternatives—not bound by the straight-jacket of the territorial clause and its plenary 

powers. Section 2 of the bill correctly emphasizes that any ‘‘self-determination option’’ agreed by the Puerto Rican Convention ‘‘must be based on the sovereignty of 

the People of Puerto Rico and not be subject to the plenary powers of the territorial 

clause of the Constitution of the United States.’’ Another essential provision of the 

bill is included in its Section 4(a)(2), which establishes that, if Congress rejects a 

self-determination proposal submitted to it by the People of Puerto Rico, the Convention may reconvene ‘‘to adopt another Self-Determination Option;’’ while Section 

5 adds that the Convention ‘‘may remain in session until a Self-Determination Proposal is enacted by Federal law.’’ Hence, H.R. 1230 proposes the unleashing of a 

political, deliberative and negotiation process that must guarantee a non-colonial 

outcome. Thus, the Puerto Rico Bar Association in a Resolution approved by its 

Board of Governors, commends and supports bill H.R. 1230. 1

Puerto Rico is our nation, a Latin-American and Caribbean nation which has been 

denied its right to self-determination notwithstanding several UN Decolonization 

Committee resolutions, translating recognized international law principles. RegardVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
110

2 Congressional Record, Senate, March 2, 1900, pa ́g. 2475; cited in Ronald Ferna ́ndez, The Disenchanted Island: Puerto Rico and the United States in the Twentieth Century 9 (1992). 3Downes v Bidwell 182 U.S. 244 (1901), at 286-87

less of the systematic and prolonged violations of basic and universal human rights, 

the Executive Branch of the current government insists that Puerto Rico is a U.S. 

commodity which can indeed be freely trafficked and ceded in any international exchange. The President’s Task Force Report, presented to Congress in December 

2005, constitutes an unfortunate reminder of the stagnation of a colonial relationship. The Task Force essential discourse is not far removed from Senator Joseph 

Foraker’s words of a hundred and five (105) years ago when he stated that ‘‘we have 

a right to legislate with respect to them as we may see fit.’’ 2 Nor is it far removed 

from the Supreme Court of a hundred six( 106) years ago that justified the territorial clause on the basis of alien races. 3

Madame Chair, to privilege a constitutional clause that crashes against the wall 

of basic universal principles and of the political lessons brought about by the convulsions of the 20th century, amounts to nothing else but to the privileging of imperial 

periods, an empire camouflaged in self-serving interpretations of the rule of law. 

There is no more time to waste; no more detours or delays are acceptable. 

H.R. 1230, for the first time, legitimizes the entrance of the Puerto Rican people 

to the deliberative stage and thus the outcome of its self-determination deliberation, 

as an equal sovereign. 

Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you very much. Our last panelist, last 

but not least, is Ms. Aida Dı ́az. You will be recognized for five 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF AIDA DI ́AZ, PRESIDENT,

PUERTO RICO TEACHERS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. D ́IAZ. Good afternoon, Honorable Donna M. Christensen, 

Chair of the Subcommittee, and honorable Members of this committee. 

My name is Aida Dı ́az, President of the Puerto Rico Teachers Association, a non-partisan, voluntary membership organization of 

26,000 teachers, which advocates for the welfare of the Puerto 

Rican teacher since its foundation in 1911. As an organization we 

have members who belong to the three main political parties, and 

we do not advocate or endorse any particular statutes. 

The teachers appreciate the opportunity to share our thoughts on 

the two bills introduced in the Congress to provide a process to 

move Puerto Rico to a new political status, H.R. 900 and 

H.R. 1230. As educators, we have to take a critical look as to 

which process promotes a better educational opportunity for the 

people of Puerto Rico to learn about the political options available 

to our future. 

Objectively, after viewing both bills we firmly believe that 

H.R. 1230 provides for a better educational experience and a simpler process. We are prepared to endorse H.R. 1230 only if the 

matters below described are included in the bill. H.R. 1230 promotes a constitutional convention in which elected delegates would 

debate the full extent of the political options available, would 

choose one, and have its acceptance put to a vote of the people of 

Puerto Rico. 

The format of a constitutional convention constitutes a process 

which is less complicated, and thus better suited to reach a definite 

result within a shorter period of time. It also seems less prone to 

manipulations of politicians in their characterizations of the opVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
111

tions as presented to the people; vis-a-vis, a simple plebiscite with 

the three status options. 

H.R. 1230 offers a balanced approach, confers our people ample 

opportunity to analyze and learn in a detailed manner about the 

self-determination options. 

It could further specify delegates need not to be the exclusive 

representatives of political parties. Gender representation should 

be addressed in order to guarantee a balanced representation, since 

women are a majority of the electorate in Puerto Rico. Congress 

needs to appropriate funds to share in the financing of this option. 

Congress needs to put a date certain by which the constitutional 

convention is constituted. 

H.R. 1230 calls for a process of a superior quality. The definition 

of the political status option shall be the product of the Puerto 

Rican delegates elected by the people of Puerto Rico. The chosen 

option should be later ratified by the Puerto Rican electorate. 

Under H.R. 900, the political options are defined by the Congress, not by the people of Puerto Rico. H.R. 900 offers a very complicated process with multiple electoral events. Furthermore, the 

second plebiscite proposal of H.R. 900 is flawed. It pretends to 

limit the status options available to only two. 

There is now consensus in Puerto Rico the present political relationship with the United States is unacceptable. Free association is 

a recognized international status option which needs to be included. The United States has ample experience in this field with 

three relationships of free association presently in existence: Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, and 

Palau. 

So if the committee prefers H.R. 900 as the vehicle for Puerto 

Rico to adopt a new political status, then it needs to amend it to 

eliminate the first plebiscite and legislate on the plebiscite with the 

three options as recognized by the resolution 1541 of the General 

Assembly of the United Nations, as approved in 1960. 

One, emergency as a sovereign independent state. Two, free association with independent state. Three, integration with an independent state. Also, Congress has to recognize the jurisdiction of 

the local courts over any plebiscite. Congress also needs to consider 

the development of an objective educational campaign. 

The State Election Commission with an advisory committee constituted of institutions such as ours would implement a campaign 

to address the political options and the peculiarities of each one objectively. This campaign could serve to clarify concepts debated by 

the delegates which may need further explanation. Again, this goes 

further our concern to have an educated electorate. 

We urge you to adopt, with amendments, H.R. 1230. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dı ́az follows:]

Statement of Aida Dı ́az, President,

Puerto Rico Teacher’s Association (PRTA) 

Honorable Donna M. Christensen, Chair of the Sub-Committee and honorable 

members of this committee. 

My name is Aida Dı ́az, President of the Puerto Rico Teachers Association (PRTA), 

a non-partisan voluntary membership organization of 26,000 teachers which advocates for the welfare of the Puerto Rican teacher since its foundation in 1911. 

The teachers appreciate the opportunity to share our thoughts on the two bills 

introduced in Congress to provide a process to move Puerto Rico to a new political 

112

status, H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. As educators we have to take a critical look as to 

which process promotes a better educational opportunity for the People of Puerto 

Rico to learn about the political options available to our future. Objectively, after 

reviewing H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, we firmly believe H.R. 1230 provides for a better educational experience and a simpler process. Educating the electorate about the 

options are key to our future, since as Epictetus, the Greek philosopher said: ‘‘Only 

the educated are free.’’ And, since this process is to set the Puerto Rican people totally free, they must be well educated as to the political options available and, most 

importantly, as to how these options promote a better Puerto Rico. 

We are prepared to endorse H.R. 1230 if the matters below described are included 

in the bill. H.R. 1230 promotes a Constitutional Convention in which elected delegates would debate the full extent of the political options available; choose one and 

have its acceptance put to a vote of the People of Puerto Rico. The format of a Constitutional Convention constitutes a process which is less complicated and thus better suited to reach a definite result within a shorter period of time. It also seems 

less prone to the manipulations of politicians in their characterizations of the options as presented to the people vis a vis a simple plebiscite with the three (3) status options. H.R. 1230 offers a balance approach, confers our people ample opportunity to analyze and learn in a detailed manner about the self determination options. 

H.R. 1230 could further specified: 1. Delegates need no to be the exclusive representatives of political parties; 2. Gender representation should be addressed in 

order to guarantee a balance representation, since women are a majority of the electorate; 3. Congress needs to appropriate funds to share in the financing of this option; and, 4. Congress needs to put a date certain by which the Constitutional Convention is constituted. 

H.R. 1230 calls for a process of a superior quality. The definition of the political 

status option shall be the product of the Puerto Rican delegates elected by the People of Puerto Rico. The chosen option would be later ratified by the Puerto Rican 

electorate. Under H.R. 900, the political options are defined by Congress not the 

People of Puerto Rico. It must be up to our people to decide the political formula 

or status under which they will be governed in the future ‘‘not Congress. 

H.R. 900 offers a very complicated process with multiple electoral events. It pretends to limit the status options available to only two (2). There is now consensus 

in Puerto Rico ‘‘the present political relationship with the U.S. is unacceptable. Free 

Association is a recognized international status option which needs to be included. 

The U.S. has ample experience in this field with three relationships of Free Association presently in existence: Federated States of Micronesia; Republic of Marshall Islands; and, Palau. 

So, if this Committee prefers H.R. 900 as the vehicle for Puerto Rico to adopt a 

new political status, then its needs to amend it to eliminate the first plebiscite and 

legislate one plebiscite with the three (3) options as recognized by Resolution 1541 

(XV) of the General Assembly of the United Nations as approved in 1960: 1. Emergence as a sovereign independent state; 2. Free Association with and independent 

state; or 3. Integration with an independent state. Also Congress has to recognize 

the jurisdiction of the local courts over any plebiscite. 

The remarks on H.R. 900 are simply to respond to the request by the Committee 

to comment on said bill since the Teachers Association is not endorsing said bill. 

Congress also needs to consider the development of an objective educational campaign. The State Elections Commission with an advisory committee constituted of 

institutions such as ours would implement a campaign to address the political options and the peculiarities of each of the options objectively. This campaign could 

serve to clarify concepts debated by the delegates which may need further explanation. Again, this goes to further our concern to have an educated electorate. 

We urge you to adopt with amendments H.R. 1230. Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you very much. Thank you, panelists, 

for your testimony. 

I am going to recognize myself for five minutes. My first question 

would be to the historian, Mr. Gonza ́lez. 

How do you respond to the concern of some that by prescribing 

the choices for the people of Puerto Rico, H.R. 900 dictates a process that doesn’t come from the people; and that such a process then 

would be the denial of the fundamental right of self-determination? 

113

Mr. GONZA ́LEZ VALES. In my estimation, Madame Chairman, one 

of the basic flaws of all the previous status referendums is that the 

definition of the various alternatives have been left up to the political parties on the island to prescribe. And therefore, you may engage in wishful thinking by providing formulas which will not be 

acceptable. 

The way that the H.R. 900 states it, these are acceptable solutions, constitutionally viable, so the people know exactly what they 

are voting for at the time of exercising their vote. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. So your issue is that the definitions need to 

be clear and accurate, so that people, regardless of the process, but 

the definitions ought to be clear and accurate. 

Mr. GONZA ́LEZ VALES. That is clear, Madame. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. You talk about the fear of a deadlock under 

the convention process. Would you be more inclined to support 

1230 if there were specific parameters included, as you say? You 

make the reference to 1950. 

Mr. GONZA ́LEZ VALES. Right. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Would you be more inclined to support 

H.R. 1230 if there were specific parameters? 

Mr. GONZA ́LEZ VALES. If the process of selecting the delegates is 

not based on the political affiliations of the delegates, then that 

could be avoided. But right now, under the political situation in 

Puerto Rico, the political forces of the two main parties, the PVP 

and the PNP, are basically pretty much the same. So they would 

tend to offset one another. 

And I would think that a constitutional convention which delegates are chosen on the basis of their political affiliation may end 

up in a deadlock, and not have a consensus that we did have in 

the 1950 Constitutional Convention, because there was really a 

consensus as to the fact that we needed to do something to organize the local government. 

And therefore, when you look at the results of the Constitutional 

Convention and the vote, it was nearly unanimity finally at the 

end. And that was one of the really fundamental differences that 

I see from a historical perspective between one offered choice or the 

other. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Ms. Dı ́az, I will ask you this question, because as I understand it, for most referenda it is recommended that the language be at eighth-grade comprehension 

level so that it is clear, and that the majority of people or everyone 

can really understand it. 

As you look at H.R. 900, do you think that it is, the way the two 

choices are stated, do you think that it is written at a level that 

is clear and understandable to most people? 

Ms. D ́IAZ. Most of the people have to know, we have to get into 

deep discussion of the both, uh——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Both bills? 

Ms. D ́

IAZ. Yes. Because the people know that there is the independence and statehood. But what are the advantages? What are 

the disadvantages of each form? What are we going to gain? What 

are we going to lose? How is the future of Puerto Rico going to be, 

through each formula? That is what they need to know before that. 

114

I am not clear. I am not sure that all Puerto Ricans are ready 

to vote to choose from both options, because they need to know 

more. The implications of that decision. And that is what I am advocating for that, for a process to educate our people what are they 

going to do, and where it is going to—how it is going to be their 

future after they vote. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. But if Puerto Rico should continue the existing form of territorial status, as defined by the Constitution, basic 

laws and policies of the United States, is that——

Ms. D ́IAZ. No, that is not clear. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Fortun ̃ o for 

five minutes. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. And I thank again the third panel this 

afternoon; thank you for coming up here. 

We have been very fortunate to have everyone who came before 

us, for all three panels. With all due respect to everyone, however, 

only one member of the three panels earned his way here. That is 

Mr. Pedroza. 

He and the people he represents earned their way here, because 

they have been in the line of battle to defend our nation. And I salute you, the veterans that you represent, and the men and women 

of uniform also of the world that are defending our nation and our 

values. 

And that brings me to my point. How is it that in the 21st Century, we have men and women in uniform that are defending democracy, you know, half around the world, and they could not elect 

their Commander in Chief? 

As far as I am concerned, that is unconscionable, and that has 

to end as soon as possible. 

Mr. Pedroza, do you have a position on that 

Mr. PEDROZA. Well, as a combat veteran, as a Puerto Rican combat veteran, American citizen, I see it as an immoral part from the 

United States toward the Puerto Rican veterans. 

Why do I say this? Because when I was in Vietnam, there were 

many Puerto Ricans who were sick being in Vietnam. They had nobody to write to in Congress who would help them get out of Vietnam. 

When I have seen a lot of soldiers from the 50 states of the Nation who would write to their Congressmen, and they were pulled 

out of Vietnam because of the pull that they had with these Congressmen. So I seen that in my own eyes in Vietnam, when we 

could not get out of the field, and soldiers from the United States 

could. So I could see the discrimination right there in Vietnam. 

And I am seeing it today in Puerto Rico. At this moment there 

is thousands of Puerto Rican veterans who are trying to get in the 

system of the VA, and we don’t have a system in Puerto Rico in 

place. We have a cemetery that has got one year left, national cemetery. And when we come to Congress, when we come to looking 

for our rights, we have no rights. We have no such rights in Puerto 

Rico, not like the 50 states in the nation. 

So I think that Congress has been dishonest with us. And I think 

that we Puerto Rican veterans resent this very much. Until we get 

the moment to vote for the President who sends us to battle, I 

think that this Congress has to look into that very, very seriously. 

115

Because here we have 20,000 Puerto Ricans at this moment in 

Afghanistan and Iraq fighting the war, and they can’t vote for their 

Commander in Chief. And to me, that is immoral. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. And again, I salute you and the many 

heroes from Puerto Rico that have defended or are defending this 

very moment our democracy. 

Ms. Ferraiuoli, you mentioned correctly, as I see it, that to this 

day, oftentimes the court of choice of a lot of people in Puerto Rico 

to seek redress and protection from commonwealth actions having 

to do with civil rights, discrimination, and many other cases, is the 

Federal Court. 

Have you looked at the proposal that has been made under, that 

is viable or feasible under H.R. 1230, that would actually eliminate 

Federal Court jurisdiction in Puerto Rico? And what is your opinion 

on that? 

Ms. FERRAIUOLI. I am sorry, Congressman, are you asking me if 

I believe it is viable? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. If you believe it is viable or not. 

Ms. FERRAIUOLI. OK. Well, in my opinion, as long as the Constitution of the United States is supposed to be the governing law, 

it would not be a viable alternative. You cannot have a state, without a capital S, subject to the Constitution of the United States, 

and have that state be above the Constitution and the laws of the 

United States. 

One of the first things that you learn when you go to law school 

is that the sovereign law of the land is the Constitution, and right 

below that are the statutes of the, the Federal statutes. Below that 

the Constitution of the states, and last, the statutes and regulations of the states. 

What the proposal—and I say veiled in the new commonwealth, 

because the fact is that H.R. 1230 talks about it in the commonwealth, but doesn’t tell you guys what it is that you are allowing 

the people of Puerto Rico to choose. 

The proposal that has been made effectively puts the commonwealth above all Federal law, and would allow the commonwealth 

to determine which Federal law applies or doesn’t apply in Puerto 

Rico. And would not give the Federal Court jurisdiction over any 

issue in which commonwealth law is inconsistent with Federal law, 

which would basically put our constitutional groundwork upsidedown. 

So in my opinion, it would not be constitutional so long as Puerto 

Rico is supposed to be part of the United States. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you again. And actually, as you mentioned, 

it is veiled in H.R. 1230, but it is very clear in the Governor’s platform. Thank you again. And I yield back, Madame Chair. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Serrano for five minutes. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. Ms. Romany and Ms. Dı ́az, 

unless I misread what you said, you confused me. 

You say that El Coredo do Gatos [ph] has always been for ending 

the colonial status, but you support H.R. 1230, which includes a 

colonial status as an option. 

Would you be in favor, say, of a first step to get rid of the colony 

before we move to a constitutional convention? 

116

Ms. ROMANY-SIACA. I think, Congressman, that one of the issues 

that we have to discuss here is to trust the ability of the people 

of Puerto Rico in the liberation process, that that is what constitutes that convention and the subsequent assembly, to come up 

with solutions that are non-colonial and non-territorial. 

I think we are putting the cart before the horse. I think that the 

discussion here is about what is the mechanism to actually facilitate that expression. What comes up and comes out of that discussion, I trust that the people of Puerto Rico and those delegates, 

which are going to have the ability to deliberate, negotiate, expand, 

study constitutional laws——

Mr. SERRANO. I don’t doubt that for a minute, that they have the 

ability to do that. In fact, if I can jump to Ms. Dı ́az a second and 

I will be back to you, this education process you talk about is necessary, of course. But from what I know, Puerto Ricans discuss the 

status issue more than they discuss baseball. So I think we may 

be the most educated people in the world on what it is we want 

and don’t want. But you are right, there are still certain adjustments that have to be made as to the information. 

But my question to you, Ms. Romany, is, you trust, and I do, too. 

But if we are truly for ending the colonial status, and that is my 

position—that is not Ms. Vela ́zquez’s position perhaps, it is not Mr. 

Gutierrez’—my position is cualquier cosa pero al colonia. So how 

can you offer the colonial status as a, how can you even allow the 

people to trust them to come back and ask for the colony? Then we 

are in the same place again. 

Ms. ROMANY-SIACA. I think I have a lot of trust in the ability of 

the constitutional convention to really come out with an outcome 

that is non-colonial. I think that, you know, the frustration of the 

status debate throughout the 20th Century is precisely because we 

haven’t been able to exercise a real democratic process. And I think 

that that democratic process has to take place. 

Mr. SERRANO. And I respect that. I just know how formidable the 

Popular Democratic Party is, and they may get a convention that 

says no lo digo que somo colonia, porque no somo colonia. But that 

is OK. I mean, I am not cutting you off; I respect that. 

Ms. ROMANY-SIACA. Remember also that this is a convention that 

is supposed to have a starring role for civil society. And I think we 

should not underplay that, too. Proprieties and politics also is 

something that has——

Mr. SERRANO. Well, but that is true, but you know, that is not 

the reality. The fact of life is that if you have a plebiscite or a constitutional convention, the people running the delegates or the people running the direct vote are the parties. That is what we have 

going on. 

I would love to tell you that, you know, pro se Joey, McClinto, 

de Ruen, Iarotto are not going to be involved. Of course they are 

going to be involved, and I insist that they be involved. After all, 

they have been fighting that fight for 1,000 years. 

In fact, there was a way to bring back both Don Luis, they 

should be able to be involved, you know, politically. Of course that 

is going to happen. 

Now, just a correction, Ms. Dı ́az. You started off by saying that 

1230 was the bill you prefer. 

117

Ms. D ́IAZ. Yes. 

Mr. SERRANO. Then you end up supporting my bill. And I will explain what I mean by that. 

You say that the fair bill has to have free association. I refer you 

to H.R. Section [c], which says if a majority in the first initial plebiscite favors permanent non-territorial status, then a plebiscite will 

be held only between the two following options: statehood, one, on 

equal footing with other states; two, sovereign nation, either fully 

independent or in free association with the U.S. I have included 

free association as an option for separating from the Union, if you 

want to call it that. We were never in the Union. 

And I have always said that free association has to be there, because I am no fool. That is where I think ilela should come. You 

know, la comina asion de lela el libre associacion, that is my belief. 

Most leaders don’t believe that, but that is my belief. 

So it is there, it is written there. I can get you another copy. 

Ms. D ́

IAZ. OK, no. You say that there are going to be more than 

one plebiscites. And I say we don’t need more than one plebiscite. 

With only one, we can decide. And that is why——

Mr. SERRANO. Oh, if that was up to——

Ms. D ́IAZ.—that with equal process——

Mr. SERRANO. If that was up to me, you are right. That was my 

original bill a few years ago, that people in this audience read and 

reread. But you know something? We are having a heck of a time 

getting the commonwealthers to go along with anything like this. 

If we cut them out totally, it would be the uproar that you could 

never get two votes around here. 

Ms. D ́

IAZ. No, I think the people, it varies the process. That is 

what I am advocating for, where people would be educated in the 

different formulas, the results will be different right now. 

Mr. SERRANO. She supports H.R. 901, my next——

[Laughter.] 

Ms. ROMANY-SIACA. No, no. I told you what I believe. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Flake for five minutes. 

Mr. FLAKE. Mrs. Dı ́az, you mentioned that you thought that 

H.R. 1230 would be less prone to manipulations of politicians. 

Ms. D ́IAZ. Yes. 

Mr. FLAKE. How so? 

Ms. D ́IAZ. Because you are going to have delegates from different 

organizations, and you must be sure that we, as teachers, are going 

to endorse and promote that teachers will be in that assembly; and 

not politicians, but teachers. 

I am not telling you, I am not saying that the politicians 

shouldn’t be members of the assembly, but there should be a balance between politicians and the rest of the people of the country 

of Puerto Rico. Do you understand me? 

Mr. FLAKE. I guess I understand what you are trying to say. But 

it seems to me that when you have a situation where some have 

said that they feel that H.R. 1230 may not be constitutional, it certainly might be unenforceable; I just fail to see how it is less prone. 

I mean, politics is going to be involved no matter what. 

Ms. D ́

IAZ. Maybe. But they won’t be deciding. 

118

Mr. FLAKE. Even to make the case that it would be less prone 

would seem to be, I don’t know, I don’t see what you have behind 

that, that claim. 

Ms. D ́IAZ. OK. Right now we have had several plebiscites. Those 

who educate the people, those who deliver the campaigns are politicians, and they confuse. Everyone is saying or telling what they believe. 

What we are saying is, let us have an assembly where we have 

politicians, but the majority are not politicians. And people who the 

people trust, leaders of our country who have contributed to our 

country, but who believe in the capacity of our people to decide 

after they are educated. 

Mr. FLAKE. Right. But just so I understand, you believe that that 

is less prone to political manipulation than a plebiscite? 

Ms. D ́

IAZ. Yes, yes. 

Mr. FLAKE. You mentioned in your testimony that you want gender equality. 

Ms. D ́IAZ. Yes. 

Mr. FLAKE. And that females represent more. How do you set 

about achieving that? Is it just through education? Or is it through 

set-asides? Or what? 

Ms. D ́IAZ. How to achieve that? It might be through education, 

education of the public, but we have to establish a formula. I don’t 

know how we are going to achieve that, but the reality is that more 

than 50 percent of our voters are women. 

Mr. FLAKE. Right. And so you——

Ms. D ́IAZ. It is 54 percent. 

Mr. FLAKE. But you would have some kind of formula then that 

would guarantee a certain number of slots for——

Ms. D ́IAZ. A formula. 

Mr. FLAKE. All right, thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Is he gone already? Yes, OK. So we are on our 

last round. I am going to recognize myself for five minutes. 

I just wanted to, on the issue of gender equality, as we prepare 

for the National Presidential Conventions, it is designed to achieve 

gender equality. And so there are formulas, there are examples 

that can be used. 

I basically have two questions. The first one is for Ms. Ferraiuoli, 

because your concern about H.R. 1230 is that there is no guarantee that the Federal Court would continue to exist. But 

H.R. 1230 does not specify any outcome. It doesn’t say that the 

outcome must not have a Federal Court. 

So my understanding is that, as the people decide what that particular status proposal might be, it is very possible that the Federal 

Court system could be in there. And then while in H.R. 900, if free 

association or independence were chosen, definitely the Federal 

Court system would cease to exist. 

So can you explain your position? 

Ms. FERRAIUOLI. Yes, Madame Chairman. Our concern is having 

the population of Puerto Rico continue to be U.S. citizens protected 

by the Constitution of the United States, and presumably by the 

Federal laws, and not have an adequate forum to seek out those 

protections. 

119

While you are correct that if independence or free association is 

chosen, there will not be a Federal Court, we do know that if statehood is chosen, there will be a Federal Court. 

The gray area that we are talking about here is the new commonwealth. H.R. 1230 completely throws away the commonwealth 

that we have right now, and it will only permit a new commonwealth. The only proposal we have seen for a new commonwealth 

right now is the PDP’s 1998 proposal for the new commonwealth, 

which specifically would limit the Federal Court’s jurisdiction. 

It is even more radical than the 1976 proposal that was presented to this Congress, and was rejected. That 1976 proposal 

would continue the Federal Court’s jurisdiction as it is right now. 

So our concern is that Congress will allow an option in which the 

United States citizens, residents in Puerto Rico, would be left without a forum to seek out their constitutional claims. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. So the Federal Court will have jurisdiction 

over matters that arise from provisions of the Constitution of the 

United States? And all of the Federal laws that apply to Puerto 

Rico, consistent with the covenant that has not been negotiated yet, 

and not in violation with the laws of the Constitution of Puerto 

Rico, that is not satisfactory to you? 

Ms. FERRAIUOLI. No, Madame Chairman. The problem is there is 

another section in that proposal which allows Puerto Rico to veto 

the application of Federal law within the commonwealth. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I know. 

Ms. FERRAIUOLI. And basically what Puerto Rico, what the commonwealth can say is, well, that Federal law doesn’t apply. 

The jurisdiction granted by that one section, if you see, it only 

says the U.S. Constitution. It doesn’t talk about Federal law. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. It does, it does. But I need to get to my—it 

says the Constitution and Federal laws applicable to Puerto Rico. 

I understand that there may be some veto power inherent in the 

proposal. 

Attorney Romany, can I ask you, you were here for the previous 

panels. What is your reaction to the statement of Attorney Goldstein that a Federal Court would allow Congress to possibly remove 

even the Governor of Puerto Rico or some other elected official? 

Ms. ROMANY-SIACA. I definitely disagree with that statement. I 

think that again, Professor Pildes’ analysis opens a door, an interesting door, for an expansive interpretation of the Constitution and 

the plenary powers of the territorial clause. 

I think that the Supreme Court at the beginning of the 20th Century is not the Supreme Court of today. And I think we have to 

deal with a dynamic interpretation of the Constitution. For example, for many years, separate but equal was valid under the constitutional analysis. And there has been a lot of examples in which 

the Court has really risen to the occasion and interpreted the Constitution in a much more expansive way. 

It seems to me that the territorial clause allows for that opportunity in light of the recognition that Congress, in matters of foreign policy, should have flexibility and pragmatism. So I don’t 

think it is going to be, we are going to have that end result. That 

sounds more like the interpretation of the President’s Task Force, 

which is a very rigid reading and construction of the Constitution, 

120

which is actually inconsistent with many of the expansive constitutional analyses that we have witnesses in this past century, too. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Mr. Fortun ̃ o, you are recognized 

again for five minutes. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. Thank you again, and certainly I am 

puzzled by Ms. Dı ́az’s interpretation of, number one, how does one 

bill provide for a better educational experience? 

I can’t see how one bill may provide for a better process, legal 

process, political process, educational experience. I really don’t understand it. And certainly I could not agree more with Mr. Flake’s 

statements as to how can this be, the Constitutional Commission 

be less prone to manipulation by politicians? 

What we will be doing—and I will ask the Official Historian of 

Puerto Rico to see when was the last time we had a constitutional 

convention in Puerto Rico, and what happened. But as I see it, we 

will have politicians running for these positions, and they will get 

into a smoke-filled room and decide for us that is a better educational experience, and that is less prone to handling by politicians. 

So I ask Mr. Gonza ́lez Vales, who is the Official Historian of 

Puerto Rico, what happened in the fifties, early fifties, when we 

had a constitutional convention, after we were authorized to have 

one by the master, the U.S. Congress? What happened? Who were 

elected, and what kind of process we had. 

Mr. GONZA ́LEZ VALES. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were selected pretty much on the basis of the political parties then. They were representatives of the two main political parties at that time, which were the PVP and the Partigos Directa 

Republicano, the Republican Party. 

Nevertheless, I think, and you could probably get that from the 

reading of the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, that there 

was a sense, a consensus as to the way that we should go about 

organizing the local government of Puerto Rico. And at the end, 

when the time for voting the proposals that constituted the various 

articles of our commonwealth’s constitution, they reached almost 

unanimity. There were very few, I think, I can’t recall exactly, but 

I don’t think there were more than three abstentions, and possibly 

one vote against the Constitution. 

So that there was consensus among the people there, that even 

though they represented different political views, there was consensus on that particular issue. 

Now, on a constitutional convention today, unless the makeup of 

the constitutional convention is predetermined to ensure that there 

is a balance between the political parties and the other forces in 

the civil society, we stand the fact that we may end up in a deadlock, because the political forces of the island are pretty much even. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And does H.R. 1230 provide for that ‘‘balance’’ between the political parties and the different groups out there, to 

guarantee that we will not experience again what we indeed experienced the last time we had one, which is when we were authorized to draft our local governing rules that we call our Constitution 

at the state level? 

Mr. GONZA ́LEZ VALES. I think as I read it, and if I understood 

it correctly, the project, H.R. 1230, doesn’t spell out how is the conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
121

stitutional convention going to be assembled, and on what basis is 

the representation to that convention be made. So that would be 

something that would have to be very clearly stated in whatever 

project is approved if we want to go that way, the way of a constitutional convention. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. But certainly it is not. I have read the bill. 

Mr. GONZA ́LEZ VALES. That is right. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And as you were saying, that is not what it says. 

Mr. GONZA ́LEZ VALES. That is correct. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. The problem that I have, and this happens all the 

time, is that when we are dealing with commonwealth, it is better 

to have as the least possible information and the least possible details, because it is the best of both worlds. And that is exactly what 

I feel that is the flaw here, that we cannot embark in a process and 

have our people embark in a process, and then not, and telling 

each one what they want to hear. 

People must know what they are going to be voting on. And that 

is why Mr. Serrano and I have filed H.R. 900, so that people know 

up front what to expect. What are they voting for. What are the 

pros and cons. 

There is no perfect world. There are pros and cons in every option. I favor one certainly, but there are pros and cons in every one, 

and people should come in with their eyes wide open, understanding what is it that they are going to be voting on. And that 

is why I favor, and I hope all my colleagues will support, H.R. 900. 

Again, thank you very much. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Fortun ̃ o——

[Laughter.) 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Serrano, do you wish to be recognized for 

five minutes? 

Mr. SERRANO. Yes. Thank you for the Fortun ̃ o thing, but I am 

not running for Governor any time soon. I am trying to figure out 

if I can run for President, but that is another issue. 

Let me just use my time to first of all thank you for holding this 

hearing. This is again a historic moment. I don’t think it is yet another exercise; I really think that there is a will to reach a conclusion on all sides of this issue. And I thank you for that. 

I would also like, I know we are being heard live in Puerto Rico, 

for people in Puerto Rico to understand that my desire to end the 

present status is in no way a disrespectful statement about those 

who have given so much to maintain the present status. I understand the historical significance of it. I understand that at one time 

it served a major purpose. 

But I am a Member of the U.S. Congress, and I have a dual responsibility. One is to wish for the best for my birthplace, and the 

place that, who knows if I may retire there some day, or be taken 

there after all of this is over. And also to do the best job that I can, 

so that the country whose Congress I serve in, where my parents 

are buried, where my children were born, where I grew up, is the 

best country that it can be. 

And my country has held my birthplace, mi patria, for 109 years 

in an improper political position. So perhaps I, more than a lot of 

other people, have the ability not to wear two hats, but to think 

122

with a heart that at times feels divided, not in allegiance, but certainly in fully understanding everything. 

I want this country not to ever be accused again of holding a colony anywhere, especially a colony called Puerto Rico. And I want 

that to end. 

I also think that it would be improper to believe that there 

wouldn’t be political involvement. You can’t have had 109 years of 

involvement with the United States, and then think you are going 

to hold a process to pick a constitutional convention that would not 

have political involvement in it. 

The State Department, much to my dismay, criticized the Constitutional Convention that took place in Venezuela right after 

President Chavez’s victory. They said well, he controlled the convention. Well, of course. The 30-odd party coalition that got him 

elected, with the same fervor elected his delegates, and they 

changed the constitution to deal with the issues of the poor and the 

injustice that Venezuela had been facing. And that was a direct result of that. 

So to suggest that the same parties who for all these years have 

been discussing the status issue would have great influence over 

who gets elected is not facing reality. I doubt that Dona Juan Eron 

Pepe would be elected to this convention. I doubt it. 

You could set some parameters, like we do for the Democratic 

party, when you say from the 16th Congressional District you must 

elect three women and two men, according to what the—you can 

do that. But I assure you, those three women and two men will be 

picked by the parties, because the parties have the resources to 

campaign for them and to get them elected. 

We wish it was another system. I would support that. But we 

don’t have it. 

Then there is my last concern. If a constitutional convention says 

to Congress we want statehood, and it is only a matter of a yes or 

no from Congress, there is no negotiating what statehood is. We already know that. If a constitutional convention says give us free association or give us independence outright, there is no negotiating, 

other than when or shall we grant it, if we decide to be arrogant 

about it and not grant the wish, which is always a possibility. But 

there is no negotiating as to what it is. 

But this new commonwealth, this best of two worlds, is not a 

final statement. It is, I am asking you to consider giving me this 

laundry list of items that I would like for a new covenant. That will 

never happen. That will take years to negotiate. That would leave 

the issue off the table, so we would have gone through that whole 

process only to have something en gavitado because you can’t get 

218 votes to pass it in one House, and 51 votes to pass it in the 

Senate. 

We must come back with clear options. We must offer clear options, and the people of Puerto Rico can come back from clear options. Il mejor de lovo mundo. And this thing about a dream that 

could be a new commonwealth is not practical, does not exist, will 

not resolve the problem. 

If we go that route, then Jose ́ Carlos Serrano, my grandson, and 

my son, Jose ́ Marcos Serrano, the State Senator, will be sitting 

here years from now discussing the issue of Puerto Rico. 

123

Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. I would like to thank 

my colleagues; in particular, my colleague Mr. Fortun ̃ o, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony, and 

the Members for their questions. Members of the Subcommittee 

may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will 

ask you to respond to these in writing. 

The hearing record will be open for 10 days for these responses, 

as well as for testimony, written testimony, from other people in 

Puerto Rico or of Puerto Rico descent who would want to have their 

opinions heard. 

Certainly we are very sensitive, as a person coming from another 

territory, to the issue of not being fully represented or having the 

full rights of the Constitution extended to us. But we are also very 

sensitive to the need for the people of Puerto Rico to freely decide 

what their future political status might be, and we are extremely 

sensitive to that of our veterans who put their lives on the line for 

this country. And so I thank you for your service. And my husband 

was also a Vietnam veteran, and now resides in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he cannot vote, either. So I understand your issue, I 

understand your passion. 

I hope that this hearing has not only been informative to Congress, but that it has also served as part of the educational process 

for the people in Puerto Rico who have been listening. So once 

again, I want to thank our witnesses. And would you like to say 

something? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. If I may, yes. I just want to thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I want to recognize my Ranking Member. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. If I may, I want to thank you for your leadership, 

and commend you for having this hearing today. 

I want to thank Mr. Rahall and Mr. Young, as well. I want to 

thank the staff of the committee really, for the phenomenal job 

they are doing. And if I may, mi mano, Jose ́ Serrano, thank you 

for everything you are doing for tu patria. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. If there is no further business before the Subcommittee, the Chair again thanks the Members of the 

Subcommittee and our witnesses. And the Subcommittee stands 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:36 p.m, the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

* * * * *

(125)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 900, TO PROVIDE FOR A FEDERALLY SANCTIONED 

SELF-DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR THE 

PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO (PUERTO RICO 

DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2007); AND H.R. 1230, 

TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE 

OF PUERTO RICO TO CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION THROUGH WHICH 

THE PEOPLE WOULD EXERCISE THEIR NATURAL RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, 

AND TO ESTABLISH A MECHANISM FOR 

CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF SUCH 

DECISION (PUERTO RICO SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2007). 

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Insular Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:28 p.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Donna M. 

Christensen [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Christensen, Fortun ̃ o, Faleomavaega, 

Grijalva, and Bordallo. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. The legislative hearing by the Subcommittee 

on Insular Affairs will come to order. 

I thank everyone for your patience. There was sort of an emergency meeting called at the White House very late in our planning, 

and my Ranking Member, the Resident Commissioner, will be here 

shortly. 

I ask unanimous consent that Members of the full committee 

wishing to participate in the proceedings of the Subcommittee be 

allowed to sit on the dais. And hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New 

York, Mr. Serrano, the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. 

Vela ́zquez, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Sanchez, the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, the gentleman from IndiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
126

ana, Mr. Burton, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler, the 

gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Sali, and the gentleman from 

Mississippi, Mr. Wicker, be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in the hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Under Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member can make opening statements. If any other Members 

have statements, they can be included in the hearing record under 

unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

The Subcommittee is convened to conduct its second of two legislative hearings on H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. H.R. 900, sponsored 

by Mr. Serrano, will provide for a Federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. HR. 1230, sponsored 

by Ms. Vela ́zquez, will recognize the right of the people of Puerto 

Rico to call a constitutional convention, through which the people 

would exercise their natural right to self-determination, and to establish a mechanism for Congressional consideration of such a decision. 

I want to say at the outset, I am going to recognize myself for 

my opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A 

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And good afternoon, once again. It is a pleasure and honor to welcome all of the Puerto Rican elected and pastelected officials, and all the other political leaders, opinion-makers, 

representatives from the Department of Justice to the House today. 

And it is a special honor and pleasure to welcome the distinguished 

Governor of La Isla del Encanto, The Honorable Anı ́bal AcevedoVila ́, and Mrs. Acevedo-Vila ́. And while all of you are distinguished in your own right, I also 

want to recognize our former colleague, The Honorable Carlos Romero Barcelo ́. We are pleased that the Administration is able to be here this 

afternoon. You are an important part of this process. So welcome, 

Governor. Welcome to everyone. 

The two bills before us take very different paths to a decision on 

the future status of Puerto Rico. One provides for a series of two 

referenda with straight up or down votes, and the other is a constitutional assembly. I have been assiduously reading not only your 

prepared testimonies, but various newspaper articles and editorials 

from Puerto Rico, and they have raised certain questions and concerns. 

For example, the White House Task Force suggested H.R. 900 is 

designed to get a clear outcome. But I am more concerned that the 

people of Puerto Rico have a clear choice, clear in the definitions 

of the options and in the pros and cons of each, so that they can 

decide for themselves which more closely addresses their hopes and 

aspirations for their home, and would make the most positive difference in their lives. For me, that kind of transparency is even 

more important than the process itself. 

I also want to reiterate, because it remains important today, as 

it was two years ago at a hearing and last month, I want to reiterate my concern that this process and the debate has the potential 

to confuse, I think, the satisfaction of the people of Puerto Rico 

127

with the economic, educational, health, safety and other concerns 

with the status question. And while I know many of you who will 

testify today will disagree with me, in my opinion these important 

issues can be resolved under any one of the status options. 

I would even be concerned that these very serious circumstances, 

all of which are longstanding, inherited by this and prior Administrations, and recounted in every newspaper daily because they are 

so predominant in the minds and the lives of the people, that these 

circumstances may even be an impediment to the ability of the people of Puerto Rico to freely, to freely make a status decision. 

At the last hearing, in a few commentaries the question of who 

would be allowed to vote has been raised. It is a question that is 

being debated right now in my own Congressional district, your 

neighbors to the south, the U.S. Virgin Islands, with regard to our 

own Constitution. 

It is my hope that you will also help us understand not only why 

an almost equal number of native Puerto Ricans who have chosen 

to make their lives elsewhere would be able to vote in the referendum, but what you understand to be the position of those who 

live on Puerto Rico now, on this provision. 

It is also an often-recanted complaint that the failure of a status 

decision in Puerto Rico lies with the Congress of the United States. 

I understand very well that unincorporated territories were not intended to live on in that state forever. But given the fact that Congress has long ceded the right to the people of Puerto Rico to decide 

their status, does that failure to successfully change this lie with 

the Congress and the White House, as some may suggest, or with 

the people’s satisfaction with the present political arrangement, if 

not the socioeconomic one? 

The issue of the status of Puerto Rico has always been a very divisive one. But today, given the sense of urgency that the status 

question be decided, I am hopeful that although we are starting 

with two very different bills and two very different processes, that 

we will reach consensus in the end. 

This is slated to be our last hearing, so your testimony today and 

your answers, building on that of the first hearing, is very important to informing and guiding the Subcommittee in its work. So I 

want to thank everyone who is here to testify, and those who are 

here to listen, and the media as well, for taking the time to accommodate the Subcommittee today. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Donna M. Christensen,

Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Insular Affairs 

Good afternoon. 

It is a pleasure and an honor to welcome all of the Puerto Rican elected and past 

elected officials and other political leaders and opinion makers to your House today. 

And it is a special honor and pleasure to welcome the distinguished Governor of La 

Isla de la Encanta—The Honorable Anı ́bal Acevedo Vila ́. And while all of you are 

distinguished I your own right, I want to also recognize our former colleague, The 

Honorable Carlos Romero Barcelo ́. 

We are also pleased that the administration is able to be here. You are an important part of this process. 

Welcome governor. Welcome all! 

The two bills before us take very different paths to a decision on the future status 

of Puerto Rico. One provides for a series of two referenda with straight up or down 

votes, and the other is a constitutional assembly. 

128

I have been assiduously reading not only your prepared testimonies but various 

newspaper articles and editorials from Puerto Rico and they have raised certain 

questions and concerns. 

For example, the White House Task Force suggests that H.R. 900 is designed to 

get a clear outcome. But I am more concerned that the people of Puerto Rico have 

a clear choice. Clear in the definitions of the options and in the pros and cons of 

each so that they can decide for themselves which more closely addresses their 

hopes and aspirations for their home and would make the most positive difference 

in their lives. For me, that kind of transparency is even more important than the 

process itself. 

I also want to reiterate—because it remains as important today as it was 2 years 

ago and last month—my grave concern that this process and debate has the potential to confuse the dissatisfaction of the people of Puerto Rico with the economic, 

educational, health and other concerns with the status question. While I know that 

many of you who will testify here today will disagree with me, in my opinion these 

important issues can be resolved under any status. 

I would even be concerned that these very serious circumstances—of long standing, inherited by this and prior administrations—and recounted in every newspaper 

daily because they are so predominant in their minds and lives, may be an impediment to the ability of the people of Puerto Rico to ‘‘freely’’ make a status decision. 

At the last hearing and in a few commentaries, the question of who should be allowed to vote was raised. It is a question that is being debated right now in my 

own Congressional District—your neighbor—with regard to writing our constitution. 

It is my hope that you will also help us understand not only why an almost much 

equal number of native Puerto Ricans who have chosen to make their lives elsewhere should be able to vote in the referenda, but what you understand to be the 

position of those who live there on this provision. 

It is also an often recanted complaint that the failure of a status decision in Puerto Rico lies with the Congress of the United States. I understand that unincorporated territories were not intended to live on in that state forever. But given the 

fact that Congress has long ceded the right to the people of Puerto Rico to decide 

their status, does the failure to successfully change this lie with the Congress and 

the White House as many suggest, but with the people’s satisfaction with the 

present political arrangement, if not the socio-economic one. 

The issue of the status of Puerto Rico has always been a very divisive one. Given 

the sense of urgency that the status question be decided, I am hopeful that although 

we are starting with two very different bills and processes, we will reach consensus 

in the end. 

This is slated to be our last hearing so your testimony and answers—building on 

that of the first hearing is important to informing and guiding the Subcommittee 

in its work. 

Thank you for making the time to accommodate the subcommittee. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I would like to now thank those individuals 

and organizations specifically who were not able to appear before 

the Subcommittee, but have submitted statements for our hearing 

record. 

If there are no objections, I would like to take this opportunity 

to enter into the record the statements of Philip Arroyo, the New 

Progressive Party Youth; The Honorable Eudaldo Baez Galib of the 

Puerto Rican Senate; Mr. Noel Colon Martı ́nez; Lt. Col. Dennis 

Freytes; Mr. Gregorio Igartua; Ms. Irmgard Pagan, the National 

Federation of Democratic Women, Puerto Rico Chapter; Mr. 

Manuel Rodrı ́guez-Orellana, Puerto Rican Independence Party; Mr. 

Walter Rodrı ́gue; The Honorable Maria de Lourdes SantiagoNegron, Puerto Rican Independence Party Senate Minority Leader; 

The Honorable Victor Garcia San Inocencio, Puerto Rican Independence Party’s House Minority Leader; The Honorable Walter 

Torres-Maldonado, Mayor of Penuelas and President of the Mayors 

Association of Puerto Rico; and The Honorable Luis Vega Ramos of 

the Puerto Rican House of Representatives. 

Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

129

[NOTE: The statements submitted for the record 

referenced above have been retained in the Committee’s 

official files.] 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. OK. When Mr. Fortun ̃ o arrives, we will recognize him at an appropriate time for his opening statement. 

At this time I would like to recognize the first panel. The Honorable Kevin C. Marshall, Co-Chair of the President’s Task Force on 

Puerto Rico’s Political Status, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Marshall to testify for five minutes. The timing lights on the table indicate when your time has 

concluded. And your entire statement will be included for the hearing record. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. C. KEVIN MARSHALL, CO-CHAIR OF 

THE PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE ON PUERTO RICO’S POLITICAL STATUS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you for this opportunity for the Administration to discuss pending legislation concerning the future political 

status of Puerto Rico. 

The work and report of the President’s Task Force on Puerto 

Rico’s Status have contributed to renewed attention to this question recently, including a hearing in April 2006 before the full committee, in which I participated. 

As you mentioned, I am a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in 

the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. As the Attorney 

General’s designee on the task force, I have served as its co-chair. 

Today, I appear because of that work, but also as a representative 

of the Administration. 

President Clinton, in establishing the task force in 2000, made 

it the policy of the Executive Branch to help answer the questions 

that the people of Puerto Rico have asked for years regarding the 

options for the island’s future status and the process of realizing 

an option. The task force was required to consider and develop positions on proposals without preference among the options for the 

Commonwealth’s future status. 

Its recommendations were limited, however, to those options permitted by the Constitution. In establishing the task force, President Clinton also expressly recognized that Puerto Rico’s ultimate 

status has not been determined, and noted the different visions for 

that status within Puerto Rico. Although Puerto Rico held a plebiscite in 1998, none of the proposed status options received a majority. Indeed, none of the above prevailed, because of objection of the 

ballot definition of the commonwealth option. 

Seeking to determine the constitutionally permissible options and 

recommended process for realizing an option, the task force considered all status options objectively, without prejudice. It sought 

input from all interested parties, and met with anyone who requested a meeting. 

The task force issued its report in December 2005, and concluded 

that there were three general options under the Constitution for 

Puerto Rico’s status. 

130

One. Continue its current status as a largely self-governing territory. 

Two. Admit Puerto Rico as a state. 

Three. Make Puerto Rico independent. 

The primary question regarding options was whether the Constitution allows a new commonwealth status that could not be altered without the mutual consent of Puerto Rico and the Federal 

government. Since 1991, the Justice Department has consistently 

held that the Constitution does not. The Task Force report reached 

that conclusion, as well. The report is, of course, not a legal brief, 

but it does outline the reasoning, and it includes as appendices two 

extended analyses by the Clinton Justice Department, one of which 

was sent to the full committee in 2001. 

Puerto Rico may remain in its current status indefinitely, but it 

would remain subject to Congress’s authority under the Constitution to regulate U.S. territories. 

The report provides additional detail on the other two permissible options: statehood and independence. Regarding independence, the report explains that there are several possible ways of 

structuring it, including freely associated status. With regard to 

process, the task force sought to ascertain the will of the people of 

Puerto Rico in a way that, as we put it, provides clear guidance for 

future action by Congress. Keys to providing clear guidance are, 

first, to speak unambiguously about the Constitutional options; and 

second, to structure the process so that popular majorities are likely. 

The task force therefore recommended a two-step process. The 

first is simply to determine whether the people of Puerto Rico wish 

to remain as they are. 

The task force recommended that Congress provided for a Federally sanctioned plebiscite on this question. If the vote is to remain 

as a territory, then the second step would be periodic plebiscites to 

inform Congress of any change in views. If the first vote is to 

change Puerto Rico’s status, than the second step would be another 

plebiscite in which the people would choose between statehood and 

independence. 

Three points about this process merit explanation in connection 

with the two bills that the Subcommittee is considering. First, consistent with the Presidential mandate to the task force, the recommended process does not seek to prejudice the outcome, even 

though it is structured to produce a clear outcome. 

Puerto Ricans have before voted by a majority to remain as a 

commonwealth. They may do so again. But it is critical to be clear 

about what commonwealth status is and may be. H.R. 1230, in referring to a new or modified commonwealth status as among the 

status options that are not subject to the plenary powers of the territorial clause of the Constitution, does not further the necessary 

clarity. 

Second, the process does not preclude action by Puerto Rico itself 

to express its views. H.R. 900, without something like the approach of the task force in allowing the Puerto Rico Elections Commission, until the end of 2009, to hold the first plebiscite. 

Finally, the Administration supports the task force report. The 

report correctly identified the Constitutional options and sets out 

131

a process so Puerto Ricans are heard on the critical question of 

Puerto Rico’s status. The Administration therefore also supports 

legislation consistent with the report, and recognizes that H.R. 900 

sets out a process closely resembling that which the report recommends. 

We will work with Congress to ensure that any process to solicit 

the views of the people of Puerto Rico is transparent, understandable, and fair. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share the views of the Administration. I have submitted my written statement for the record. I 

look forward to taking your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]

Statement of C. Kevin Marshall, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office 

of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice 

Thank you, Madame Chairman and Ranking Member Fortun ̃ o, for inviting the 

Administration to discuss pending legislation concerning the future political status 

of Puerto Rico. The work and report of the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s 

Status have contributed to renewed attention to this question in the last few years, 

including a hearing in April 2006 before the full Committee, in which I participated. 

President Clinton established the Task Force in December 2000, and President 

Bush has continued it through amendments of President Clinton’s Executive Order. 

The Executive Order as amended provides for the Task Force to consist of designees 

of each member of the President’s Cabinet, and the Deputy Assistant to the President and Director for Intergovernmental Affairs. I am a Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. As the Attorney General’s designee on the Task Force, I have served as its Co-Chair. Today I appear 

because of that work but also as a representative of the Administration. 

The status of Puerto Rico, and the options regarding that status, have been issues 

for many years. In 1992, for example, President George H.W. Bush issued a Memorandum that recognized Puerto Rico’s popularly approved Commonwealth structure 

as ‘‘provid[ing] for self-government in respect of internal affairs and administration,’’ 

described Puerto Rico as ‘‘a territory,’’ and directed the Executive Branch to treat 

Puerto Rico as much as legally possible ‘‘as if it were a State.’’ He also called for 

periodically ascertaining ‘‘the will of its people regarding their political status’’ 

through referenda. 

President Clinton, in his order establishing the Task Force, made it the policy of 

the Executive Branch ‘‘to help answer the questions that the people of Puerto Rico 

have asked for years regarding the options for the islands’’ future status and the 

process of realizing an option.’’ He charged the Task Force with seeking to implement that policy. The Task Force was required to ‘‘consider and develop positions 

on proposals, without preference among the options, for the Commonwealth’s future 

status.’’ Its recommendations are limited, however, to options ‘‘that are not incompatible with the Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States.’’

On the same day that he issued his Executive Order, President Clinton also 

issued a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies regarding the Resolution of Puerto Rico’s status. That memorandum added that ‘‘Puerto Rico’s ultimate status has not been determined’’ and noted that the three major 

political parties in Puerto Rico were each ‘‘based on different visions’’ for that status. 

Although Puerto Rico held a plebiscite in 1998, none of the proposed status options 

received a majority. Indeed, ‘‘None of the Above’’ prevailed, because of objection to 

the ballot definition of the commonwealth option. 

Some in Puerto Rico have proposed a ‘‘New Commonwealth’’ status, under which 

Puerto Rico would become an autonomous, non-territorial, non-State entity in permanent union with the United States under a covenant that could not be altered 

without the ‘‘mutual consent’’ of Puerto Rico and the federal Government. In October 2000, a few months before President Clinton established the Task Force, the 

House Committee on Resources held a hearing on a bill (H.R. 4751) incorporating 

a version of the ‘‘New Commonwealth’’ proposal. William Treanor, who held the 

same position in the Office of Legal Counsel that I now hold, testified that this proposal was not constitutional. 

Thus, the Task Force’s duties were to determine the constitutionally permissible 

options for Puerto Rico’s status and to provide recommendations for a process for 

132

realizing an option. We had no duty or authority to take sides among the permissible options. 

The Task Force considered all status options, including the current status and the 

New Commonwealth option, objectively and without prejudice. It also attempted to 

develop a process for Congress to ascertain which of the constitutional options the 

people of Puerto Rico prefer. It sought input from all interested parties, including 

Governor Acevedo-Vila ́. The members met with anyone who requested a meeting. 

I myself had several meetings with representatives of various positions, and also received and benefited from extensive written materials. 

The Task Force issued its report in December 2005 and concluded that there were 

three general options under the Constitution for Puerto Rico’s status: (1) continue 

Puerto Rico’s current status as a largely self-governing territory of the United 

States; (2) admit Puerto Rico as a State, on an equal footing with the existing 50 

States; or (3) make Puerto Rico independent of the United States. 

As indicated in my discussion of the 1998 plebiscite and the origins of the Task 

Force, the primary question regarding options was whether the Constitution currently allows a ‘‘Commonwealth’’ status that could be altered only by ‘‘mutual consent,’’ such that Puerto Rico could block Congress from altering its status. Since 

1991, the Justice Department has, under administrations of both parties, consistently taken the position that the Constitution does not allow such an arrangement. 

The Task Force report reiterates that position, noting that the Justice Department 

conducted a thorough review of the question in connection with the work of the Task 

Force. The report is of course not a legal brief. But it does outline the reasoning, 

and it includes as appendices two extended analyses by the Clinton Justice Department. The second of these is a January 2001 letter to the Senate Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources, a copy of which was sent to the House Committee 

on Resources on the same date. The report also cites additional materials such as 

Mr. Treanor’s testimony and the 1991 testimony of the Attorney General. 

The effect of this legal conclusion is that the ‘‘New Commonwealth’’ option, as the 

Task Force understood it, is not consistent with the Constitution. Any promises that 

the United States might make regarding Puerto Rico’s status as a commonwealth 

would not be binding. Puerto Rico would remain subject to Congress’s authority 

under the Territory Clause of the Constitution ‘‘to dispose of and make all needful 

Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory...belonging to the United States.’’ 

Puerto Rico receives a number of benefits from this status, such as favorable tax 

treatment. And Puerto Rico may remain in its current Commonwealth, or territorial, status indefinitely, but always subject to Congress’s ultimate authority to 

alter the terms of that status, as the Constitution provides that Congress may do 

with any U.S. territory. 

The other two options, which are explained in the report, merit only brief mention 

here. If Puerto Rico were admitted as a State, it would be fully subject to the U.S. 

Constitution, including the Tax Uniformity Clause. Puerto Rico’s favorable tax treatment would generally no longer be allowed. Puerto Rico also would be entitled to 

vote for presidential electors, Senators, and full voting Members of Congress. Puerto 

Rico’s population would determine the size of its congressional delegation. 

As for the third option of independence, there are several possible ways of structuring it, so long as it is made clear that Puerto Rico is no longer under United 

States sovereignty. When the United States made the Philippines independent in 

1946, the two nations entered into a Treaty of General Relations. Congress might 

also provide for a closer relationship along the lines of the ‘‘freely associated states’’ 

of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. The report explains, with a few 

qualifications, that, ‘‘[a]mong the constitutionally available options, freely associated 

status may come closest to providing for the relationship between Puerto Rico and 

the United States that advocates for ‘New Commonwealth’ status appear to desire.’’

With regard to process, the Task Force focused on ascertaining the will of the people of Puerto Rico. In particular, it sought to ascertain that will in a way that, as 

the report puts it, ‘‘provides clear guidance for future action by Congress.’’ The keys 

to providing clear guidance are, first, to speak unambiguously about the options the 

Constitution allows and, second, to structure the process so that popular majorities 

are likely. The inconclusive results of the 1998 plebiscite, as well as an earlier one 

in 1993, did not strike the Task Force as providing much guidance to Congress. 

The Task Force therefore recommended a two-step process. The first step is simply to determine whether the people of Puerto Rico wish to remain as they are. The 

Task Force recommended that Congress provide for a federally sanctioned plebiscite 

in which the choice will be whether to continue territorial status. If the vote is to 

remain as a territory, then the second step, one suggested by the first President 

Bush’s 1992 memorandum, would be to have periodic plebiscites to inform Congress 

of any change in the will of the people. If the first vote is to change Puerto Rico’s 

133

status, then the second step would be for Congress to provide for another plebiscite 

in which the people would choose between statehood and independence, and then 

to begin a transition toward the selected option. Ultimate authority of course remains with Congress. 

Three points about this recommended process merit specific explanation in connection with the two bills the Subcommittee is considering. First, consistent with 

the presidential mandate to the Task Force, its recommended process does not seek 

to prejudice the outcome, even though it is structured to produce a clear outcome. 

At least once before, Puerto Ricans have voted by a majority to retain their current 

Commonwealth status. They may do so again. But it is critical to be clear about 

that status. H.R. 1230, in referring to ‘‘a new or modified Commonwealth status’’ 

as among the status options that are ‘‘not subject to the plenary powers of the territorial clause of the Constitution of the United States,’’ does not further the necessary clarity. 

Second, the Task Force’s recommended process does not preclude action by Puerto 

Rico itself to express its views to Congress. At the first step, the report recommended that Congress provide for the plebiscite ‘‘to occur on a date certain.’’ The 

Task Force did not, of course, specify that date. But if Congress wished to ensure 

that some action occurred but not preclude the people of Puerto Rico from taking 

the initiative, it could allow a sufficient period for local action before that ‘‘date certain.’’ If such action occurred and produced a clear result, there might be no need 

to proceed with the federal plebiscite. H.R. 900 adopts a similar approach in leaving 

the Puerto Rico Elections Commission discretion to set the date of the first plebiscite but requiring that it occur by December 31, 2009. 

Finally, I am authorized to state that the Administration supports the Task Force 

report. The report correctly identifies the limited options available under the U.S. 

Constitution for permanent status and sets out a process so Puerto Ricans are heard 

on the critical question of Puerto Rico’s status. The Administration therefore also 

supports legislation consistent with the report and recognizes that H.R. 900 sets out 

a process closely resembling that which the report recommends. We will work with 

Congress to be sure that any process to solicit the views of the people of Puerto Rico 

is transparent, understandable, and fair. 

The Administration knows well the importance of the status question to the loyal 

citizens of Puerto Rico and to the nation as a whole. We appreciate the Subcommittee’s commitment to this matter and the opportunity to share our views. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Marshall. 

The Chair now recognizes myself for five minutes of questioning. 

I would ask that we could try to keep the answers concise, so that 

we could get as many questions in as possible. And I know you are 

anticipating this one, Mr. Marshall. 

Why did it take 16 months for the Administration to say it supports a task force report? 

Mr. MARSHALL. You may be anticipating the answer, as well, 

which is that the internal deliberations that the Executive Branch 

saw on that question; others are not the sort of thing that I am free 

to disclose. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. OK. Well, now, my second question. You specifically cite in your testimony that H.R. 900 is being consistent 

with the report. Does that mean that the White House would not 

support a Constitutional assembly to decide on the future status? 

Couldn’t that just as easily come up with a Constitutionally compatible option? 

Mr. MARSHALL. The Administration recognized that H.R. 900 is 

similar to the approach the Task Force recommends, but that 

doesn’t mean the Administration isn’t open to other approaches 

that fairly seek out the views of the people of Puerto Rico. 

One requirement I would note, mentioned in my testimony, is 

that alternatives would need to be limited to the Constitutionally 

available options. In addition, it is desirable, as the task force set 

134

out, to have a process that is going to produce some sort of result 

that would provide guidance that Congress might use. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. OK. I would like to talk a little bit about the 

enhanced Commonwealth, the new Commonwealth option, and 

whether or not it is Constitutional or unconstitutional. 

Just taking mutual consent for a moment, if the Commonwealth 

were able to negotiate through a compact or a covenant that Puerto 

Rico would be excluded from certain Federal laws, it would seem 

to me that, given the case of the Northern Marianas, which negotiated a covenant with the United States which exempted them 

from certain Federal laws, that this would be within the realm of 

possibility. So I am asking why is this something that would be 

considered not constitutional, or not possible to be accepted as a 

constitutionally recognized status option? 

I know that is kind of a convoluted way of asking the question. 

Do you understand the question? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I think so. I guess we will find out. I think there 

are two distinct issues there. One is whether Congress could exempt Puerto Rico from some Federal laws, and there the answer 

is yes. In fact, that is already being done. So I don’t think the constitutional question precludes that. 

As to mutual consent provision, the Constitution doesn’t allow 

that for the reasons set out in the task force report. The report 

does discuss the Northern Mariana Islands some, and the short answer is that that compact was entered into at a time when the Executive Branch had a different understanding of the Constitution. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. So maybe in another Administration, an 

agreement could be reached that would be able to include, I mean, 

compacts—I would have to go back and check whether the compact 

or the covenant that the Northern Marianas developed with the 

U.S. Government can be changed by mutual consent. But wouldn’t 

that be possible? 

Mr. MARSHALL. It would be——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. It is negotiated by mutual consent. 

Mr. MARSHALL. It would be possible to have mutual consent, of 

course. The constitutional question is whether a Congress could 

bind itself in future Congresses not to act without mutual consent. 

But certainly, some sort of consent would presumably be desirable 

as a matter of policy. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Let us see. You have been very good at answering the questions concisely. Let us see. 

The task force and several of the other testimonies suggest that 

the Puerto Rican people should seek some permanent status, either 

independence or statehood. Isn’t it possible that at this time the 

people of Puerto Rico are not ready to pursue either independence 

or statehood? 

And the other assertion is that Congress has somehow stood in 

the way of Puerto Rico deciding on a change of status. Do you think 

that we have stood in the way? Have we prevented Puerto Rico 

from choosing a status? Well, answer that one first. 

Mr. MARSHALL. And so that one, rather than the first one? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Go ahead and answer both, if you can. 

135

Mr. MARSHALL. It is certainly possible that the people of Puerto 

Rico would prefer to stay as they are. The report contemplates 

that, and I have discussed it again in my prepared statement. 

In terms of Congress, I wouldn’t begin to impugn the Congress. 

And in addition, as the report notes, and again as in my prepared 

statement, I am not aware of any impediment to Puerto Rico itself 

taking action to express its views to Congress. And the task force 

report actually contemplated that Congress might want to structure any plebiscites in a way to allow time for that to happen. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. My time is up. I would recognize 

Mr. Wicker for five minutes of questions. 

Mr. WICKER. Well, Madame Chair, your questions are so pertinent and excellent that I am tempted simply to yield my five minutes to you. But I will not do that. 

It is frustrating. We are about to have a series of votes which I 

am told may take some 45 to 50 minutes, and I will not be able 

to come back and hear the rest of the testimony. 

Let me just sort of associate myself with the observation of the 

Chair with regard to the possibility—indeed, the strong likelihood—that the people of Puerto Rico do not see the necessity of 

moving toward a permanent status, as defined by the Commission; 

that is, choosing between absolute independence and statehood. 

And so to the extent that the question suggested that, I would 

agree with her. 

If I were to ask every witness that will come before this Subcommittee today, Madame Chair, the level of support in the polling 

for the idea of independence, I suspect the answer would be that 

the level of support is certainly less than 5 percent; maybe 2 percent to 4 percent of the island inhabitants support independence. 

Secretary Marshall, would that be about correct? Did you do polling by the Commission? 

Mr. MARSHALL. We did not do any polling, and I wouldn’t begin 

to speculate on that. 

Mr. WICKER. So you didn’t take testimony to that effect. 

Mr. MARSHALL. No. 

Mr. WICKER. OK, well, that is fine if you don’t know the answer. 

But I think it is fairly clear that there is a very small amount of 

support. 

Let us say it is 5 percent. My problem with the Commission’s 

recommendation is that if you move toward what the Commission 

suggests is a permanent solution, either statehood or independence, 

I think this Congress and the people of Puerto Rico deserve to 

know that there is a broad consensus for that position. And I would 

suggest that there is neither a broad consensus for independence 

nor for statehood among the people of Puerto Rico at this point. 

Always before when we have brought a state into the Union, 

there has been overwhelming support among the people of that territory to come in and be a state. And certainly we know, from the 

polling and from the previous votes, that we do not have such a 

broad consensus at this point. And I don’t think you get there by 

H.R. 900, which is the legislative result of the Commission’s report. 

Essentially, what H.R. 900 does is take two polar opposites, 

statehood on the one hand and independence on the other hand, 

136

and combine them as option A on the ballot. And against those two 

combined options, then a commonwealth would have to compete. 

Although the Commission said that it was attempting to come 

forward without preferences among the options, I think the logical 

consequence of this suggestion would be to pool two polar opposites, 

combine the votes of those, and then achieve a runoff between what 

have always in the past been the number two and number three 

choices among the people of Puerto Rico. 

So I do not see any way that we can get to a consensus, get to 

the sort of overwhelming broad support that we need by this method. And I would also just reject the notion, Madame Chair, that 

somehow commonwealth is some form of suspended animation that 

must be quickly done away with. That having that as a more or 

less permanent option is somehow untenable. Just because someone says it is so doesn’t make it true. 

The people of Puerto Rico probably want a different kind of, some 

sort of enhancements and tweaking of the commonwealth position. 

But I would submit to the Members of this Congress and the Members of this Subcommittee that if you look around the Caribbean, 

the best economy in the Caribbean is on the Island of Puerto Rico. 

And to say that the wheels are off of the situation, and that absolutely we must move to something else, I don’t think leaps from the 

facts. 

So I realize I have made more of a statement than asking a question, but I do appreciate the Chair’s indulgence, and the Subcommittee’s indulgence, Madame Chair. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Wicker. The Resident Commissioner has agreed to allow Ms. Vela ́zquez to take her five minutes’ time of questioning now. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. How sweet that is. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Because we know that you will be busy on the 

Floor for the rest of the afternoon. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you very much, Chairlady, and to my 

great friend and colleague, Mr. Fortun ̃ o. Thank you for allowing me 

to take this opportunity now to question the witness here. I have 

a bill on the Floor, so I will have to excuse myself, and that will 

be good for Mr. Marshall. Because I intended not only to use five 

minutes, but ask for more, since I have so much troublings with 

your testimony. 

Let me start by saying that when you came here last year to talk 

to us about the findings of your report, I questioned the lack of substance of the report in terms of the economic, social, and cultural 

considerations. I even compared it to the massive and responsible 

report, reports that were done in the late sixties and the late 

eighties, and it seemed superficial in both length and analysis. 

Today you come here and you state that the report is not even 

to be considered a legal brief. Mr. Marshall, what is this document? 

If it is not good as a legal brief, if it is not good as a research referral document, it is not even good, adequate to illustrate the historical and cultural reality of Puerto Rico, then what good is it? 

Mr. MARSHALL. The document is written with its audience in 

mind, which is to mean written without jargon, written not at 

great length. We were not paid by the word. And I don’t think it 

was necessary for us to go on at great length. We have laid out the 

137

options clearly, and I think we have hit the major points. There are 

details we haven’t addressed. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you for your answer. The President’s 

Task Force on Puerto Rico Status was comprised of a dozen Executive Branch officials chosen to study the issue of Puerto Rico’s status and prepare a report and recommendations to the President 

and the Congress on the sensitive issues of Puerto Rico’s political 

status. 

How many Puerto Ricans, in such an important issue to the people of Puerto Rico, I ask you, how many Puerto Ricans were part 

of this task force on Puerto Rico? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I am not sure, I didn’t poll the numbers. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I am sorry? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I don’t know. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. The members from your task force, who were 

they? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I don’t know whether any members were from 

Puerto Rico. I don’t think they were, but it is possible. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. And you don’t think that in such an important 

issue on Puerto Rico? 

Mr. MARSHALL. The task force visited Puerto Rico, particularly 

Mr. Barrales. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I am going to deal with Mr. Barrales later. How 

many public hearings did the task force hold in Puerto Rico during 

the five-plus years since it was established? How many? 

Mr. MARSHALL. The co-chairman of the task force went to Puerto 

Rico and had several meetings, including with political leaders in 

Puerto Rico. I don’t know whether those would qualify as——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Public hearings. 

Mr. MARSHALL.—these hearings you are talking about. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Public hearings, public hearings. Not a meeting 

with the Governor of Puerto Rico or a meeting with individual 

elected officials, I am saying public hearings, to listen to the people 

of Puerto Rico. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I am not aware of any, as I indicated last year 

at the hearing. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. How many meetings took place with all, or at 

least a majority, of the task force members present? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I believe that is information concerning the internal workings of the Executive Branch, so I am not free to disclose. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Why is it that it is such a secret? That is the 

problem, you know? That is the problem, sir. You come here, and 

in your testimony you say that we will work with Congress—I am 

Congress here, I am a Member of Congress—to be sure that any 

process to solicit the views of the people of Puerto Rico is transparent, understandable, and fair. And you come in here and say 

that you can’t share how many meetings, because those are Executive Branch privilege? 

Sir, let me ask you another question. How many official visits to 

Puerto Rico did the task force, as a task force, make to Puerto Rico 

in order to get an in-person assessment of the issue the task force 

members were supposed to study and evaluate? 

Mr. MARSHALL. There were at least two. 

138

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. With the members. Who were the members who 

went to Puerto Rico? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Barrales and Mr. Francisco, who is my predecessor. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Barrales has been co-chair of the task force 

from the start, and you became co-chair with him after your predecessor, Noel Francisco of the U.S. Department of Justice, left. Is 

that right? 

Mr. MARSHALL. That is correct. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. It is also well known that he is not testifying before us today, and he recently left the White House. Through all 

these years, Mr. Barrales has been the public face of the task force, 

in terms of trips he took to Puerto Rico, meetings he may have had 

with elected officials and party representatives, interviews, and 

comments to the media. Isn’t that the case? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I am sorry, is what the case? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Isn’t that the case that Mr. Barrales was basically the public face of the task force? That he was the one who 

gave statements and made comments about the task force, either 

here or in Puerto Rico? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Barrales did speak publicly about the work 

of the task force. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. So my question, then, is the following. Are you 

aware—I have my last question, since I am not coming back. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madame Chair, will the Chair——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Are you aware—if you will allow me. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the Chair yield? Will the Chair yield? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. To allow her to finish? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would love to give a portion of my time, 

even though I haven’t yet, to the gentlelady from New York to continue the question. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Are you aware, Mr. Marshall, that Mr. Rube ́n 

Barrales, co-chair of the task force until recently, went to Puerto 

Rico in July 2004, and publicly expressed his support for Puerto 

Rico becoming the 51st state? Were you aware of that? 

Mr. MARSHALL. When I testified to the Senate last November I 

was asked that question, and it was based on a newspaper article. 

And I don’t know whether that newspaper article’s quotation was 

correct. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. So all the papers in Puerto Rico were wrong? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Sometimes papers do get things wrong, and I 

wasn’t going to——

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Well, it happens a lot with——

Mr. MARSHALL.—testify to what that one said. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Yes, mm-hmm. Sir, he went, representing the 

White House, on events in Puerto Rico, and even political events 

in Puerto Rico, and he makes such a statement. 

So you were charged in the Executive Order, signed by the President, to create this task force. They say, and the President clearly 

stated, that they will not interfere with the political dynamics that 

should take place in Puerto Rico. That they will not, the task force, 

be charged to express what political preference regarding any politVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
139

ical status for Puerto Rico. And here you have got your co-chair 

coming to Puerto Rico. 

So do you know how the people of Puerto Rico feel about this 

process? They are cynical. It lacks transparency. And it is totally 

unfair and undemocratic. That is what your task force report 

means for half of the people in Puerto Rico, and for this Member 

of Congress. We should be more serious, and there should be more 

honesty when we are dealing with such an important issue that is 

going to affect 8 million Puerto Ricans. 

And I invite you to revisit your task force, and come to the 

United States and visit the people of Puerto Rican descent, and 

talk to them, since you didn’t do it either here or in Puerto Rico. 

Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Ms. Vela ́zquez. The Chair now 

recognizes the Resident Commissioner, the Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee, Mr. Fortun ̃ o, for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, THE RESIDENT 

COMMISSIONER FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you, Madame Chair. And I ask unanimous 

consent that my full opening statement be introduced into the 

record. Thank you. 

And I apologize, but I was in a meeting with the President. We 

discussed this issue, and I will get into that further in this hearing. 

We have plenty of time. In the meantime, I want to make sure that 

I make some statements. 

Madame Chair, thank you again for calling this hearing. Let me 

begin by welcoming our distinguished witnesses. While some of us 

may differ on what Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United 

States should be, we all agree that the current territorial status 

does not serve Puerto Rico or the United States well. 

Rather than restating my position on the two bills before us 

today, which I have made clear time and again, I will use my time 

to focus on some fundamental truths Congress should bear in 

mind. 

First, Congress has a constitutional and moral responsibility to 

act seriously to resolve this century-old colonial issue. As one 

former Governor of another local party who will testify, or was supposed to testify, today said, it would be, and I quote, ‘‘morally unacceptable, unfair, and harmful to Puerto Rico and the United States 

to simply play with the status issue, because it undermines Puerto 

Rico’s capacity for self-government, inflicts considerable hardship 

on its society, and drains the U.S. Treasury.’’ And I end quote. 

Congress has a responsibility to enable Puerto Rico and its 4 million U.S. citizens to obtain democracy at the national government 

level. As the former Governor also wrote, and I quote again, ‘‘All 

factions do agree on the need to end the present undemocratic arrangement whereby Puerto Rico is subject to the laws of Congress, 

but cannot vote in it.’’ And I end quote. 

The United States took the island, through war, 109 years ago. 

Congress is responsible for the territory status under the Treaty of 

Paris and the Territory Clause of the U.S. Constitution. We Puerto 

Ricans have repeatedly asked Congress to clarify our options. 

140

Presidents have spoken, and one spoke today, and I will get into 

that later. 

It is now time for Congress to act. It is Federal laws and policies 

that are the question in Puerto Rico’s status debate, not questions 

of our local aspirations. Puerto Ricans have already proposed what 

they want. The question is what we can realistically achieve. 

Madame Chair, you asked at the last hearing whether the territory’s economic problems couldn’t be solve without a status change. 

Reports last year by the Brookings Institution and the GAO provide the answer. After decades of closing the income gap with the 

States, it has been widening once again. That is why on average 

3,000 Puerto Ricans are moving to the mainland every month. 

The status issue is not just about democracy for nearly 4 million 

U.S. citizens. It is also about our quality of life. The desperate proposal of the Governor for an impossible non-territory status that is 

neither a nation nor statehood, but combined features of both, is 

aimed at economic opportunity, as well as political power. The 

problem is that statehood is possible, and nationhood is possible; 

but the attempt to have both at the same time is not. 

Our current territory status is failing, with increasingly severe 

consequences. That uncertainty, unpredictability, and inherent regulatory and political instability of territory status prevents Puerto 

Rico’s full potential and contribution to the Nation from being realized. That is why double-digit unemployment and a labor participation rate 50 percent less than the national average persistently 

plague our people. That is why less than half of us are productively 

creating the wealth that supports the more than half who are 

under-employed, unemployed, and frustrated by the lack of work 

opportunity. 

Madame Chair, the present territory status took Puerto Rico as 

far as it could, and is now a serious deterrent, banning us from attaining our aspirations and dreams. A resolution of this matter is 

badly needed now. 

However, the idea that Puerto Rico can hold a convention and 

define the status it wants is a recipe for continued stagnation on 

the issue. After more than half a century of repeated commonwealth proposals rejected in Washington, and three local votes confused and made inconclusive by such proposals, it would only make 

things worse to have a convention intended and gained to ratify yet 

another such proposal by a coalition of minority faction politicians. 

Puerto Rico can be treated like a state, named a commonwealth, 

as four states are and another territory is in English; named a freeassociated state in Spanish, and as 100 other legal, economic, and 

social policies can be applied by Congress and the Courts. But none 

of this changes the status to real nationhood or real democracy or 

real sovereignty or real statehood. 

Puerto Rico remains today a territory. We want every child in 

Puerto Rico to achieve the American Dream: to have the same opportunities their counterparts have in the States. To be able to go 

all the way to the top, and to end up better off in life than if they 

did not get that fair shot, playing by the same rules as every other 

child living under the American flag. 

We know Puerto Rican culture is strong enough to continue and 

strive under statehood, and through nationhood it is possible. But 

141

the steady decline into a failed society because of our unincorporated territory status and a local party’s impossible status ideology make our colonial status destructive and intolerable. 

We all want the people to decide on the solution, but only Congress can make that happen. H.R. 900 is the only feasible way proposed so far for Congress to so empower our people. 

Thank you again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fortun ̃ o follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Luis Fortun ̃ o,

the Resident Commissioner in Congress from Puerto Rico 

Madame Chair, thank you, again, for calling this important hearing. 

Instead of repeating my previous specific comments on the bills, I will focus on 

some fundamental truths Congress should bear in mind as it addresses this issue. 

The first is that Congress has a responsibility to act seriously to resolve this 

issue—and it would be wrong for it to, in the words of a former governor of my territory of another local party who will testify today, ‘‘play with it for a while’’. As he 

wrote, ‘‘It is morally unacceptable, unfair, and harmful to Puerto Rico and the 

United States—Such insensitivity undermines Puerto Rico’s capacity for self-government, inflicts considerable hardship on its society, and drains the U.S. Treasury.’’

Congress’ basic responsibility is to enable Puerto Rico to obtain democracy at the 

national government level—something our country stands for around the world. As 

the former governor also wrote, ‘‘All factions do agree on the need to end the present 

undemocratic arrangement, whereby Puerto Rico is subject to the laws of Congress 

but cannot vote in it.’’

The United States took the islands in war 109 years ago. Congress is responsible 

for the territory’s status under the Treaty of Paris and the Territory Clause of the 

U.S. Constitution. We Puerto Ricans have repeatedly asked Congress to clarify our 

options. Presidents have spoken. It is now time for Congress to act. 

The status issue is not just about democracy for nearly four million U.S. citizens; 

it also is about our quality of life. 

Madame Chair, you asked at the last hearing whether the territory’s economic 

problems couldn’t be solved without a status change. Every leader in Puerto Rico 

knows it can’t be. That was the conclusion of hearings our full committee held 22 

years ago at the request of the former governor that led to the effort to seek federal 

status choice legislation he initiated 18 years ago. 

It is federal laws and policies that are the question in Puerto Rico’s status debate, 

not questions of our local aspirations. Puerto Ricans have already proposed what 

they want. The question is what we can realistically achieve. 

We all know that the current regime stopped working for us long ago—two or 

three decades ago as indicated by reports issued last year by the Brookings Institution and the GAO in fact, after decades of closing the income gap with the States, 

it has been widening. That is why 3,000 Puerto Ricans are moving to the mainland 

monthly. Economic need is the primary reason that there are now more people of 

Puerto Rican origin in the States than in the island. 

And that is why our current governor wants his impossible ‘‘Development of the 

Commonwealth.’’ It’s not just political power, for power’s sake. Yes, he wants to 

make Puerto Rico’s situation democratic by being able to enter into foreign agreements and nullify federal law and court jurisdiction. But he also wants the power 

to enter into foreign agreements to establish a different trade situation for Puerto 

Rico than for the fifty States. And there would be economic benefit from that. The 

problem is that he wants the benefits of being American at the same time, for example access as a State to the U.S. market. There are constitutional problems with 

this—a U.S. area conducting its own foreign policy—as well as policy problems—it 

would create a giant loophole in U.S. trade barriers. 

He wants the power to determine the application of federal laws to, for example, 

exempt Puerto Rico from the application of the laws requiring the use of Americancrewed, built, and owned vessels for cargo between U.S. ports. And that would be 

economically beneficial ‘‘but the federal government is not going to grant it under 

a U.S. status. It will only happen if Puerto Rico becomes a sovereign nation. 

Here the problem is not constitutional, but practical. Puerto Rico is too big and 

represents too much U.S. vessel shipping for an exemption. You know, Madame 

Chair, the challenges to the exemption for your much smaller territory that dates 

to early in the last century. Our colleague from Guam knows how impossible it has 

been for Guam, which is also much smaller than Puerto Rico and is even much more 

142

distant from the States, to get an exemption despite tens of millions of dollars of 

lobbying and decades of effort. 

And a main reason is the size of Puerto Rico. 

You spoke, Madame Chair, about the precedents that Puerto Rico sets for the 

other territories. The main precedents are that the size and potential economic impact of Puerto Rico prevents exemptions and equality for the much smaller territories. 

The truth is Puerto Rico needs to become a State or a nation to substantially improve its economic situation. Both courses offer advantages and opportunities we 

cannot access now. 

So some leaders want nationhood, whether independent from the U.S. or in a free 

association with it. Others of us want the equality of statehood within this greatest 

of nations. The Governor and his bill want a ‘‘best of both worlds’’ that has never 

been accepted by the federal government and never will be and that would continue 

to consign us to this limbo status of not only a lack of democracy but further economic deterioration and social despair. 

Our current territory status is failing with increasingly severe consequences. The 

uncertainty, unpredictability and inherent regulatory and political instability of territory status prevent Puerto Rico’s full potential—and contribution to the nation—

from being realized. 

That is why double-digit unemployment and a labor participation rate 50% less 

than the national average persistently plagues our people. That is why less than 

half the residents of Puerto Rico are productively creating the wealth that sustains 

and supports more than half the population that is under-employed, unemployed, 

and frustrated by the lack of opportunity. Madame Chair, the present territory status took Puerto Rico as far as it could, and is now a serious deterrent banning us 

from attaining our aspirations and dreams. A resolution of this matter is badly 

needed now. 

These are not aliens or immigrants, this is not a debate about letting them in or 

giving them amnesty or guest worker status. These are our fellow Americans, fourth 

generation U.S. citizens, living under the American flag within the same national 

borders as the rest of the United States, just like Americans in the non-contiguous 

states of Hawaii and Alaska. Many of them are veterans who served in mortal combat alongside the constituents of my colleagues on the Subcommittee, from every 

State in the Union. Unlike Americans from States, my constituents come home to 

an economy that is chronically underperforming, in an American colony where they 

do not even have a right to vote in federal elections or voting representation in Congress. 

However, the idea that Puerto Rico can hold a convention and define the status 

it wants is a recipe for continued stagnation on the issue. After more than half a 

century of repeated ‘‘commonwealth’’ proposals rejected in Washington and three 

local votes confused and made inconclusive by such proposals, it would only make 

things worse to have a convention intended to ratify a proposal such as the alreadyreject ‘‘Development of the Commonwealth’’ by a coalition of minority faction politicians. 

The notion that such a strategy can force the federal government to subvert its 

objections to the ‘‘self-determination will’’ of Puerto Ricans is folly, if not deception. 

The example of Guam, where the ‘‘commonwealth’’ proposal was more moderate and 

where the stakes were much smaller for the U.S., demonstrated this. 

Before concluding, let me say I have read the so-called legal analyses that have 

been submitted in House and Senate hearings on Puerto Rico over the last year. 

The submissions by local party leaders and their lawyers claim——

• Statutory territorial status policy can be made permanent, and somehow morph 

into a non-territory status. 

• Statutory status policy can be placed beyond the reach of Congress by borrowing irrelevant precedents from federal contract and property law. 

• Puerto Rico is already in free association with the U.S.—as the Governor astoundingly suggested to the Senate committee a few months ago. 

Enough is enough. What does it take to end this absurd debate—other than clarification from Congress? Just this year, in the Guantanomo detainee cases, the federal courts have ruled yet again that Puerto Rico is subject to federal powers under 

the Territory Clause. 

We all know Puerto Rico can be treated ‘‘like a State’’, named the ‘‘Commonwealth’’—as are four States and another territory—in English, named a ‘‘free associated state’’ in Spanish, and a hundred other legal, economic, social policies can be 

applied by Congress and the courts, but none of this changes the status to real nationhood or real democracy, or real sovereignty, or real statehood, because Puerto 

Rico remains a territory. 

143

I will conclude today by telling my colleagues what I believe all Puerto Ricans 

really want. We want our children to grow up without being obsessed by an esoteric 

debate about our identity and status under the supreme law of the nation in which 

we live. 

We want every child in Puerto Rico to achieve the American dream, to have the 

same opportunities that their counterparts have in the states, to be able to go all 

the way to the top, and even if they fall short of their biggest dream, end up having 

more of that dream come true, and end up better off in life, than if they did not 

get that fair shot, playing by the same rules as every other child living under the 

American flag. 

We want to know that no child in Puerto Rico missed out on a shot at the American Dream because the political status of Puerto Rico was not resolved. 

We want our economy to thrive not stagnate, so that the God-given creativity of 

our people can find expression in productive participation in our society. 

We do not want to bequeath an under-developed and under-performing economy 

and a political, cultural, social identity crisis to our children and grandchildren. 

We believe Puerto Rican culture and heritage is strong enough to survive a transition to statehood or separate sovereign nationhood, but not the slow, twilight decline 

into a failed society that now threatens us under the federal government’s unincorporated territory status doctrine, and local party doctrines that attempt but fail to 

make this colonial status tolerable. 

We all want the people to decide on the solution, but only Congress can make that 

happen. H.R. 900 is the only feasible way proposed so far for Congress to so empower our people. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Fortun ̃ o. I now recognize Mr. 

Faleomavaega for five minutes of questions. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentlelady, the Chairwoman of 

this Subcommittee. And in fairness to the process, I noted that I 

actually had one minute left, after giving four minutes of my time 

previously to Ms. Vela ́zquez. But I do thank the gentlelady, and I 

sincerely hope that our Ranking Member will accept that slight 

change of period of time for me to ask questions. Is that all right? 

I just want to be fair to the process. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much. Madame Chairwoman, this is the second phase now in the process that we have 

conducted these hearings, and I do want to thank my colleague and 

dear friend, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, Mr. 

Fortun ̃ o, for his eloquent statement, the positions that he has 

taken, and certainly he has my utmost respect for his deep understanding of the politics in the situation developing in Puerto Rico. 

I do want to say that we have in our presence former colleagues 

and Members of this committee and Members of Congress, the 

former Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, The Honorable 

Anı ́bal Vila ́, my dear friend who is now the duly elected Governor 

of Puerto Rico, and also my good friend, the former Governor, as 

well as Resident Commissioner, of Puerto Rico, who I see there, 

and that is Mr. Carlos Romero, who is also here with us. Certainly 

we also note the presence of our former Governor of Puerto Rico, 

Mr. Rossello ́, and other distinguished dignitaries coming from 

Puerto Rico. 

Madame Chairwoman, I probably consider myself as a deputy expert or whatever for 18 years now that I have been a Member of 

this committee, and I consider myself a semi-expert about Puerto 

Rico by this time, with all the hearings, the committee meetings, 

and so much that we have undertaken in trying to resolve the 

144

problem and trying to resolve the issue of what is best for the people and for the leaders of Puerto Rico. 

Mr. Marshall, I have listened closely to your testimony. And, as 

you may have noted, Ms. Vela ́zquez has asked you some initial 

questions about how the task force came about, and the recommendations the task force has made. 

In order to give any sense of credibility to any task force report 

or recommendations, I cite the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq 

Study Group as examples of commissions or task forces, however 

you want to call it. And as you may have noted, a lot of credibility 

is given to the substance and recommendations of the Iraq Study 

Group because they were composed of both Democrats and Republican leaders, especially the national caliber of former Secretary of 

State Jim Baker. Former Congressman Lee Hamilton has the utmost respect of our colleagues here in the Congress. 

My point here is that recommendations offered by the Iraq Study 

Group was unanimously accepted, and it was made because it had 

the substance of clear expert advice from the best on both sides of 

the aisle, so to speak. 

Now, as I listen to your testimony and the position that the Administration and the White House has given, that your task force 

supports H.R. 900. And I just wanted to share with you my concern to the effect that if there is anything that it is my sincere hope 

that this committee, as well as the Congress, would hope to achieve 

is that we have to provide a process unfettered by any leanings or 

any tiltings, if you will, so that the process is truly democratic in 

scope; so that the people of Puerto Rico truly are given that choice 

free, and without any encumbrances to suggesting that I am for 

statehood, I am for commonwealth, or I am for independence. 

And I just wanted to ask you, in the process of selecting the 

members of this task force, was there any consideration given to 

asking maybe people from another political persuasion to be members of this task force? How were the members of the commission 

or the task force selected? 

Mr. MARSHALL. The composition of the task force is set out in the 

Executive Order that President Clinton established, and then it 

was not substantially changed on this point by President Bush 

when he continued the task force. And the way it is created is each 

cabinet head designates one member for the task force. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And I think Ms. Vela ́zquez asked previously, were there any hearings held, public hearings held in 

Puerto Rico concerning the activities of this task force? 

Mr. MARSHALL. With the understanding that Ms. Vela ́zquez 

seems to have for that term, the answer would be no. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So the task force just met among themselves, and deliberated on the legal aspects, everything that relates 

to the status of Puerto Rico? Is this how you conducted your hearings or meetings? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Members of the task force went to Puerto Rico. 

And when they were down there, my understanding is they primarily met with political leaders there, and this was covered in the 

press. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So there were no public hearings held or 

anything. 

145

Mr. MARSHALL. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And of the members, how many members in 

the task force again? For the record. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, for the record——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You are co-chair of the task force. Was it 20 

members? Thirty? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, I would say about 12. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Twelve members of the task force. 

Mr. MARSHALL. The front of the task force report lists all the 

members. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would you say that all the members are 

from the Republican-oriented Administration? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I don’t know. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Well, I mean, you are co-chair. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I had no hand in selecting the members of the 

task force. I was selected by the Attorney General. I don’t know 

how other cabinet heads went about selecting their members. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So when you say other cabinet heads, meaning this Administration. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. For the recommendation? 

Mr. MARSHALL. An approach under President Clinton to the Executive Order, President Bush followed the procedure that President Clinton set up for composing the task force. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My last question. I am just trying to, let us 

see if I can make the question better. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Please make it brief, because you have already exceeded your time. Quickly. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The members of the task force, they are all 

members of the Administration, were they not? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Fortun ̃ o for questions. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. First of all, just to clarify one matter 

brought up by my colleague from Mississippi, majority rule and not 

consensus is the standard in self-determination. And actually, 

there are a number of examples in the case of Wisconsin. In the 

beginning there was only 25 percent, 30 percent in favor of statehood. Once Congress clarified the options for the voters, that number went up significantly. That is exactly what this Administration 

is trying to do. The same thing happened to Washington State, and 

there are many other examples. 

However, I want to say something before I ask any questions, 

Madame Chairwoman. I must recognize for the record that it 

makes a material contribution to the deliberations of this body and 

the record upon which Congress must act in this matter when the 

Administration participates in our hearings, as it has today. To 

some, this is not perceived to be arrogant in the short term, because there are many other issues. But I truly believe that the 

manner in which our nation addresses the issues of Puerto Rico’s 

status will have a much greater impact on the future of our nation 

than many other issues that we are taking care of today. 

146

What is at stake here is whether the years ahead, we have a 

free, democratic, and prosperous Puerto Rico that can pay its own 

way, or a dependent colonial state which people must leave if they 

want a better life, if they still can under whatever positions prevail. 

Today’s Administration witness, I want to thank him for being 

available, and for being forthcoming on this legislation on behalf of 

the Administration. We all know that there were many powerful 

forces and pressures to stop the progress and impede a solution on 

this issue, because there is always someone with a vested interest 

in the status quo no matter how many people, or if the Nation 

itself, would be better served by a real solution. 

And as I told the President today, the Administration should 

make no apologies whatsoever to anyone for standing up by a task 

force report and supporting legislation consistent with the findings 

and recommendations adopted by the departments and agencies of 

the Administration responsible for Puerto Rico affairs. 

Full engagement in this debate, based on the principles confirmed in this report, is the only way to align the Administration 

with a policy of full, informed, honest, and legitimate democratic 

self-determination. That is what is best for Puerto Rico and America. So I thank the Administration for coming today and doing 

what is right for the nation, and what is right for Puerto Rico. 

I want to ask you, first of all, in order to be here on behalf of 

the Administration, there was a process that you had to go 

through, is that right? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And your statements had to be cleared probably 

with OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, and the office, 

the White House? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Our testimony is cleared through the White 

House. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. OK. So when you come here, and you talk, and 

you speak on behalf of the Administration, you are fully authorized 

to do that on this issue. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Everything I have said in my statement is fully 

authorized, yes. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And what you said today is the official position of 

the Bush Administration? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Can there be a commonwealth status that is not 

subject to Federal territory clause powers? Is there such a thing as 

a commonwealth as described by H.R. 1230, a supersized commonwealth, or enhanced commonwealth, as they are trying to portray? 

Mr. MARSHALL. No. I should qualify that. The task force report 

does say that Congress has flexibility in determining what exactly 

commonwealth status means, and what powers of self-government 

Puerto Rico has. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. But can that bind future Congresses? 

Mr. MARSHALL. No. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And is that permanent in nature? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Congress’s power is permanent, under the territorial clause. 

147

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. No, but the status, that supersized or enhanced 

commonwealth, is that permanent in nature? 

Mr. MARSHALL. No. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Congress could take away whatever it gives. The 

next Congress could do that any time, unilaterally. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, it could. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And is it your position, and the Administration’s 

position certainly, that this supersized or enhanced commonwealth 

proposal cannot be a status option, to solve this once and for all, 

for constitutional and other reasons? Is that what you have said 

today? 

Mr. MARSHALL. It is the Administration’s position that a commonwealth provision, including a mutual consent clause, would not 

be constitutional. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. And what happens, then, if a convention, constitutional convention in Puerto Rico says that yes, that supersized or 

enhanced commonwealth is what we want? Does that solve the 

problem? Does that provide for a permanent status for Puerto Rico 

that is non-territorial in nature? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I guess the precise answer would be that that 

convention would think of itself as so providing, but that wouldn’t 

be lawful under the Constitution. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. So would it be misleading to Puerto Ricans to 

enact legislation, including a status proposal, that the Federal government cannot, and will not, implement? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I wouldn’t want to impugn motives, but it would 

be unclear. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. At the very least, certainly. So essentially what 

you are telling me, and I assume you are—and actually, you must 

be, because I certainly read your statement this morning, and I certainly have read several times the task force report and the recommendations. 

So essentially, you went over what these supersized or enhanced 

commonwealth proposals are. And when you state, very clearly in 

your report, that actually that is not doable, that those options are 

not encompassed under the U.S. Constitution, I assume that you 

looked back at what the Justice Department has stated, under at 

least three consecutive Administrations—Bush 41, Clinton, and 

Bush 43—and that you certainly looked back at that. And that you 

still stand by that, by what you stated in the report, regarding that 

enhanced or supersized commonwealth status option. 

Mr. MARSHALL. On the constitutional question, we did look at the 

views of the Clinton Administration and the first Bush Administration; considered the matter further for ourselves; stand by it. The 

task force report also does recognize that the Justice Department 

had a different view dating from the 1960s. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Of the two bills that are before the Subcommittee, 

is there one bill that is actually closer resembles the recommendations that actually presents to the Puerto Rican voters clear options 

that are doable under the U.S. Constitution? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I believe closely resembles would be an accurate 

description of H.R. 900. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you very much. I guess we will have another round. Thank you. 

148

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Fortun ̃ o. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Bordallo for five minutes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Madame Chairman, and thank you 

for calling this hearing. We have been hearing about a status issue 

for Puerto Rico for many, many years. 

I represent the Territory of Guam, Mr. Marshall, and we have 

gone through a similar process. And believe it or not, we still do 

not have our future status. The bill came before Congress for over 

10 years; we spent millions of dollars, and we just couldn’t agree 

here in the U.S. Congress. 

Now, just for clarification, and I think some of the Members have 

already answered this, but I wanted to go on record very clearly. 

Does the report of the task force represent the Administration’s official position? And I think Mr. Fortun ̃ o asked you that. 

Mr. MARSHALL. It does, now. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Was this report vetted through the OMB process? 

Mr. MARSHALL. This report? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. 

Mr. MARSHALL. The report was prepared by the task force on its 

own. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Did it go through the OMB? Did they look at it? 

Was there somebody representing OMB on the task force? 

Mr. MARSHALL. No. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Did it receive unanimous approval of the task 

force members? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What is the Administration’s position on both 

bills? And I think you did answer that earlier. H.R. 900, you said, 

was that compatible to their views? 

Mr. MARSHALL. What I said is that the Administration supports 

legislation on this question, and believes that the task force report 

is a good place to start. And recognizes that H.R. 900 is very similar to what the task force——

Ms. BORDALLO. Closely resembles their views, all right. 

Mr. MARSHALL. And I would just add, and then on H.R. 1230, it 

takes the view of the Constitution with which we disagree. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Are there any particular aspects of the task force 

report or recommendations which were cause for serious deliberation, or which are the product of consensus? 

Mr. MARSHALL. All of the task force report is the product of consensus, because all members of the task force agreed with the final 

report. 

Ms. BORDALLO. If so, in other words, were these conclusions easily reached? Or did they take some compromise? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I don’t think I am free to get into that question 

in terms of deliberations. I will just say it is evident from the timeframe that we did take a while to reach the final report. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So what you are saying to the committee, then, 

is many aspects of the task force are not public? Is that——

Mr. MARSHALL. The final product is a public document. The deliberations that went into getting into it, to developing that final 

report, are not. Or at least I don’t have the authority to make them 

public. 

149

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Marshall, did the task force consider an enhanced commonwealth as an option for the plebiscite? 

Mr. MARSHALL. The task force considered enhanced commonwealth as an option generally, concluded that it wasn’t allowed 

under the Constitution, and therefore, did not include it in the recommended plebiscites. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Can you tell us what the deliberations of the task 

force were with respect to this option? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Again, I am not authorized to get into that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. My comment before closing here is, I can’t imagine a task force without representatives from Puerto Rico, the people of Puerto Rico. I just can’t imagine that. I mean, certainly this 

is going to be a status or an option that will be with the people 

for the entire future, and they don’t have any voice in this? You 

just took representatives from different Federal agencies, and put 

them together, and this was the task force to consider the status 

or to recommend what type of status for the Puerto Rico people? 

Is this what you are saying? 

Mr. MARSHALL. As I indicated in response to the prior question, 

the composition of the task force was determined by an Executive 

Order set up by President Clinton. And I would refer you to him 

for more details on why it was created that way. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, thank you, Mr. Marshall. I don’t think I am 

going to go up to the former President and ask him. In your own 

personal opinion, do you think this is fair? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I stand by the task force report, and think it is 

a good product. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I didn’t ask that question. I said do you think 

this is fair, without any representative, direct representation from 

the people of Puerto Rico on the task force? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Sorry to be picky, but could you explain what you 

mean by this? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. Well, I said, do you feel personally. I mean, 

if they were to consider your future, wouldn’t you think that your 

state or your territory would be represented in a task force that is 

going to discuss the future status? 

Mr. MARSHALL. It would depend on the purpose of the task force. 

The purpose of the task force set out by President Clinton, continued by President Bush, was to be an internal Executive Branch advisory body to give a recommendation to the President. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So you feel it was fair. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Given that purpose, I believe it was fair. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. I will now recognize 

myself for some questions in a second round. 

I want to ask you a question about something that gives me a 

great deal of concern. The task force stated that Congress can cede 

a territory to another nation. Now, you can understand why I 

would be concerned about that, right? If it so desired. To me, that 

is a pre-Civil War view of territories as property that really 

shouldn’t have any place in this century. 

Do you think it is credible for a task force of this nature, coming 

out of the White House, to suggest that our Courts would allow 

150

Congress to cede territory where U.S. citizens reside without their 

saying so? Or agreeing to it? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, in this area in particular, Madame Chairman, there is probably a large gap between what the law would 

technically allow, and what would be desirable. I have addressed 

this in some questions for the record I have answered in response 

to the prior hearings. 

The fact of the matter is that under the Territorial Clause, Congress has powers to dispose of its territories, which would include 

relinquishing them. It does not at all argue that that would be a 

good thing, nor does it appear to be something that is likely to happen without the territory being consulted. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I am not a lawyer, and my father, who was 

one, always reminded me of that. But in the same vein, you said 

the law can technically provide, but that doesn’t mean it is allowable. Wouldn’t that also apply to the Congress changing a status 

that was decided by the people of the territory? Because we keep 

coming back to if the people of Puerto Rico decided to stay a commonwealth, Congress can change it. Wouldn’t that same principle 

that you just stated to me apply there? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I take it you mean the principle that it is desirable not to make changes in the way people are governed without 

consulting them. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. The law may provide, we are provided 

with the authority to do so, but it is not likely to happen. That is 

basically how you answered Ms. Bordallo in her question. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I can’t remember the precise phrasing of your 

question, but I think it is certainly the Administration’s view—and 

the President has said this before—that any change in Puerto 

Rico’s status, which would include changing the details of the commonwealth within the limits of the Constitution should ultimately 

be up to the people of Puerto Rico. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. The question really was, even 

though Congress has the authority, the President in likelihood 

would not suggest that they would step in and change something 

that the people of Puerto Rico decided arbitrarily, without consulting the people of Puerto Rico. OK. 

Mr. MARSHALL. OK. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. You also said something to the effect, and I 

know I may not be quoting you exactly, that the new commonwealth—in the response to that answer, no, there is nothing like 

the new commonwealth as proposed that exists now, or you may 

have even said likely to exist. But I think you said at least that 

it doesn’t exist now. 

Now, no less a legal scholar than Felix Frankfurter once stated 

that in deciding the form of the relationship between the United 

States and its unincorporated territories, the Constitution has left 

the field wide open to inventive statesmanship that can help evolve 

new kinds of relationship, so as to combine the advantages of local 

self-government with those of a confederated union. 

Why should Congress pay more attention to the drafters of this 

report than exercising that that inventive statesmanship defines 

solutions to relationships that were not contemplated at the time 

of the Constitution? Do you disagree with Justice Frankfurter? 

151

Mr. MARSHALL. The Administration is all for inventiveness, as I 

indicated in stating the Administration’s view on this question. But 

it needs to be done within the limits that the Constitution sets. All 

powers under the Constitution have limits. And I believe we have 

presented a good argument, as before as to the Clinton Administration, for where those limits are in this area. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. OK. The report also recommends a two-step 

process that would put the votes for the two extreme options of 

statehood and independence competing together against the votes 

for commonwealth. If this combined vote of statehood and independence defeats commonwealth, we would then have a runoff between statehood and independence. 

How can that be fair, to have a process that excludes the option 

that most of the people, that has the most support in Puerto Rico, 

by having two other options gang up against that option? Why not 

have an independence yes-or-no vote, or a statehood yes-or-no vote? 

And I have other things that I would suggest maybe in asking the 

question. 

Mr. MARSHALL. There may well be other ways to structure this. 

The constraints that the task force looked to were first the limits 

of the Constitution, but also taking into account the inconclusive 

results of prior votes; trying to create a structure that would 

produce clear results that would provide some sort of guidance that 

Congress could use in enacting or not. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. What would be a clear result, to you? 

Mr. MARSHALL. A majority vote in favor of an outcome. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Does a 50 percent plus one, voting for one status or another? I mean, what is a clear——

Mr. MARSHALL. That would be clear. Whether it would be sufficient as a policy matter to justify Congress in taking some action 

I can’t speak to. There was earlier reference to consensus, and 

prior admission of states. And it would certainly be prudent to consult that before acting based on a vote of 50-plus-one. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. And I recognize Mr. Fortun ̃ o for 

further questions. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. I ask the question, does H.R. 900 include all the real status options which have been discussed in the 

context of Puerto Rico? That is, continuing the current territory 

status, independence, nationhood and free association with the 

U.S., and U.S. statehood. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I believe so. I am hesitating on whether free association is separately in there as a flavor of independence. I think 

so. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. But it is included there. So would you say that 

H.R. 900 states clearly to the voters of Puerto Rico what the real 

options are, under the U.S. Constitution? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. The Governor has proposed an enhanced commonwealth, or supersized commonwealth, under which the United 

States would be permanently bound to Puerto Rico, a Puerto Rico 

that could enter into international agreements, honorary sanctions, 

and that states that it cannot—sorry—it would be bound to granting a substitute to the insular government additional to what is 

presently granted. It would be replacing, repealing incentives for 

152

U.S. investments, and continue to grant free entry to the U.S. market of any goods shipped from Puerto Rico. All current assistance 

programs would, actually will continue, and U.S. citizenship will 

continue to apply. 

Is all that possible under a non-territorial enhanced commonwealth status? Is that doable under the U.S. Constitution? 

Mr. MARSHALL. It may be that some of those possibilities are allowed through Congress’s power under the Territorial Clause, and 

I wouldn’t want to guess on that right now. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. But can’t they be taken away by a future Congress? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. So it would not be permanent. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Correct. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Actually, in addition to that, they have proposed 

that Puerto Rico would have veto power over Federal legislation, 

and would be able to curtail Federal court jurisdiction. Is that 

something that is doable and permanent in a new enhanced commonwealth, under the U.S. Constitution? If it is going to be permanent? 

Mr. MARSHALL. It is not something that could be made permanent, assuming that it could be done. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Is it still your position, and the position of the Administration, that this supersized or enhanced commonwealth proposal cannot be a status option, for constitutional and other reasons, if we want to solve this once and for all? To make it permanent? 

Mr. MARSHALL. It is still the Administration’s position that a 

commonwealth provision with a mutual consent clause would not 

be constitutional. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Having a Puerto Rican convention, would that 

change your opinion? 

Mr. MARSHALL. No. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. How do you respond to the constitutional flaws of 

H.R. 1230, as outlined in the testimony that actually Ken Thomas 

from the Congressional Research Service stated in our last hearing 

here on March 22? Have you read that statement? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I have not. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. You have not? OK. Could you provide to us, to the 

committee, an answer to, once you have analyzed and studied that 

statement, if there are any responses on your behalf regarding the 

constitutional flaws that were underlined and underscored by Ken 

Thomas? 

Mr. MARSHALL. We will look at Mr. Thomas’s statement. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Can we make sure that the full committee receives that? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Without objection. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. OK, thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Marshall, in Governor Acevedo’s statement of today, he cites 

Professor Aleinikoff. And he states a number of things about how 

sovereignty can be actually enhanced or develop into something 

that you have already stated that at least the position of the Administration is that it cannot. Can you enlighten us, and answer 

whether the Administration, does the Administration, including the 

153

Department of Justice and State, agree with the Governor and the 

professor, that Puerto Rico should have its own foreign policy and 

legal capacity to enter treaties, and lead to obligations of laws and 

treaties as to the U.S.? Treaties that the U.S. enters into, under 

an enhanced commonwealth status, would you be able to actually 

enlighten us with that? 

And if you need more time, could you submit in writing to this 

committee the Administration’s position on this? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I am sorry, can I unpack that question a little 

bit? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Sure. The idea really is for you to put this in writing, to be very honest. But certainly, if you were to read Governor 

Acevedo’s statement of today, he is stating that indeed, Puerto Rico 

could enter into foreign treaties. And, under that theory, that this 

professor states, citing a 19th century concept of sovereignty. And 

I would like for you to look at Governor Acevedo’s statement of 

today, and provide us with your reaction and the Administration’s 

reaction to those statements, as to whether Puerto Rico could enter 

into this international treaties under an enhanced commonwealth 

status, as he is suggesting that we can enter into. And actually 

suggesting, as well, that that could be a permanent solution to our 

status problem. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I am happy to entertain questions for the record, 

which I assumed I would be receiving. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Exactly, as well. I know my time is up. Certainly 

with those two requests, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Faleomavaega for five minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madame Chair. And I appreciate Mr. Marshall’s patience. 

Mr. Marshall, not wanting to put any words in your mouth, but 

also to take it out of context, but I would like to, if you could restate, if I heard it correctly, you did say that commonwealth status 

is not constitutional? 

Mr. MARSHALL. What is often referred to as enhanced or new 

commonwealth status——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No, no, no. The current commonwealth status of Puerto Rico. Did I hear it correctly, you saying that it is not 

constitutional? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I did not say that. The current status is constitutional. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you state that again? Let me ask the 

question again. 

Mr. MARSHALL. The current commonwealth status is constitutional. It is also subject to revision by Congress. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK. Well, as I noted here clearly, you did 

say, verbatim, commonwealth is not constitutional. that is why I 

am trying to ask you to follow up on this. If this is what you——

Mr. MARSHALL. If I said that, I misspoke. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK. So you didn’t mean that. Because my 

next question was, if commonwealth is not constitutional, why 

hasn’t the Department of Justice issued an opinion clearly saying 

that commonwealth status is not constitutional. But you say that 

that is not the case. 

154

Mr. MARSHALL. No. I may have misspoken. I refer you to the report, which may be clearer on that. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What is your understanding of a territory 

being an unincorporated territory? 

Mr. MARSHALL. That generally means a territory that isn’t on the 

road to statehood. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. A territory on the road to statehood? An unincorporated territory? 

Mr. MARSHALL. That is the meaning that the Supreme Court developed after the Spanish-American War. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I beg to differ with you, Mr. Marshall. My 

understanding is that a territory that has an unincorporated status, it means that it will never see the day of ever becoming a 

state. That was the result of the Supreme Court decisions on the 

insular cases, one being Downes v. Bidwell. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I have stated—sorry, go ahead. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No, I just wanted to ask you if that is your 

understanding of what an unincorporated territory means. 

Mr. MARSHALL. My understanding of the concept of unincorporated territory is not that an unincorporated territory can never 

become a state. Congress is free to admit an unincorporated territory. It is rather an assessment that, given all the circumstances 

to date, it doesn’t appear that the territory is on the way to statehood. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So my concern for this is because Puerto 

Rico is an unincorporated territory, according to the legal definitions that I have read. 

Mr. MARSHALL. That is correct. And the report also says that. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And the irony of this is that one of the given 

options for Puerto Rico’s future is that it can become a state, even 

though it is an unincorporated state. Territory, rather. Do you see 

my problem? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I see your point, but again, I don’t think there 

is anything in the Supreme Court’s cases, including Downes, that 

says Congress cannot later change its mind and decide that an unincorporated territory should be incorporated, including as a state. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My understanding of the Doctrine of Incorporation was by judicial legislation. It was a series of cases that 

were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which led to the Doctrine 

of Incorporation. And one of the concerns here, like the territories 

of Alaska and Hawaii, they were both incorporated territories, 

which meant that at some future time in these territories’ future, 

that they would eventually become states. And that is what they 

have become now; they are both states. 

And one of the questions that I raise is, if I am correct—and my 

reading is limited, it really is an understanding—is that historically, Puerto Rico has always been known as an unincorporated 

territory. And that is why I raise the question, if it is an unincorporated territory, then how does that square with the idea that if 

that is the case of the status, then where does statehood come into 

it? Because that is not being, that hasn’t been the tradition or the 

practice of the Doctrine of Incorporation. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Again, I agree that Puerto Rico is now unincorporated, but Congress can change that. 

155

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So am I correct? And I don’t want to put 

words in your mouth, sir. What you are saying now, a territory can 

be unincorporated, and can also be a state if Congress rules it? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK, thank you. In essence, Mr. Marshall, 

could it be fair to say that, as the official representative of the 

President of this Administration, the Administration does support 

statehood as an option? 

Mr. MARSHALL. The President himself has said publicly, and I 

think this goes back at least to 1999, that his personal preference 

is for statehood. But he has also been quick to say that the ultimate decision is for the people of Puerto Rico. 

So in the task force, the Executive Order didn’t say please implement the personal preference of the President; it was please figure 

out what options the Constitution allows, and find a way to ascertain the will of the people on that question. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. The Chair now 

recognizes Mr. Burton for—I welcome you to the hearing, and recognize you for five minutes. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, thank you very much. I have been for Puerto 

Rican statehood for a long time, and I believe this bill provides a 

mechanism through which we can ascertain what the people of 

Puerto Rico want. And then it also provides a mechanism to get us 

to a vote in the Congress regarding statehood. 

So I don’t have a long statement, other than to say I would like 

to see the next generation of children in Puerto Rico grow up to be 

United States citizens, and Puerto Rico to be the 51st state. And 

with that, I will shut up. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bordallo for 

five minutes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I have no further questions. If I could, I would 

like to yield my time to Mr. Serrano. Can I do that? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Certainly. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. Thank you. First of all, Madame Chairwoman, and to the Members of the committee, I thank 

you for the opportunity to participate, and I thank you for the opportunity that you have given us by having this hearing. 

This indeed is a very important hearing, because you can’t discuss this subject enough. In fact, we have been discussing it for 

over 100 years. And one of these days we are going to come to a 

conclusion. 

I want to, from the onset, be very clear, as I was at the last hearing. When I introduced H.R. 900, I did it because H.R. 900 brings 

about the solution in the way that I think is right, not only for the 

people of Puerto Rico, but also for this Congress and the people of 

the United States. For you see, I find myself in a unique situation. 

I was born in the Commonwealth, but I am a Member of the 

Congress of the United States. And so, at any given moment, I see 

Puerto Rico, its political status, as a Puerto Rican. But at the same 

time, I can see its political status as a Member of the U.S. Congress. 

156

And as a Puerto Rican, I think it is not proper that 108 years 

later we are still a colony of the United States, a territory. But I 

can also tell you that, as an American Congressman, I think it is 

pretty embarrassing that my country still has a territory in the 

Caribbean in 2007. 

And so to me, this bill resolves those needs that I have, both as 

a Puerto Rican and as a Member of Congress, to deal with this 

issue. 

Interestingly enough, what the bill does is something that speaks 

to what Mr. Wicker, who is not here, spoke to before. The bill 

asked the public very clearly, do you wish to remain as you are, 

or change your relationship to the United States. Those who say 

that my bill opposes commonwealth have not given me credit for 

having to compromise my beliefs in the first part of the bill by allowing the question, do you wish to remain a colony of the United 

States. That is what it says. 

If they vote to change, then I think the only logical, sensible, and 

legislatively moral question should be, do you want to integrate 

into the Union, or do you wish to separate from the Union. Again, 

those who oppose our legislation say that I give no break, no opportunity for an enhanced commonwealth status. 

Well, I answer in two ways. I will support any option that ends 

the colonial status of Puerto Rico. An enhanced commonwealth, as 

presented in my sister’s, Ms. Vela ́zquez’s, bill does not accomplish 

that. 

But there is an enhanced commonwealth. It exists already, and 

it is in my bill. It is called free association. It is one of the independence options, to negotiate a new status which will allow Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. at any moment to pull out of the relationship, 

but which could give the people of Puerto Rico sovereignty within 

a relationship with the United States. 

Now, this is not something I made up. Statehood is recognized 

internationally as giving people sovereignty. Independence is recognized internationally as giving people sovereignty. And as associated, or free association, is internationally recognized as sovereignty. 

You cannot, at this stage of the game, come back to the people 

of Puerto Rico, after a process, and say I offer you to remain a colony. I offer you the opportunity not to vote for a President. I offer 

you the opportunity not to elect your own President. I offer you the 

opportunity not to have Members of Congress with a vote representative of your island, and I don’t give you the opportunity to 

elect your own Congress on the island. That is morally improper 

to come back. 

It also attacks everything we stand for. How can we continue to 

promote our brand of democracy through the Caribbean and 

through Latin America, and indeed throughout the world, and hold 

a colony for 108 years? 

Mr. Wicker spoke to a very interesting point. He said my bill is 

unfair because the final decision will be made by the two options 

that are so opposed to each other: statehood and independence. Not 

true. It is possible that statehood and independence are totally in 

agreement, because they are the only two options that end the coloVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
157

nial status of Puerto Rico. Either way, statehood or independence 

ends that colonial status. 

And so, as we sit here today, in recognition of something I said 

before, I am the leader of a movement that has one member: me. 

Which is statehood or independence. For years Puerto Ricans I 

think have made the mistake on the island of being for something; 

for independence, for statehood, for this, for that. That is a mistake. I think what Puerto Ricans should do is be against something, jointly, together be against the colonial status. 

But interestingly enough, even those who support the commonwealth are against the commonwealth, because they don’t support 

this commonwealth. They support a letter to Santa Claus, guaro 

ferere llamado, saying give me all of these things which will make 

me look like a state, without the responsibilities of a state. Give 

me all of these things that will make me look like an independent 

nation, without really being independent. 

My friends, it is time to just reach a conclusion. And my conclusion is that what is good for the people of Puerto Rico is good for 

the people of the United States. The United States cannot hold a 

colony in 2007. Puerto Rico cannot be a colony in 2007. 

And in concluding, my bill agrees with the other bill in only one 

way. I am very happy that they accepted the well known Serrano 

Amendment, which would allow those of us born on the island who 

reside in the 50 states to be able to vote in this vote. 

And I know that that is a controversial issue, but here is my 

issue, here is my point. Puerto Ricans moved out of Puerto Rico not 

because they bothered them or because the palm trees were a problem, or because the beaches were too hot, or because the sand bothered their feet. They left because there was an economic condition 

that created a problem, and that is why they left. 

That condition was a direct result of the relationship between the 

U.S. and Puerto Rico. When that relationship is settled once and 

for all, and my bill settles it once and for all, then all the children 

of the colony should be able to vote. 

I am not proposing later that I vote for Governor of Puerto Rico 

if it is a state, or that I vote for President of Puerto Rico if it is 

a republic. But I am proposing that this one time, in this process, 

all the children of the colony participate. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the gentleman yield? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madame Chair, I believe the gentlelady 

from Guam gave five minutes to the gentleman from New York. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. We have two more panels, and we have other 

people who have to ask questions. So Mr. Serrano was wrapping 

up. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I do have a very important question that I 

want to ask the gentleman. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I need to move to the, I do need to move to 

the next Member. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. And we did give him almost eight 

minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dı ́az-Balart, be allowed to sit on the dais and participate 

158

in the hearing. And if there are no objections, so ordered. And I 

now recognize Mr. Dı ́az-Balart for five minutes. 

Mr. D ́IAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madame Chair, and all distinguished colleagues, for the ability to address you today as though 

I were a member of this distinguished committee. This is a subject 

not only of great interest, but close to my heart. 

I think that one thing that strikes me in analyzing the Puerto 

Rican reality is how there is a longing for, change is the word, because of dissatisfaction with the status quo, even from my friends 

who support the talalio de social over commonwealth. 

In other words, what I am trying to say is that I sense, I sense 

a longing for a final solution, if you will; a permanent solution from 

the entire spectrum in Puerto Rico. And that is one thing that 

strikes me as unavoidable. 

And so I think that we in Congress should do what we can to 

allow the final status, the voice of the Puerto Rican people to be 

heard with regard to the issue of the final status, of a final status. 

And that is why I support H.R. 900. It is, I think, a very wellthought-through, amended piece of legislation that is seeking to listen to the people of Puerto Rico with a Congressionally designed 

framework, so that obviously there is a chance of Congressional action once the people of Puerto Rico speak. Because that is one thing 

to keep in mind. What we want to avoid is debate here for the sake 

of debate. 

If we want to resolve this issue, then let us try to devise a structure where, when the Puerto Rican people speak, Congress accepts. 

And I have said—and my approach is somewhat different from 

prior speakers, both Mr. Burton and Mr. Serrano, who have very 

strong opinions with regard to the final decision of the Puerto 

Rican people. My point is I support self-determination. I support 

the decision of the Puerto Rican people, whatever the Puerto Rican 

people decide. 

And as I have said, once the Puerto Rican people speak, there 

will be no one in this Congress who will be more adamant, stronger 

in defense of their decision, than me. But I don’t think it is proper 

for me, as a non-Puerto Rican, to have an opinion with regard to 

how the people of Puerto Rico should speak, should decide this 

issue. 

I do think this is a fair, Congressionally designed framework for 

their decision, though. And it says are you for status quo? And it 

is very respectable. In my view, it is a very respectable option, status quo. 

But if not, if you are for a permanent, non-territorial solution, 

then you have the option of expressing so, and ending the territorial reality, which is the status quo. In other words, this is realistic, in my view. In addition to realistic, a well-thought-through, 

appropriate, Congressionally designed vehicle framework for a final 

decision by the people of Puerto Rico with regard to their status. 

Congressman Fortun ̃ o has worked as I have seen few Members 

in my 15 years here ever work an issue. In my 15 years here, I 

don’t remember ever meeting a Congressman, a representative, 

who has worked an issue so diligently, so intensely, so passionately, with arguments that are persuasive; logical, respectable arVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
159

guments that respect all his colleagues, and have the effect of persuading them, as Mr. Fortun ̃ o has done and continues to do. 

And I know that Congressman Serrano and I often don’t agree. 

But on H.R. 900, we agree. And I simply want to reiterate, Madame Chair, my respect for the people of Puerto Rico. My best 

wishes for them. And that I think that this Congress should provide them the respect and the deference of this Congressionally designed framework to let them decide on a final status decision. 

That is why I support H.R. 900. Thank you very much. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Dı ́az-Balart. The Chair now 

recognizes Mr. Kennedy for five minutes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Madame Chair. I think the greatest 

evidence to where we are today, as to where Puerto Rico is politically, is the fact that Puerto Rico cannot decide to even decide what 

to do, without coming to Congress first. 

The proof is in the pudding. You are here before us. If you were 

so sovereign, why not just go and do this? Why bother with us? 

The fact is, you can’t. Because you are under the United States 

of America’s jurisdiction, so far as the Constitution is involved in 

the Territorial Clause. And you can put as many plebiscites of your 

own on the ballot, but they are not worth the paper they are written on if the U.S. Congress doesn’t sanction them. 

Now, I don’t like that any more than you do. And that is why 

I am behind the Serrano bill. Because I think it is about time that 

the U.S. Congress actually sanctioned an election where the people 

of Puerto Rico finally have a choice about their future; where they 

do not have to wonder whether this plebiscite is going to mean anything, because it is just a mockery of the political process, because 

everybody knows that it will have no real effect because it isn’t 

sanctioned by Congress. And Puerto Ricans can do whatever they 

want, but it is not going to mean anything if the U.S. Congress 

doesn’t OK it. 

That is why we are here today. Because the U.S. Congress has 

to give a Federal acknowledgment and OK to this plebiscite for it 

to be a constitutionally recognized process, by which Puerto Rico 

then takes the next step for it to choose among those constitutionally recognized options of free association, independence, or 

statehood. 

So people can argue whatever position they would like to argue 

about Puerto Rico’s political status of being a co-equal here, but it 

seems to me they do not have co-equal footing if they are really at 

the mercy, if you will, of a Congress where they only have one vote 

as a Member, where they should have six others if they were a 

state, for example. Where they do not have the representation that 

they would otherwise have. And where, frankly, they will not have 

any say over whether they have the choice or not until Congress 

says they have the choice. That is pretty insulting. 

I find it offensive that they have to wait on us to give them the 

choice to decide themselves as to whether they have a future or 

not. So I would like to ask Mr. Marshall to explain, because I think 

there has been some question here as to how the whole process was 

arrived at, at which commonwealth was determined to be unconstitutional. Could you take us through that process, as to how, you 

160

know, what the legal process is by which you determined that commonwealth was unconstitutional? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Let me first start by clarifying in response to 

some earlier questions that our view is not that commonwealth is 

unconstitutional; our view is that a provision that couldn’t be 

changed without the mutual consent of Puerto Rico and the United 

States, commonly known as new commonwealth or enhanced commonwealth, is unconstitutional. 

With regard to that status, the report lays out in some detail 

what that status means, what the prior view of the Justice Department is, and what the current view is. And then it outlines the reasons for that view. There are also several appendices to the task 

force report that include much more extended analyses by the Clinton Justice Department. 

The short answer is that one Congress is generally not able to 

bind a future Congress, and that general rule applies to Congress’s 

regulation of territories under the Territory Clause. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So that if Puerto Rico wants to have any sovereignty, permanent sovereignty, it could not bank on a commonwealth status, because that status would change in any given Congress if that future Congress decided to change the status. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Correct. 

Mr. KENNEDY. That is a pretty telling reason why commonwealth 

does not work as a permanent status. Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Kennedy. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Sanchez for five minutes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Madame Chair. And first let me thank 

you for allowing me to sit up here with this committee today. 

My interest in Puerto Rico, aside from the fact that of course I 

am Latina, and so I love everybody south of here, but in particular 

because sitting as one of the Ranking Senior Members of the 

Armed Services Committee, it just always amazes me what Puerto 

Ricans are doing for our country. 

I just went in March, the beginning of March, to Iraq. And there 

was a group, large group, led by a woman, Puerto Rican, but all 

of them were from Puerto Rico, who were going out every night and 

finding the IEDs on the roadways, clearing the roadways in Iraq 

so that our troops could travel the next day. I mean, really difficult 

and dangerous work. And there were the Puerto Ricans. 

And I remember the Vieques challenge that we had a few years 

ago, and the fact that our colleague at the time didn’t even have 

a vote of what was going on, and what we were trying to do. And 

the Navy pulling out, and the devastation of the economy, the local 

economy for Puerto Rico. 

And do you know, there wasn’t anything that could be done here, 

in a sense. Because really, it is, in a sense, Mr. Serrano, a colony, 

as you have said before. 

So we have this great group of people who are U.S. citizens, but 

really don’t have a say. And, you know, I am born and raised and 

have grown up in California, so I am a statehooder in that sense. 

That is what I come from, that is the background I have. I know 

myself as the rights we have as the great State of California. But 

161

at the same time, I would be remiss to tell Puerto Ricans what 

they should look like. And I understand that. 

So I want you to have that vote to decide what you want to be, 

with respect to the United States. And I hope, because I know that 

the Congress has to do it, I hope that we can get that done. Because this issue has been here in the 11 years that I have been in 

the Congress, and still no resolution to it. 

I have just one question for Mr. Marshall, if you will. Can there 

be a commonwealth status not subject to Federal Territory Clause 

powers? I am trying to understand why we would put up a vote on 

something that can be impacted by the Federal government, where 

even this island doesn’t have a vote. 

So can there be a commonwealth status not subject to Federal 

Territory Clause powers? 

Mr. MARSHALL. No, unless Puerto Rico were made a state and 

decided to call itself a commonwealth, like Virginia has. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So is commonwealth status, as described in my 

good colleague’s bill at H.R. 1230, a real possibility? Is that a real 

possibility? Or are we just putting out something to the people of 

Puerto Rico that really is not going to work? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Your description is correct as to what that bill 

calls new commonwealth status. New or modified, sorry. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. New modified? 

Mr. MARSHALL. The bill’s language is new or modified commonwealth status. And your description is correct as to that. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. So would you consider that to be misleading? I 

mean, I want the Puerto Ricans to have a vote. I just would feel 

badly if we, as a Congress, sanctioned something, and had them 

vote on something; or they thought they could vote on something 

that then they would turn around and we would do nothing with, 

or we would say it is unconstitutional, we are not going to do that, 

or you can’t have unilateral power on this. 

Is something like H.R. 1230 then misleading, if one would take 

a vote on that? 

Mr. MARSHALL. It is inaccurate and unclear, and it could cause 

confusion. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. OK. Just trying to figure out the differences and 

what it means for us. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Marshall. I missed your testimony 

earlier, but I, for myself, am trying to figure out how we get this 

done and find some common ground. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madame Chair, for the time. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. I ask unanimous 

consent to include the written opening statement of Mr. Serrano for 

the record. OK. You have other statements, OK. I recognize you to 

enter the statements. 

Mr. SERRANO. Madame Chairwoman, I have a statement from 

my colleague from the Bronx, New York, Representative Eliot 

Engel, in support of H.R. 900 that I would like to turn over to you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Without objection? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Madame Chair? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Ms. Sanchez? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. May I also submit an opening statement for the 

record? 

162

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Yes, without objection. For Fortun ̃ o? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Yes. Mr. Don Young from Alaska will not be able 

to join us, but he asked me to ask for unanimous consent to introduce his written statement into the record. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. It is in support of H.R. 900, as well. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Ranking Member,

Committee on Natural Resources 

First off, I welcome my many friends and the distinguished leaders from Puerto 

Rico who have traveled so far to be here with us today. 

Thank you all for coming: 

• The Honorable and current Governor Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, also a former 

Member of Congress; 

The distinguished former Governors: 

• The Honorable Pedro Rossello ́; 

• The Honorable Rafael Herna ́ndez-Colon; and 

• The Honorable Carlos Romero-Barcelo ́, also a former Member of Congress. 

I also warmly welcome my fellow legislators: 

• The Honorable Kenneth McClintock, President of the Puerto Rican Senate; 

• The Honorable Jose ́ Aponte-Herna ́ndez, Speaker of the Puerto Rican House of 

Representatives; 

And their distinguished counterparts: 

• The Honorable Jose ́ Dalmau-Santiago, Senate Minority Leader; and 

• The Honorable He ́ctor Ferrer Rı ́os, the House Minority Leader. 

Finally, I welcome all of our other distinguished witnesses, including from President Bush’s Administration, The Honorable Kevin Marshall, Co-Chair of the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Political Status and Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General. 

Thank you all for making a very important day in Puerto Rico’s and the United 

States’ history. 

Madame Chairwoman, thank you for holding this second hearing on the political 

status of Puerto Rico and to consider H.R. 900, ‘‘The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 

2007’’ of which I am a proud co-sponsor, a bill authored by my good friend, Mr. 

Fortun ̃ o, the Ranking Republican of this Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, and Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY). 

Now there is an alternative bill, H.R.. 1230; but I believe it is not a realistic alternative. 

As I stated at the previous hearing on March 22, I believe H.R. 1230 is ‘‘DOADead on Arrival’’ in this Congress. 

It is constitutionally flawed and it is politically flawed. 

H.R. 1230 would give Puerto Rico a chance to have a ‘‘new Commonwealth’’ status that gives it all the benefits of statehood but without the same application of 

federal law as all other states must bear. 

As my good friend from across the aisle Mr. Serrano pointed out at the last hearing, there are 435 Members of Congress who would want the same deal. 

It’s just not possible to move that bill thru this House and the Senate. 

I have been a strong supporter of Puerto Rico for a long, long time. 

In the 105th Congress, I sponsored a bill, H.R. 856, to resolve the political status 

of Puerto Rico. 

After three Committee hearings, including two in Puerto Rico, the Committee 

passed the bill, and so did the House. 

While H.R. 900 is somewhat different from the bill I sponsored in 1997, it conforms to my basic goal, which is to enable the people of Puerto Rico to determine 

their status in a manner that is democratic and consistent with historic, legal, and 

constitutional precedents. 

The opportunity for Puerto Rico to move forward, however its citizens may choose, 

is here now and is embodied in H.R. 900. 

If Puerto Ricans wish to seize democracy today, and exercise their rights to choose 

their destination, whatever that might be, then embrace and support a bill that can 

move the self-determination process forward for all Puerto Ricans. 

163

And win, lose, or draw; or rather, commonwealth, statehood, independence, or free 

association, Puerto Rico will have the best democratic process available for everyone 

to participate in-and not one for just a handful of convention delegates. 

Thank you Madame Chairwoman. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I would like to thank the witness for his valuable testimony, and the Members for your questions and you for 

your answers, Mr. Marshall. Members of the Subcommittee may 

have some additional questions, as you have heard, and we will 

submit them to you in writing, and we would ask for you to respond in writing. 

You are now excused, Mr. Marshall, and I would like to recognize 

the second panel of witnesses. 

On the next panel will be The Honorable Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, 

the Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and also the 

President of the Popular Democratic Party. Also, Mr. Rube ́n 

Berrı ́os-Martı ́nez, President of the Puerto Rican Independence 

Party. And finally, The Honorable Pedro Rossello ́, former Governor 

and current Senator, as well as the President of the New Progressive Party. 

The Chair, if we are settled, the Chair would now recognize our 

former colleague, The Honorable Governor Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, to 

testify. The timing lights will indicate when your time is concluded. 

And your formal, full statement will be submitted for the hearing 

record. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANI ́BAL ACEVEDO-VILA ́ , 

GOVERNOR, COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO AND 

PRESIDENT, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Thank you 

for this kind opportunity, and it is really a pleasure to be back in 

Congress and now testifying on these important issues as Governor 

of Puerto Rico, and also as the President of the Popular Democratic 

Party. 

As you just mentioned, my written statement is already part of 

the record, and I will make reference to some part of it. And now, 

in my written statement I wasn’t addressing too much about the 

White House Task Force report, because that was an issue that has 

been discussed a lot in the past. But I have to say that after what 

I have heard just today, I have to make some expressions about 

that report. 

Number one, it is a report that nobody knows how many meetings they had, if they ever met as a group, what kind of internal 

discussions they had. It didn’t go through OMB or any other agency. 

Number two, no public hearings nowhere. Just some private 

meetings in Puerto Rico. And then, when Mr. Marshall was asked 

by Congresswoman Vela ́zquez why the report was so simplistic, so 

shallow, his answer was because we were thinking about the audience. And I can only imagine two audiences of that report: this 

Congress and the people of Puerto Rico. So I take that, as a former 

Member of Congress, as an insult, and as the Governor of Puerto 

Rico, as an insult to the people of Puerto Rico. The report was simVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
164

plistic because apparently we cannot read and understand complex 

issues with legal arguments. 

But then, when he was asked by Congressman Faleomavaega, 

now we discover that he doesn’t know the difference between an 

unincorporated territory and incorporated territory. So in terms of 

that report, which is the basis of H.R. 900, I will use an expression 

we use in Puerto Rico, in Spanish. [Spanish phrase.] That is the 

seed of this process. A report that had to be written simplistic because apparently maybe Congress or the people of Puerto Rico 

would not have understood it if it was more complicated or more 

elaborated. 

So I think that in terms of what you have heard today really, 

really—and then we go to H.R. 900. And the way the votes are 

counted, every plebiscite has been held in Puerto Rico has been 

won by commonwealth. You might think that that is a mistake 

that the people of Puerto Rico voted for that. So now, since there 

is no way that can statehood win, what they are proposing is let 

us add the second and the third place jammed in together, so we 

can defend the first place, and then we will have a runoff election 

between the second and third place. That is not only undemocratic; 

that is un-American. I have never heard of a runoff election between the second and third place. 

And then, in terms of all those legal arguments about commonwealth, whether it is constitutional or not constitutional, mutual 

consent, let me first say that until 1991, the position of the Department of Justice was that it was constitutional; that you could agree 

mutual consent clause. And then that changed. Did the Constitution change? Do we have a different Constitution now than the one 

we had in 1990, 1989, 1987, 1970? So that just points out that this 

is basically an issue of political will. 

And I have quoted, and I am going to take some time to quote 

some, some of them, some important callers. And yes, they have 

written, and I invite all of you to read them, because I believe you 

can understand them, and you can have a good discussion about 

what those callers says. 

Professor Alexander Aleinikoff, Dean of Georgetown Law School, 

actual Dean today, published this book in 2002. And he says, ‘‘The 

commonwealth opponent reasoning seems to be this. The United 

States Constitution knows only the mutually exclusive categories of 

state and territory. States and full and equal members of the 

Union, but territories are subject to plenary Federal power. Such 

plenary power may be surrendered only by moving outside the territory clause by granting statehood or independence.’’

And then he says, to me what is a challenge to this Congress, 

‘‘The infamous insular cases recognize the need for Congressional 

flexibility in handling the unanticipated situation of empire. When 

flexibility is now by mutual consent of Capitol and former colony 

exercised to restore dignity and self-government, why should Congressional power suddenly be read narrowly?’’

And more specifically, he asked Congress, ‘‘The question is 

whether we can think of solving two notions of sovereignty that 

permit overlapping and flexible arrangements attuned to complex 

demands of enhanced autonomy with a broader regulative system 

165

of generally applicable constitutional and human rights and 

norms.’’

Responding that, if both Congress and the people of Puerto Rico 

seek to establish a new relationship that recognizes space within 

the American constitutional system for autonomous, it will behoove 

either the Executive Branch or the Judiciary to set such efforts 

aside in the name of 19th century conceptions of sovereignty. 

The Constitution should not be read out of fear and loathing of 

new understandings of sovereignty, to prevent promising powersharing arrangement that provide space for political and cultural 

autonomy. 

And Professor Michael Weisman from Yale University says, ‘‘The 

barriers to enhanced commonwealth status are more political than 

legal.’’ It is said also by Professor Pildes from NYU that testified 

before this committee, I think it was last month. So this is basically a political argument, not a legal argument. 

If you want, if Congress wants to force the people of Puerto Rico 

to vote for statehood, even though you are not making a compromise to grant it, just say so. That is H.R. 900. It will force the 

people of Puerto Rico to vote for statehood. But don’t use the Constitution as an excuse for that. 

But if you are going to do that, then tell the people of Puerto 

Rico whether we can have a state in which Spanish is the main 

language in public schools. I learned that Puerto Rico was discovered by Christobal Colon, not Christopher Columbus. 

A judicial system that is in Spanish, if one Member of this Congress has an accident in Puerto Rico on the roads, and for some 

reason have to go to court, that case is going to be in Spanish. We 

will give you a translator. 

So if you are going to force the people of Puerto Rico to vote for 

statehood, then you have to respond to those questions before the 

people of Puerto Rico exercise their right of self-determination. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Acevedo-Vila ́ follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́,

Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee. Once again, 

I come before you to talk about the political and constitutional relationship between 

Puerto Rico and the United States. Very briefly, I want to put into perspective the 

concrete proposals and recommendations I will make today regarding the two bills 

pending before this Congress: H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. As Governor of Puerto Rico, 

it is my obligation to place the current debate in the right context, to help the Committee overcome the temptation of rushing to conclusions that may bring bigger 

problems to Puerto Rico and the United States in the long run. 

For more than a century, Puerto Ricans have lived through a challenging and 

emotional debate about our political relationship with the United States. However, 

outside of the 1950-52 process which led to the adoption of Commonwealth status, 

the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States has largely been absent 

from the U.S. national debate, and has produced no movement here in Congress. 

For this, Puerto Ricans have paid a high price. Some political parties on the Island have taken full advantage of the situation, basing their existence almost exclusively on their stance regarding status. They have gone so far as to manipulate the 

process toward their preferred option or to halt progress when they feared the final 

outcome would not favor them. Now, as the statehood party moves aggressively to 

re-open this debate in Washington, Congress is placed in a difficult position. Should 

you repeat the same mistakes of the past, the result is clear: the full array of tricks 

will be played to reach that party’s preferred outcome. 

166

So, after many years of discussion about the right to self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico, there are some principles that we should respect. Every citizen 

should have an equal say. The system for determining Puerto Rico’s political status 

should be fair and unbiased. Each political status option must be considered on the 

same footing. And the clear choice of the people should win. That, Madam Chairwoman, is the true definition of democracy. 

Today this Congress has before it two fundamentally different approaches. One 

repeats the same mistakes of the past, allowing and even encouraging the same 

Puerto Rican political parties to play trick politics with Congress and the people of 

Puerto Rico. The other brings to the table a new and totally fair process, open equally to all options, putting power in the hands of the people themselves, as opposed 

to the local political parties. 

Let me first discuss H.R. 900, the pro-statehood bill that is ‘‘more of the same.’’

In previous plebiscites to determine the Island’s future, participation from our 

citizens has been high. And for more than five decades, the winner in each referendum has been Commonwealth. Now, the same people who could not convince 

the citizens of the Island to vote for statehood, are trying—again—to change the 

rules of the game, crafting a system to force statehood upon Puerto Rico. Rather 

than give every Puerto Rican an equal opportunity to have his or her voice heard, 

these statehood advocates have designed a series of referendums that would distort 

the will of the people. 

Supporters of Commonwealth have held a narrow but notable edge over the second-place finisher, statehood, for decades, with the smaller independence movement 

finishing third. H.R. 900 proposes a two-stage vote. In the first round, our citizens 

would select either a continuation of an ill-defined Commonwealth or a category 

that combines statehood and independence. 

That would create a merger between those two fundamentally opposite parties 

and options, with the goal of building a tiny majority over Commonwealth. Once 

Commonwealth has been knocked out, voters would then choose between only statehood and independence, with statehood assuredly winning. The math is very simple. 

If you add the second place—statehood—to the third place—independence—then you 

can fabricate an artificial majority. And that helps eliminate the true popular choice 

of the people, Commonwealth. 

This is the first time I have seen a process in which the run-off election would 

be held between the second and third place! To support that plan would be destructive and anti-democratic. 

It is time for a new, and better, approach. An approach that is fair to everyone 

and removes the total responsibility and control from the hands of the political parties. This is why I recommend that we entrust the people of Puerto Rico to organize 

a Constitutional Convention, as proposed by H.R. 1230. This gathering would represent the true will of our citizens, not the political parties determined to promote 

their own factional interests, even at the expense of fairness or respect. The delegates would be free to consider proposals, eventually proposing an ideal solution to 

our citizens and then to Congress. 

Congress would retain the right to approve, negotiate, modify, or simply reject the 

proposal coming from the Constitutional Convention. But it would also have the obligation to do the right thing—to assure that it respectfully considers the option presented, and recognizes the Convention’s right to propose such an alternative. 

In contrast, if Congress decides to define the status options for Puerto Rico, then 

it has no choice but to follow principles of honest statesmanship and fair play. It 

would be senseless to do otherwise. If you yield to the tricky games proposed by 

some politicians, the process will lose credibility, or worse, die stagnated. 

As you know, one of the first tricks to come out of the bag in the partisan-driven 

debates on Puerto Rico’s political status is typically camouflaged in legal wrappings. 

The argument is that that Commonwealth, which historically has been preferred by 

Puerto Ricans, has no place in the American constitutional framework; that the 

Constitution is so rigid and formalistic that, just as we if we were living back in 

the late eighteenth century, it can deal with nothing but states and traditional colonies; that, accordingly, the United States cannot constitutionally produce new arrangements to meet the country’s emerging needs. That is the basic premise of the 

White House Task Force report and of H.R. 900. 

I feel a particular need to address this issue today, since it collides head-on with 

many years of opinions from the best legal minds in the United States. From Judge 

Magruder in Mora v Mejı ́a, to Justice Breyer in Co ́rdova & Simonpietri, to Justice 

Brennan in Calero Toledo to so many other landmark decisions. And now, as the 

new century unfolds, top modern thinkers and scholars are following that same line 

or analysis. For example, Dean Alexander Aleinikoff from Georgetown Law School, 

167

in his 2002 book, Semblances of Sovereignty, devoted an entire chapter to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. He wrote: 

The (Commonwealth Opponents’) reasoning seems to be this: the United States 

Constitution knows only the mutually exclusive categories of ‘‘State’’ and ‘‘Territory.’’ 

States are full and equal members of the Union, but territories are subject to plenary 

federal power. Such plenary power may be surrendered only by moving outside the 

territory clause by granting statehood or independence. To recognize congressional 

power to create new categories—such as ‘‘enhanced commonwealth’’—violates the 

structure of the Constitution and potentially weakens the position of the states...’’

Rejecting that approach and making an implicit challenge to Congress, Aleinikoff 

states: ‘‘The infamous Insular Cases recognized the need for congressional flexibility 

in handling the unanticipated situation of Empire. When flexibility is now, by mutual consent of capital and former colony, exercised to restore dignity and self-government, why should congressional power suddenly be read narrowly?’’

And more specifically he asks Congress: ‘‘the question is whether we can think ourselves into notions of sovereignty that permit overlapping and flexible arrangements 

attuned to complex demands of enhanced autonomy with a broader regulative system 

of generally applicable constitutional and human rights norms,’’ responding that ‘‘if 

both Congress and the people of Puerto Rico seek to establish a new relationship that 

recognizes space within the American constitutional system for ‘‘autonomous’’ entities, 

it ill behooves either the executive branch or the judiciary to set such efforts aside 

in the name of nineteenth-century conceptions of sovereignty...The Constitution 

should not be read—out of fear and loathing of new understandings of sovereignty—

to prevent promising power-sharing arrangements that provide a space for political 

and cultural autonomy.’’

Similarly, in a recent memorandum, Professor W. Michael Reisman, Professor of 

International Law at Yale (2006), states: 

‘‘Yet in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, all three branches of the 

U.S. federal government maintain legal positions on Puerto Rico rooted firmly in a 

nineteenth-century paradigm of international law....This binary division (between 

states and territories),...is in fact, anachronistic: It neither accurately reflects nor 

properly accommodates the diverse political arrangements embodied in the freely associated state of Puerto Rico, the CNMI, and the FAS. Legally created at a later date, 

those arrangements better represent current law.’’

And Reisman further concludes: ‘‘Should Puerto Rico decide that an ‘‘enhanced’’ 

commonwealth status best serves its long term interests, U.S. constitutional law, to 

our view would likely be able to accommodate that arrangement...; the barriers to enhance commonwealth status are more political than legal.’’

Another scholar, Constitutional Law Professor Richard Pildes from NYU testified 

recently before this same committee that ‘‘were the United States Congress and the 

people of Puerto Rico to prefer expanding the existing Commonwealth relationship, 

in a way that provides greater autonomy for Puerto Rico on the basis of mutual consent, it would be unfortunate, even tragic, for that option to disappear due to confusion or error about whether the Constitution permits Congress to adopt such an option.’’

And he clearly concludes: ‘‘Congress does have the power, should it choose to use 

it, to enter into a mutual-consent agreement that would create and respect more autonomous form of Commonwealth status for Puerto Rico, in which Congress would 

pledge not to alter the relationship unilaterally.’’

Finally, Charles Cooper, a former head of the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. 

Department of Justice, in a recent memorandum stated that ‘‘there is no support for 

a reading of the Constitution that unnecessarily restricts the political arrangements 

available to the President and Congress in fashioning binding consensual solutions 

to the Nation’s relations with the people of its territories,’’ and that ‘‘the relevant Supreme Court cases confirm that Puerto Rico’s commonwealth status is predicated 

upon a binding compact, created through the mutual consent of the sovereign parties 

and revocable, only by mutual consent of the parties.’’

As you can see, in the last five years, many distinguished constitutional law scholars have rejected the basic assumptions of H.R. 900. Each of them has re-validated 

the 1914 vision of later Justice Felix Frankfurter that ‘‘the form of relationship between the United States and unincorporated territory is solely a problem of statesmanship.... Luckily, our Constitution has left this field of invention open.’’

Members of Congress, with that in mind, if you want to impose upon the people 

of Puerto Rico a petition for statehood, without any commitment to grant it, 

H.R. 900 accomplishes that. And if you seek to deprive the people of Puerto Rico 

of a valid Commonwealth option, H.R. 900 does that as well. But please do not use 

the Constitution as an excuse. Be straightforward, and just say that you support 

imposing statehood on my people of Puerto Rico, even against the expressed will of 

168

our four million citizens, as H.R. 900 pre-determined outcome intends. But if you 

want to be fair and creative, discard anachronisms, offer our residents a true process for self-determination and deal with this issue with statesmanship, I recommend 

H.R. 1230 is right alternative. 

In any case, if the future of the Commonwealth is to be subjected to a legalistic, 

why-not scrutiny, what shall we expect regarding statehood? Many issues come to 

mind: Are we planning to entitle the fifty-first state to keep forever the Spanish language as its principal language in public schools, in the local courts and in everyday 

business? Would it be kept immune from the English-only movement? Is the United 

States ready and willing to accept into the union a distinct society with all the sociological characteristics of a nation like Puerto Rico? What about federal income taxation? How will the federal income taxation system apply in Puerto Rico? Is the 

local system to be dismantled? If so, how is the government of the fifty-first state 

to be financed? If you choose to support the statehood bill, H.R. 900, the people of 

Puerto Rico will deserve, and demand, clear answers to these and many other questions. 

Madam Chairwoman, the tricks of H.R. 900 are more than tricks: they are the 

poison pills that, in the past, account for the death of processes like this one. Our 

people have rejected statehood over and over, but statehood supporters have returned again and again—adjusting their approach, rephrasing their rhetoric or making minor changes to their proposal, with hopes of obscuring the flaws of their intentions. 

It’s time for something better, for Congress to decisively help Puerto Rico overcome the status dilemma through a fair and unbiased process. If you are serious 

about meeting that goal, I urge you to approve H.R. 1230. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Governor. It is an honor to have 

you before us again this afternoon. 

The next person that we would recognize for five minutes is Mr. 

Berrı ́os-Martı ́nez of the Puerto Rican Independence Party. 

STATEMENT OF RUBE ́ N BERRI ́OS-MARTI ́NEZ, PRESIDENT, 

PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY 

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTI ́NEZ. Madame Chairwoman and Members of 

the Subcommittee and other Members of Congress, today I speak 

before you not only as President of the Puerto Rican Independence 

Party, but as a member of the Latin-American Committee for 

Puerto Rican Independence, representing 33 living political parties 

of the region, 15 of which are in government, as is the case, for example, of Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. 

I quote The Honorable Martin Torrijos, President of Panama, in 

his address to the Latin-American Congress in support of Puerto 

Rican independence held last November, and which elected the 

Latin-American Committee. 

I quote. ‘‘Puerto Rico is the only Hispanic-American nation that 

remains under colonial regime. For Latin-Americans, correcting 

this anomaly must be a matter of principle and a priority of continental proportions. What remains is to agree on whatever is necessary to concrete the Puerto Rican right to constitute an independent republic; to agree as soon as possible on a transition 

schedule that will, once and for all, solve the problem in a dignified 

and efficient manner for all involved. Latin America can offer its 

good offices, promote that agreement, and guarantee compliance for 

that schedule.’’ I end quote. 

Puerto Rico’s colonial status constitutes a problem of hemispheric 

dimensions. Congress is now considering H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. 

Any bill that, like H.R. 900, proposes a referendum that includes 

statehood is doomed to failure. Statehood is a poison pill. Even 

though you may not publicly admit it, you know that Congress, and 

169

particularly the Senate, will not approve a law that implicitly 

promises statehood for Puerto Rico. 

H.R. 1230, on the other hand, is fatally ambiguous as to the nature of existing relationship. How can you decolonize if you are not 

willing to recognize the existence of the colony? 

The Puerto Rican Independence Party proposes a consensus alternative to both bills. First, a yes-or-no referendum on the following question: Do you want Puerto Rico to have a non-colonial, 

non-territorial, fully democratic sovereign political status, instead 

of the present or any other territorial status? This first step, contemplated in H.R. 900, is absolutely necessary. 

Commonwealth is the problem, and thus, it cannot be the solution. We must unambiguously put an end to ambiguity. 

Second. Congress should express its commitment that once the 

territorial option is discarded, it will respond promptly to the status option that is chosen by the people of Puerto Rico through a 

sovereign constitutional convention, convened under the laws of 

Puerto Rico, among alternatives recognized by international law. 

By definition, such alternatives exclude not only the present status, 

but also any form of modified territorial commonwealth status. 

Needless to say, the Puerto Rican people have an inherent right 

to convene a constitutional convention at any time, without the 

prior approval of Congress. And if the choice were for independence, Congress must not only respond, but it is obligated to grant 

such a request. 

Third. If within a period of six months after the referendum, a 

sovereign constitutional convention is not convened, is not convened, the President of the United States, in consultation with representatives of the Puerto Rican people, shall, within an additional 

six-month period, recommend fast-track legislation to Congress. In 

this legislation Congress would be required to discharge its obligation so that the people of Puerto Rico can exercise their inalienable 

right to self-determination and independence. The Presidential recommendation could include, among others, one or several referenda 

in which one or various alternatives would be presented. 

In 1950 to 1952, the United States engineered the process of consent to colonialism through a yes-or-no referendum in order to justify and legitimize territorial status. Now, as then, your interests 

dictate your policies; but now, U.S. interests in Puerto Rico have 

changed, and commonwealth, an undemocratic, bankrupt status, 

serves no useful purpose to anyone. 

Moreover, commonwealth breeds dependency and statehooders, 

and Congressional inaction regarding Puerto Rico will inevitably 

lead to an unwanted statehood petition, sooner rather than later. 

Now you must undo your own deed. Now it is time to dispose of 

the territory. Now you need a process to end colonialism. 

To summarize, the first referendum proposed in H.R. 900 is a 

critical step in the right direction. It is the essential element contained in both the Serrano bill and in the White House Task Force 

recommendations. After all, the White House also knows that a bill 

that promises statehood has no future. 

Approval of a consensus bill along the lines we have proposed 

will do justice to the Puerto Rican people, and constitute a gesture 

170

of good will toward Latin America that could contribute to bring 

about an era of mutual understanding to our hemisphere. 

I have presented before you, for the record, the Panama Proclamation of Latin-American and Caribbean Countries for the Independence of Puerto Rico, and it is before you for your consideration, 

also. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berrı ́os-Martı ́nez follows:]

Statement of Rube ́n Berrı ́os-Martı ́nez, Former Minority Leader in the 

Puerto Rico Senate, President, Puerto Rican Independence Party 

Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee and other Members of 

Congress: 

Today I speak before you, not only as president of the PIP, but also as member 

of the Latin American Committee for Puerto Rican Independence representing 33 

leading political parties of the region, fifteen of which are in government, as is the 

case, for example, of Chile, Argentina and Brasil. 

I quote The Honorable Martı ́n Torrijos, President of Panama ́ and Secretary General of the governing party in his keynote address to the Latin American Congress 

in support of Puerto Rican Independence held last November and which elected the 

Latin American Committee. 

Puerto Rico is the only Hispanic American nation that remains under a colonial regime. For Latin Americans, correcting this anomaly must be a matter of principle and a priority of continental proportions. What remains is 

to agree on whatever is necessary to concrete the Puerto Rican right to constitute an independent republic...to agree as soon as possible on a transition 

schedule that will ‘‘once and for all—solve the problem in a dignified and 

efficient manner for all involved. Latin America can offer its good offices, 

promote that agreement, and guarantee compliance and the durability of 

that schedule. 

Puerto Rico’s colonial status constitutes a problem of hemispheric dimensions that 

must be confronted and overcome. 

Congress is presently considering H.R 900 and H.R 1230. 

Any bill that, like H.R.900, proposes a referendum that includes statehood is 

doomed to failure. Statehood is a poison pill. Even though you may not publicly 

admit it, you know that Congress—and particularly, the Senate—will not approve 

a law that implicitly promises statehood to Puerto Rico. 

H.R 1230, on the other hand, is fatally ambiguous as to the nature of the existing 

relationship. How can you decolonize if you are not willing to recognize the existence 

of the colony? Moreover, the potential efficacy of H.R. 1230 hinges on the uncertain 

outcome of the next general election of the Puerto Rico. 

The Puerto Rican Independence Party proposes a consensus alternative. 

First: A yes or no referendum on the following question: 

Do you want Puerto Rico to have a non colonial, non territorial, fully democratic 

sovereign political status instead of the present or any other territorial status? 

This first step—contemplated H.R 900—is absolutely necessary, since territorial 

commonwealth is the problem that must be discarded in order to arrive at a solution. Commonwealth is the problem and thus it cannot be the solution. We must 

unambiguously put an end to ambiguity. 

Second: Congress should express its commitment that once the territorial option 

is discarded, it will respond promptly to the status option that is chosen by the people of Puerto Rico through a sovereign constitutional convention convened under the 

laws of Puerto Rico among alternatives recognized by international law. By definition, such alternatives exclude not only the present status but also any form of 

modified territorial status. Needless to say, the Puerto Rican people have an inherent right to convene a constitutional convention without the prior approval of Congress; and if the choice were independence, Congress must not only respond but is 

obligated to grant such a request. 

Third, if within a period of six months after the referendum a sovereign constitutional convention is not convened in Puerto Rico, the President of the US, in consultation with representatives of the Puerto Rican people shall, within an additional 

six month period recommend fast-track legislation to Congress. In this legislation 

Congress would be required to discharge its obligation so that the people of Puerto 

Rico can exercise their inalienable right to self determination and independence. 

171

1 Unanimously approved by 33 political parties from 22 nations attending the Congress. 

2The Committee was constituted by senator Ricardo Nu ́n ̃ ez, of Chile’s Socialist Party; The 

Honorable Rau ́l Alfonsı ́n, former President of Argentina; The Honorable Ricardo Alarco ́n, President of the National Assembly of Cuba; Horacio Serpa, of Colombia’s Liberal Party; Rolando 

Araya, President of the Socialist International for Latin America; Gustavo Carvajal, Founding 

President of the Permanent Conference of Latin American Political Parties (COPPPAL); senator 

Hugo Rodrı ́guez Filippi, of Uruguay’s Socialist Party; Rube ́n Giustiniani, President of the Socialist Party of Argentina; Toma ́s Borges, of the Sandinista Front of National Liberation of Nicaragua; Nils Castro, Secretary for International Affairs of Panama’s Revolutionary Democratic 

Party (PRD); Cuauhte ́moc Ca ́ rdenas, of Mexico’s Foundation for Democracy, Alternatives and 

Debates; senator Antonio Cafiero, of Argenitna’s Justicialista Party and President of COPPPAL; 

and Rube ́n Berrı ́os Martı ́nez and Fernando Martı ́n, President and Executive President, respectively, of the Puerto Rican Independence Party. Subsequently, an additional and final member 

from Brazil’s Workers Party (PT) will be selected by that party and join the Committee. 

The presidential recommendation could include, among others, one or several 

referenda in which one or various alternatives would be presented. 

In 1950-52, the United States engineered a process of consent to colonialism 

through a yes-or-no referendum in order to justify and legitimize territorial status. 

Now, as then, your interests dictate your policies; but now U.S. interests in Puerto 

Rico have changed and ‘‘Commonwealth,’’ an undemocratic, bankrupt status, serves 

no useful purpose to anyone. Moreover, Commonwealth breeds dependency and 

statehooders; and congressional inaction regarding Puerto Rico’s territorial status 

will inevitably lead to an unwanted statehood petition, sooner rather than later. 

Now you must undo your own deed. Now is the time to dispose of the territory. Now 

you need a process to end colonialism. 

To summarize: the first referendum proposed in H.R. 900 is a critical step in the 

right direction. It is the essential element contained in both the Serrano bill and 

in the White House Task Force recommendations; after all, the White House also 

knows that a bill that promises statehood has no future. 

Approval of a consensus bill along the lines we have proposed will do justice to 

the Puerto Rican people and constitute a gesture of good will towards Latin America 

that could contribute to bring about an era of mutual understanding in our Hemisphere. 

Appendix: The Unanimous Official Pronouncement, or ‘‘Proclamation,’’ of the 

Latin American and Caribbean Congress in Solidarity with Puerto Rico’s Independence (November 18-19, 2006,Panama City, Panama) is appended here to, and made 

part hereof. 

Appendix to Statement by Rube ́n Berrı ́os-Martı ́nez

Former Minority Leader in the Puerto Rico Senate

President, Puerto Rican Independence Party 

Latin American and Caribbean Congress in Solidarity with

Puerto Rico’s Independence

November 18-19, 2006

Panama City, Panama 

Proclamation1

Commemorating 180 years of the Peoples’ Associative Congress of Panama called 

by the Liberator, Simo ́n Bolı ́var, to finalize and secure our America’s Independence, 

the Latin American and Caribbean political parties gathered in Panama City in support of Puerto Rico’s Independence, and in harmony with the convocation for this 

event hereby 

Resolve: 

To reiterate to the World our solidarity and support for the cause of Puerto Rico’s 

independence, an historic and principled claim of our America. Latin America and 

the Caribbean will not be truly independent until all its nations are. 

To create a Permanent Working Committee for Puerto Rico’s Independence 2 to coordinate and implement this Congress’ resolutions. 

To establish Solidarity and Support Committees in each of our nations to educate 

and create awareness regarding the need to integrate Puerto Rico, through its full 

sovereignty and independence, to the concert of free nations and thereby promote 

the best relations among the nations of this Hemisphere. 

172

To offer to both the Puerto Rican nation as well as the Government of the United 

States, our cooperation and good offices, including the role of interlocutors and the 

tasks to lay the groundwork that may be necessary at the several levels of the Government of the United States, leading to a Hemispheric dialogue to resolve Puerto 

Rico’s colonial problem. 

To urge our respective governments that the Latin American and Caribbean community of nations promotes, as a region, the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization’s urgent re-examination of the case of Puerto Rico in light of new 

international and regional conditions. 

To espouse by all possible means the cause of Puerto Rico’s independence. 

To support the liberation of Puerto Rican political prisoners, a claim already made 

by the most diverse ideological sectors of the people of Puerto Rico. 

To express to the Puerto Rican Independence Party our support, solidarity, and 

recognition, upon its 60th anniversary, for its constant and selfless struggle for 

Puerto Rico’s freedom.

Panama City 

November 19, 2006

Translated by the Secretariat for North American Relations of the Puerto Rican 

Independence Party. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes the 

former Governor and current Senator, Pedro Rossello ́, to testify for 

five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PEDRO ROSSELLO ́ , FORMER GOVERNOR AND CURRENT SENATOR, COMMONWEALTH OF 

PUERTO RICO AND PRESIDENT, NEW PROGRESSIVE PARTY 

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. Chairwoman Christensen, Members of the Insular 

Affairs Committee, Members of Congress, for the record, my name 

is Pedro Rossello ́. I have come here today to express my support 

for H.R. 900. 

And in so doing, I have likewise come to exercise my right, under 

the United States Constitution First Amendment, ‘‘to petition the 

government for a redress of grievances.’’

As some of you know, perhaps all too well, my grievances are 

many, and in that regard I must acknowledge that I have grown 

a bit weary of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Because I have now been obliged to do it for pretty close to 

two decades. 

Still, others have been doing it for much longer. Going back for 

106 years—that is five generations of Puerto Ricans—have been petitioning Congress. And even after 106 years, we have yet to see 

our principal grievance redressed. 

For the record, together with my testimony I have submitted a 

chronology of constitutional actions on Puerto Rico’s status. The 

chronology’s earliest entries pertain to the 57th Congress, which 

convened during 1901 to 1902. With respect to this issue, Congressional action may be a misnomer, because no final action on Puerto 

Rico’s status has ever been taken by Congress. 

Nevertheless, the topic has been broached in no fewer than 66 

bills or resolutions on the House side, while in the Senate a total 

of 27 legislative measures have been filed. 

The Constitution empowers the people of the several states that 

govern our nation through elected officials. But that same Constitution grants you and the other Members of Congress unilateral 

power to govern every resident of Puerto Rico and every other territory. 

173

We, the people of Puerto Rico and the other territories, have absolutely no tangible authority at the Federal level, direct or indirect. Never once since 1989 has Congress deigned to inquire of the 

people of Puerto Rico whether they are content with this arrangement. 

Congress has listened. Congress has tinkered. And Congress has 

tried at times to be supportive. And Congress has frequently been 

generous with public monies. Yet never once, since 1989, has Congress deigned to seek the consent of the governed. 

The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007 is only a small, single 

step in that direction. If enacted, though it will be an historic step 

because it will mark a long-overdue first step, a first step in the 

direction of converting a colonial empire back into a democratic republic. And let us not forget that the founders of that democratic 

republic committed their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred 

honor to a protracted revolution against the inherent inequities of 

colonial empire. 

It has been alleged that I have occasionally waxed a little testy, 

a little bit testy on Capitol Hill. Perhaps that is true, and perhaps 

today is such a day. 

For example, how, one may ask, can I justify brazenly brandishing a term so provocative as colonial empire. Well, here is how. 

Nowhere does the Constitution so much as imply, let alone proclaim, that the United States shall ever have the authority to betray its own revolutionary origins by acquiring and indefinitely possessing colonies. 

So how is it possible that 53 years after Brown v. Board of Education we live in a land whose Supreme Court continues to hold 

that the civil rights of U.S. citizens can be capriciously curtailed by 

means of geographic segregation, just as it once shamefully embraced the validity of separate but equal as a racial segregation 

doctrine? 

The Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine that legalized racial segregation 

has been dead and buried since 1954. Yet its sister doctrine of geographic segregation, promulgated by the Supreme Court in Downes 

v. Bidwell, incredibly to this day lives on. Somehow that judicial 

atrocity has survived no fewer than 106 years of steady progress 

on virtually every other front in America’s never-ending struggle to 

form a more perfect union. 

The exclusionary mindset manifested in Downes v. Bidwell explains how Puerto Rico has acquired the dubious distinction of 

being the jurisdiction that holds the all-time record for most years 

as an American territory. 

And the questions are, what do we, the people of Puerto Rico, 

want. What do we, the people of the United States, want? Do we, 

the people, support the perpetuation of a policy of colonial imperialism? Or do we favor having our nation rediscovery its roots as 

a democratic republic? 

Geographical discrimination is no less insidious and no less odious than any other type of arbitrary injustice. But in one important 

respect, geographical discrimination, what I call the American territorial ghetto, is downright bizarre. 

A U.S. citizen of any ancestry, including Puerto Rican, retains 

the right to vote for President if he or she moves from any state 

174

to any foreign country. A U.S. citizen of any ancestry, including 

Puerto Rican, acquires the right to vote in local and Federal elections if he or she establishes residence in one of the 50 states, even 

if the person in question was born and raised in a territory or in 

a foreign country. 

Nevertheless, there exists one grotesque corollary to these rules. 

Any American citizens who relocate from a state to a U.S. territory 

is immediately stripped of all political rights at the Federal level. 

This person automatically loses the right to vote for President, 

loses the right to voting representation in Congress, and loses the 

protection of the full panoply of civil rights that the Constitution 

guarantees to citizens residing anywhere else. 

Even though the stars and stripes flies over Puerto Rico, an 

American citizen’s full constitutional rights are summarily denied 

entry there. It was this outrageous catch-22 that prompted me, six 

months ago, to deliver a petition to the Inter-American Commission 

on Human Rights, a body that was created by, and which reports 

to, the Organization of American States. 

That petition articulates a grievance; namely, that by denying 

full democratic participation in national affairs to its Puerto Ricodomiciled citizens, the Government of the United States is clearly 

violating the civil and human rights of those citizens. For the 

record, I have submitted a copy of our grievance to the Subcommittee. 

All across the globe, perennially subjugated people are today either breathing free or advancing hopefully in that direction. The 

United States is applauding and promoting this inspiring trend. 

Brave Americans, including thousands of Puerto Ricans, are putting their lives on the line to support this cause in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Well, over 50 Puerto Ricans have died in 

those conflicts since 2001. Numerous others have been wounded 

and/or decorated for their valor. 

However, there is a powerful irony in all of this, because the 

Pentagon is sending Puerto Rican military personnel——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Gov. Rossello ́. Mr. ROSSELLO ́.—the Middle East for the purpose of defending liberties that are denied to those very same Puerto Ricans in their 

own——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Governor, could I ask you to wrap up, please? 

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. I would be glad to do so. I understand that after 

106 years of testimony, you need no more than five minutes of my 

testimony. Therefore, I would also take my leave at this point, if 

I cannot finish my statement. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Well, to be perfectly honest, and for the 

record, I gave the Governor just short of eight minutes. Mr. Berrı ́os 

finished his in about six, and you are now a little over eight minutes. And so I think I have been very fair. So I am asking you to 

wrap up, not to—you have a few seconds to wrap up your testimony. 

And please remember also that your full testimony is a part of 

the official record of the committee. 

Mr. ROSSELLO ́. Madame Chairwoman, I will conclude, and I will 

take my leave at this point. I submit the rest of my remarks for 

the record. Thank you. 

175

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rossello ́ follows:]

Statement of Pedro Rossello ́, MD, MPH., Governor of Puerto Rico, 1993-

2001, Member of the Senate of Puerto Rico, 2005-, President of the New 

Progressive Party of Puerto Rico, 1991-1999; 2003-

Chairwoman Christensen: good day to you, as well as to Ranking Member 

Fortun ̃ o and to each of the other members of the Insular Affairs Subcommittee of 

the House Committee on Natural Resources. 

For the record, my name is Pedro Rossello ́. I am President of the New Progressive 

Party of Puerto Rico. From 1993 until 2001, I was Governor of Puerto Rico and I 

am currently a Senator in the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly. 

I have come here today to express my support for H.R. 900, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007; in so doing, I have likewise come to exercise my right—under 

the United States Constitution’s First Amendment—‘‘to petition the Government for 

a redress of grievances.’’

As some of you know—perhaps all too well—my grievances are many; and in that 

regard, I must acknowledge that I have grown a bit weary of petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances, because I have now been obliged to do it for 

pretty close to two decades. 

Still, others have been doing it for much longer: going back 106 years—that’s five 

generations, Puerto Ricans have been petitioning Congress; and even after 106 

years, we have yet to see our principal grievance redressed. 

For the record, together with my testimony, I have submitted a chronology of Congressional actions on Puerto Rico’s status. The chronology’s earliest entries pertain 

to the 57th Congress, which convened during 1901 and 1902. Its most recent entries 

pertain to the 109th Congress, which adjourned at the end of 2006. 

With respect to this issue, ‘‘Congressional actions’’ may be a misnomer, because 

no final action on Puerto Rico’s status has ever been taken by Congress. Nevertheless, the topic has been broached in no fewer than 66 bills or resolutions on the 

House side, while the total number of Senate measures filed is 27. 

The Constitution empowers the people of the several states to govern our Nation 

through elected officials; the people of those states have democratically delegated 

the task of governance to you and to the other members of the Congress, as well 

as to our President. 

But that same Constitution grants you and the other members of the Congress 

unilateral power to govern me, along with every other resident of Puerto Rico and 

every other U.S. territory! 

We the People of Puerto Rico and the other territories have absolutely no tangible 

authority at the federal level—direct or indirect. 

Never once, since 1898, has Congress deigned to inquire of the Puerto Rican people whether they are content with this arrangement. 

Congress has listened; and Congress has tinkered; and Congress has tried, at 

times, to be supportive; and Congress has frequently been generous with public 

monies. 

Yet never once, since 1898, has Congress deigned to seek ‘‘the consent of the governed’’: never once has Congress inquired of the Puerto Rican people whether they 

are satisfied with an arrangement under which Congress ultimately holds all of the 

cards, and under which Puerto Ricans perennially possess zero votes on how those 

cards will be played. 

The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007 is only a single, small step. If enacted, 

though, it will be an historic step because it will mark a long-overdue first step—

a first step in the direction of converting a colonial empire back into a democratic 

republic; and let us not forget that the Founders of that democratic republic committed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to a protracted revolution 

against the inherent inequities of colonial empire. 

It has been alleged that I have occasionally waxed a bit testy on Capitol Hill. Perhaps that is true, and perhaps today is such a day. For example: how, one might 

ask, can I justify brazenly brandishing a term so provocative as ‘‘colonial empire’’? 

Well, here’s how... 

The Constitution clearly envisions territories as being prospective states. That’s 

why the Constitution’s ‘‘territorial clause’’ appears in the same two-paragraph Section that sets forth the process for admitting new states. 

Nowhere does the Constitution so much as imply—let alone proclaim—that the 

United States shall ever have the authority to betray its own revolutionary origins 

by acquiring and indefinitely possessing colonies. 

So how is it possible that—53 years after Brown versus Board of Education—we 

live in a land whose Supreme Court continues to hold that the civil rights of U.S. 

176

citizens can be capriciously curtailed by means of geographic segregation, just as it 

once shamefully embraced the validity of ‘‘separate but equal’’ as a racial segregation doctrine? 

The Plessy versus Ferguson doctrine, that legalized racial segregation, has been 

dead and buried since 1954. Yet its sister doctrine of geographic segregation, promulgated by the Supreme Court in Downes versus Bidwell, incredibly lives on. 

Somehow, that judicial atrocity has survived no fewer than 106 years of steady 

progress—on virtually every other front—in America’s never-ending struggle to form 

a more perfect Union! 

The exclusionary mindset manifested in Downes versus Bidwell explains how 

Puerto Rico has acquired the dubious distinction of being the jurisdiction that holds 

the all-time record for most consecutive years as an American territory; Oklahoma 

held the record, at 104 years, until we broke it in 2003; and since then, of course, 

we have been setting a new record every year. 

What do We the People of Puerto Rico want? 

What do We the People of the United States want? 

Do We the People support the perpetuation of a policy of colonial imperialism? Or 

do we favor having our nation rediscover its roots as a democratic republic? 

Filed on February 7, 2007 and sponsored by—among scores of others—a majority 

of the members of this Subcommittee, H.R. 900 will at last pose those questions; 

and if I may say so, it’s about time—better late than never! 

Geographical discrimination is no less insidious, and no less odious, than any 

other type of arbitrary injustice. But in one important respect, geographical discrimination—what I call ‘‘the American territorial ghetto’’—is downright bizarre. 

• A U.S. citizen of any ancestry, including Puerto Rican, retains the right to vote 

for President if he or she moves from any state to any foreign country. 

• A U.S. citizen of any ancestry, including Puerto Rican, acquires the right to vote 

in local and federal elections if he or she establishes residence in one of the 50 

states—even if the person in question was born and raised in a territory or a 

foreign country. 

That’s all well and good. 

Nevertheless, there exists one grotesque corollary to those rules. 

Any American citizen who relocates from a state to a U.S. territory is immediately 

stripped of all political rights at the federal level! 

This person may never ever have set foot outside U.S. soil—yet he or she automatically loses the right to vote for President; loses the right to voting representation in Congress; and loses the protection of the full panoply of civil rights that the 

Constitution guarantees to citizens residing elsewhere. 

Even though the Stars and Stripes flies over Puerto Rico, an American citizen’s 

full constitutional rights are summarily denied entry there—and it is Uncle Sam 

himself who mans the barricades! 

It was this outrageous ‘‘Catch 22’’ that prompted me, six months ago, to deliver 

a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—a body that was 

created by, and which reports to, the Organization of American States [OAS]. 

That petition articulates a grievance: namely, that—by denying full democratic 

participation in national affairs to its Puerto Rico-domiciled citizens—the government of the United States is clearly violating the civil and human rights of those 

citizens. For the record, I have submitted a copy of our grievance to the Subcommittee. 

In addressing the Human Rights Commission, my fellow petitioners and I contend 

that the United States stands in clear violation of commitments contained in two 

unequivocal documents that the entire membership of the OAS has adopted—both 

collectively and individually. Those documents are the American Declaration of the 

Rights and Duties of Man and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. 

All across the globe, perennially subjugated peoples are today either breathing 

free or advancing hopefully in that direction. 

The United States is applauding and promoting this inspiring trend. 

Brave Americans, including thousands of Puerto Ricans, are putting their lives on 

the line to support this cause—in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Well over 

50 Puerto Ricans have died in those conflicts since 2001; numerous others have been 

wounded and/or decorated for their valor. 

However, there is a powerful irony in all of this—because the Pentagon is sending 

Puerto Rican military personnel to the Middle East for the purpose of defending liberties that are denied to those very same Puerto Ricans in their own homeland! 

As I mentioned a moment ago, all across the planet, perennially subjugated peoples are today either breathing free or advancing hopefully in that direction; and 

the United States is applauding and promoting that ongoing phenomenon. 

177

Nevertheless—incongruous though it be—the law of our own land persists in contradicting this inspiring global trend. 

Where the United States is concerned, it seems that democracy does not begin at 

home; instead, the law of our own land persists in mandating geographical discrimination against certain communities of American citizens who reside on American 

soil; in other words, American law gives its blessing to the indefinite existence of 

an American constitutional-rights ghetto. 

Herein lies a truly national conundrum; herein lies the unfinished business of 

American democracy. 

Colonialism, on planet Earth, is nearly extinct. Nobody, anywhere, has a kind 

thing to say about it. 

Imperialism is a dirty word. Nobody, anywhere, has a kind thing to say about it. 

So how on Earth can the United States of America conceivably countenance its 

retention of a colonial empire, without at least asking its subject peoples for their 

consent on the supremely sensitive matter of their inferior civic status? 

The answer is that it cannot; and that is why passage of the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007 is long overdue. 

I plead guilty to waxing testy at times. But I plead innocent to any accusations 

of wanton hyperbole. 

So when I say ‘‘long overdue,’’ I mean exactly that. 

In my defense, I offer a quotation. Its source is a person with whom some of you 

may be personally acquainted. Here are his words: 

‘‘Puerto Rico has a long history of petitioning the Congress. They have had elections down there. They have had petitions. They have had ad hoc commissions. They 

have had petitions signed by a third of their voters’’. 

‘‘What the problem has been is not a problem with Puerto Rico. The problem has 

been with the Congress. We have had over 30 bills introduced. We have had statehood bills, 16 of them; independence bills, seven of them; enhanced commonwealth 

bills, three of them. We have had combination bills. And they never get anywhere.’’

The person who said that was The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston. 

As the then-Chairman of the U.S. Senate panel that is responsible for territorial 

affairs, J. Bennett Johnston uttered those words during an executive session of his 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources more than 16 years ago—on 

February 27, 1991. 

Before the 20th century expired, additional Puerto Rico status bills were filed. 

They never got anywhere, either. 

In the autumn of 2005, I published a book wherein the preceding quotation appears. For your perusal, I am herewith submitting a copy of that book—which is 

appropriately entitled, The Unfinished Business of American Democracy. 

Immediately after quoting Senator Johnston, my book contains a paragraph 

wherein I make the following statement: 

‘‘Glib souls that they tend to be, Members of Congress customarily are able to concoct reasonable-sounding explanations for their failure to accomplish anything on 

this front. Yet there is no escaping the fact that their collective lack of political will 

is the principal cause of the inertia in which Puerto Rico’s status dilemma has been 

mired for a full century. Congressional foot-dragging has undercut, undermined, 

eroded and ultimately doomed a whole succession of Puerto Rico-originated initiatives aimed at eradicating the territory’s colonial limbo.’’

Since I wrote that paragraph, several more Puerto Rico status bills have been 

tossed into the Congressional hopper. One of those bills is H.R. 900. 

Distinguished members of the Insular Affairs Subcommittee, you know better 

than I that significant legislative action is rarely easy to achieve. 

H.R. 900 is unquestionably significant, because it would begin to address the legitimate grievances of the American citizens of Puerto Rico. 

However, H.R. 900 has the uncommon virtues of also being simple and straightforward and eminently meritorious. The enactment of this significant piece of legislation should be easy to achieve. 

On behalf of a century-plus of Congressional witnesses from Puerto Rico, I respectfully ask that you succeed where more than 50 previous Congresses have 

failed. I ask that you resoundingly recommend approval of the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007, and I respectfully request that you adopt the following amendment 

that will expedite the self-determination process: in Section 3(a) of H.R. 900, I ask 

that you replace the phrase, ‘‘December 31, 2009,’’ with the phrase, ‘‘December 31, 

2008.’’

Thank you very much. 

178

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. And as all written testimony, it is 

accepted for the record. I would hope that you would stay for questions. Anyway, thank you for your testimony. 

I will now recognize myself for five minutes for questions, maybe 

not even five minutes. As a matter of fact, let me revise that. Mr. 

Serrano is here; he will have to go and vote. Let me recognize Mr. 

Serrano for his questions. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. Let me just say how honored 

I am to have these distinguished leaders, including the one that 

just left, in front of me. We Puerto Ricans do have a temper at 

times, and I think after 108 years it is possible that the behavior 

can be different in different ways. 

Mr. Berrı ́os, just a quick question for you, because I do have a 

vote pending. You may not be wrong. There are days when I wake 

up and realize or feel that statehood is never a possibility in this 

Congress. Are you suggesting that there is a way we can address 

this issue without including statehood in a bill? Obviously the easiest way would be to have a bill that says get rid of the territory, 

you know, dispose of it. That is not being presented right now. 

Do you think we could do this without including statehood? In 

other words, the two options. 

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTI ́NEZ. I will answer shortly. I only want to say 

I am very sorry Gov. Rossello ́ is not here, but I just hope that when 

Congress slams the door on statehood, he walks out also with me, 

because that is the way to do it. I cannot understand neither him 

nor any other leader that—and I must say this—talks as clearly as 

he has done today, and nevertheless insists on wanting to marry 

that person that doesn’t want to marry him. That falls under the 

political Stockholm Syndrome. You don’t ally yourself with the oppressor and with the empire. You struggle against the empire. I am 

sorry he is not here, but I was going to say it before him. 

Yes, I think there is a way. If you insist on including statehood, 

no bill will be approved here. You all know that, basically. Privately, most of you have told me that—and I am not referring to 

you. Everybody knows that. 

A nation that is building a wall on its southern frontier with 

Mexico will never accept 4 million Latin-Americans as a state of 

the Union, with 4 million more inside the United States. That will 

not happen in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, I think you must find a way to get around this if you 

want to approve a bill. And the way I have proposed I think is the 

way out. 

I must be completely frank regarding my proposal. The first part 

obviously does not include statehood, my first point, my first step. 

The second step regarding the constitutional convention includes, 

indirectly, very indirectly, statehood, because statehood can participate, and I hope they do, in the constitutional convention in Puerto 

Rico. But that is very indirectly. 

Now, if the constitutional convention is not convened in six 

months, then in the other step, the third step, you don’t have to 

include statehood. You didn’t include statehood in 1950 to 1952. 

You didn’t include anything except the territorial colonial government. And then you argued before the U.N. that Puerto Rico had 

self-determined itself. And it was false. You gave Puerto Ricans 

179

only one choice: either this bad system, or this bad system. And 

Puerto Rico chose the ones, the system they thought was not as 

bad as the other one. 

But why don’t you do it again? Why don’t you make a good offer? 

Like other colonial powers have done. A good offer of independence. 

If there is no, if the Puerto Rican people in a constitutional convention do not opt for another alternative, sovereign alternative, why 

not? Your obligation is to dispose of the territory. You didn’t ask 

anybody in Puerto Rico whether you come in, in 1898. You came 

in through the force of arms. So why not fully exercise your obligation to expose of the territory, and make an offer to the Puerto 

Rican people? An offer we cannot resist. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. I wanted to clarify that, thank you. 

Gov. Acevedo-Vila ́, with all due respect, I think you made quite 

a bit of news here today. You said that my bill forces people in 

Puerto Rico to vote for statehood. 

Now, if they are given a choice in the second round, assuming 

they reject commonwealth in the first round, between statehood 

and independence, then you must know something I don’t know; 

that most people who vote for commonwealth now will vote for 

statehood. So I guess your statement today, and the big news in 

the Puerto Rican press tomorrow, will be that Governor AcevedoVila ́ said that given a choice between statehood and independence, 

most populares will vote for statehood. 

And I tell you, it is my bill, but I am not sure that will happen. 

It might be that you are so autonomous, your party, that you will 

vote for independence. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. You know me better than that, but I describe 

what your bill does. It sums the second and third place in order 

to defeat the first place. 

Mr. SERRANO. No. It brings the non-colonial second and third options, and it——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. We have discussed this many times. 

Mr. SERRANO. That is right. But you have never clarified the first 

point. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. We don’t agree. What I see is that on every 

opportunity, since you are so intelligent and so smart, you come up 

with a different way of summing up the votes just to eliminate 

commonwealth. 

Mr. SERRANO. You know, that got Joe Biden into a lot of trouble, 

that comment you just made. But that is OK, I accept it as a compliment, because I am from Puerto Rico. 

Now, listen to me again. Listen to my——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. And, and——

Mr. SERRANO. I can ask you in Spanish or I can ask you in 

English. It is up to you. How do you know what we don’t know? 

How do you know the outcome of the second vote? Are you telling 

us that you know——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Because you are making the second——

Mr. SERRANO. No. How do you know that populares are secretly 

statehooders? How do you know that? I don’t know that. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. No. Maybe, maybe, you know what? Maybe 

populares and commonwealth are one vote. One vote. Remember, 

we want a plebiscite with none of the above, precisely because they 

180

were trying to impose tricks on the people of Puerto Rico. We want 

with none of the above. 

Mr. SERRANO. Let me conclude——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. So in that sense, in that sense, and I say this 

with due respect, if H.R. 900 is approved, and that is the process 

that is given to the people of Puerto Rico, what you are going to 

have is really uncertainty. What you are going to have is the people of Puerto Rico getting the feeling that—it is two theories. Either you are imposing statehood, or, after Mr. Berrı ́os just explained, you are imposing independence. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, no, my——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. So that is the process that the people of 

Puerto Rico are rejecting today, and will reject tomorrow. So that 

is not the way of addressing this important issue. 

Mr. SERRANO. OK, my time is up. So let me just conclude by saying that I agree with you; I am pretty smart and intelligent. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SERRANO. And I can see a colonial status in any way, shape, 

or form. And your so-called enhanced commonwealth may be a good 

deal, but it is a colonial status. Give me a non-colonial status, and 

I will support it, because I am intelligent and smart. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. That conclusion is based on legal interpretations that I firmly believe are wrong. And in that sense, I think 

that the challenge that you have, as Members of Congress, is to 

come up with new, with new schemes, legal schemes, that will give 

dignity, sovereignty to the people of Puerto Rico, and that will 

allow improve the current relationship. And that is possible. You 

have that power, we have that power. It is a matter of political 

will. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Not of using the Constitution——

Mr. SERRANO. Madame Chairwoman, thank you for your time 

and for your patience with me. And let me just for the record say 

that dignity and respect is either joining the family or declaring 

your independence. There is no other colonial status that can be 

dignified. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. And the Chair now 

recognizes Mr. Fortun ̃ o for questions. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chair. Governor, 

I am reading your platform, 2004 platform. And it states very 

clearly that you and your party adopt as the supersized or enhanced commonwealth proposal the one that was approved by the 

governing board of your party on October 15, 1998. Is that correct 

or wrong? 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Yes. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. So I have it here, and that is exactly what you all 

said that would be your proposal. If we may look at your proposal, 

I am trying to make this easier for everyone, you are saying that 

Puerto Rico will be a sovereign nation, but in permanent union 

with the United States; that the covenant will permanently bind 

the U.S. to its terms, when we have heard not just one, not two, 

but three Administrations, from two Republicans and one Democrat, telling you no, that is not doable. 

181

Puerto Rico will be able to veto most Federal laws. I am just 

reading what you all put together. That Puerto Rico will be able 

to invalidate Federal court jurisdiction. It will be able to enter into 

trade and other agreements with foreign nations and join international organizations separate from the U.S. The U.S. will provide 

new incentives for investment without paying any Federal taxes. 

The U.S. will continue all current assistance programs without 

paying Federal taxes, plus an annual block grant. The U.S. will 

continue to grant free entry to any goods from Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. will continue to grant U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans, to 

people born in Puerto Rico. 

Three Administrations have told you that what you are proposing is not doable. What part of no don’t you understand? What 

is un-American is to try to deny the 4 million U.S. citizens an opportunity to select an option. 

And actually, the option is there. A third option is there, and actually we are more than willing, and I am telling you up front that 

I am more willing, and I know my friend Jose ́ Serrano is willing 

as well, to work on that third option. It is free association. 

Do you have the pantalones to move on and work on free association as a third option, so that we can solve this once and for all, 

and allow the people of Puerto Rico to decide this once and for all? 

That is my concern here. We want something solved, and for the 

time being, as long as your lobbyists don’t try to block this process 

from moving along, then it makes it more and more and more difficult. 

Is this——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Are you meeting failure? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I am sorry? 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Are you meeting failure already? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. No. Today we won a big round. And you were trying, through Charlie Black, to try not to have the Administration 

actually put forth anything in writing, or come here. Not only did 

they come here, but they said it very clearly: that they stand behind the recommendations of the task force. 

I was with the President a few hours ago. I can tell you that the 

President is fully behind this. His senior staff is fully behind this. 

He reconfirmed that today, as we were talking at the White House. 

I only hope that you will stop these delaying tactics, and allow 

for the people of Puerto Rico to have the opportunity to select one 

option. And if you want to work really—I am talking seriously—

from here we go up to my office, and we work on that free association option. 

But you have to understand that not one, not two, three Administrations have told you that this is not doable, and have told you 

what is doable. I urge you, are you willing to sit down and really 

work on a free association option that is doable under the U.S. 

Constitution, so that we can allow the people of Puerto Rico to decide directly? Are you willing to do that? 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Let me react to your additional statement. 

Beyond the fact that you are summarizing the proposal and not 

using the actual language, but that is not important. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. That is OK. We will submit for the record exactly 

what you have in your proposal so we can allow the committee to 

182

understand. Can we submit that for the record, so that the committee understands what is in it? 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. It has been submitted many times. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I know. But I just want to submit it again so that 

everyone understands that I am telling the truth here. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Without objection. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. 

[NOTE: The information submitted for the record by Mr. 

Acevedo-Vila ́ has been retained in the Committee’s official 

files.] 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Can I react and respond? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. OK. First let me talk a little bit about the 

President’s endorsement. Now, let us first go to the three Administrations. Is this Congress? Don’t we have separation of powers? Or 

do you guys only do what the Administration tells you? 

Laws require that——

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I and the President agree——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́.—the Senate, the House, and with all due respect——

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O.—and that is what we are trying to do. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I haven’t finished. You are mentioning three 

Administrations, and my question to you is, this is Congress. This 

is Congress. For how many Administrations did African-Americans 

were denied their rights? And that was a good argument, to tell 

them you shouldn’t go back to Congress and try to get legislation 

that is fair? Because you know, five Administrations, 10 Administrations have denied that to you. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. But are you willing to work on a third option of 

free association? 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I am responding to all your points. I am responding to all your points. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Except we are running out of time here. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I am responding to all your points. And in 

terms of the importance of the endorsement of President Bush to 

your bill, and this Congress, isn’t he endorsing the surge in Iraq? 

And this Congress——

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Madame Chair, we are trying to—I reclaim my 

time. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. No, my point is——

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I reclaim my time immediately. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. My point is that we come to Congress to deliberate. And you are telling Congress you shouldn’t deliberate and 

discuss anything, because the President has already spoken. And 

that is not the way the system works. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. If you want to talk about something else, that is 

fine. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. That is not the way the system works. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. The door is open to work on a free association option as a third option. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. In terms of the future of Puerto Rico and the 

future development of commonwealth, I will discuss that with the 

people of Puerto Rico. And eventually, with the whole Congress. 

And I will spend as much time as I have to make this or the next 

183

Congress to understand that the best option for the people of 

Puerto Rico, and the best option for the United States, is to work 

to enhance commonwealth. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. The door is open. It is free association. Three Administrations have told you, and what part of no don’t you understand? 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Mr. Fortun ̃ o, Mr. Fortun ̃ o, you guys are so 

afraid of commonwealth, that you are not willing even to put the 

name commonwealth on the ballot. Because in your bill, not even 

the name commonwealth is on the ballot. You know why? Because 

whenever statehood has been on the ballot, and commonwealth has 

been on the ballot, you know what has been the result. The people 

of Puerto Rico has rejected statehood. They reject statehood today, 

they reject statehood tomorrow. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Madame Chair, the witness isn’t answering the 

question. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. The time of the gentleman has expired. I now recognize Mr. Faleomavaega for five minutes. 

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTI ́NEZ. Madame Chair, can I comment on Mr. 

Fortun ̃ o’s question? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I gladly yield. 

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTI ́NEZ. I want to be as candid and as clear as 

possible. I have been, I think, today to see if we—we have to stop 

beating around the bush. 

The leaders of the PDP today, of the Commonwealth Party, are 

willing to accept work for less than the minimum wage. That is 

what it is all about. That is commonwealth. It is all right that they 

do that. 

But the question Congress has to ask itself is whether, at this 

juncture in time, one can work for less than the minimum wage. 

The history of slavery should be clear enough. There are stages you 

surpass, and once you pass that stage, you don’t go back. 

And colonialism is one of those things humanity has progressed 

beyond. And therefore, it is an insult, it is an insult for people to 

be told that the only option they should have is colonialism or slavery or working for less than the minimum wage. Even though that 

is true, Congress is giving them the chance to ask the Puerto Rican 

people. But why say the two polar opposites will unite against the 

center? 

No. It is the people who don’t believe in the colony and the people who believe in the colony. There are many commonwealthers 

who don’t believe in the colony, and they will vote against the colony, together with the statehooders and the independentistas. And 

then we will sort things out among alternatives which are not colonial. 

Don’t beat around the bush any more. They don’t believe in going 

away from colonialism. They believe in permanent union. You have 

been told today, they have a right to espouse that. But they have 

been told, they have told you once and over again, and the Governor has repeated today, they don’t believe in going out of colonialism. They want to live in that mudhole forever. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Reclaiming my time, Madame Chair. I do 

want to thank Mr. Martı ́nez for his statements. 

184

I just want to ask Gov. Vila ́ a couple of questions. And basically, 

as I have tried to outline the provisions of both bills—and I want 

to see if I am correct in this, Gov. Vila ́—on the specific provisions 

of H.R. 900 there are three options. One for independence, one for 

free association or statehood. Is that your——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. It is not clear on the second one. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. H.R. 900. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I know, but on the second round, when commonwealth is out of the question. Because in that bill, which I 

again—and the people of Puerto Rico, the majority of the people of 

Puerto Rico reject that bill—even if the people vote for statehood, 

for commonwealth, define commonwealth. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Governor, may I——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. No, no. Then it says that well, you guys had 

it wrong, you know. You have to vote again. Eight years from now 

you will vote again. So, you know, that is the way to force the vote. 

Then on the second round they talk about statehood, they talk 

about independence, and then they talk about free association, but 

defined as independence. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But, Governor, again I am trying to get to 

my point here. The three options outlined in H.R. 900 are this: 

independence, free association, and statehood. Am I correct in this, 

in your reading of the bill? 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Yes. But if they are finishing a free association as——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That has not been defined. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́.—part of independence, yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But it has not been defined under H.R. 900. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. No, you are right. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The reason for my asking is because there 

is a distinction between free association and one of independence. 

Now, free association in terms of how the Micronesian States 

have taken their relationship with the United States, you know it 

is every 15 years they renegotiate the status of the unique political 

relationship between the United States and Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. 

Now, what they have done is simply taken free association from 

the definition of commonwealth from Puerto Rico, which is 

friestado or something, I am sorry——

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. Balot libre social. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, OK. They took that definition of commonwealth in Spanish and adopted it, but defining it in a different 

fashion. 

So what I am suggesting, I am asking you, Governor, as was Mr. 

Martı ́nez, there is a definite distinction here. The fact that free association, is this essentially what you have in mind for enhanced 

commonwealth as an option you have in H.R. 1230? 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. The thrust of the argument is, and that is 

what the problem with the White House report is, number one, 

whether you can reach an agreement based on mutual consent, 

which is a recognition of sovereignty. Because if you recognize mutual consent, you are recognizing the power of the other side to 

reach the agreement. 

185

And you have heard here, they say that is impossible. But in 

that sense—and the second one is U.S. citizenship for people born 

in Puerto Rico. The way this Administration and this report and 

H.R. 900 defines free association is without no mutual consent possibility, and without no possibility of U.S. citizenship. And in that 

sense, that is something that is rejected by the people of Puerto 

Rico. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I might also add, Governor, there is a fourth 

option that has not been discussed here. And that is a covenant relationship with the United States, which currently the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands have, in a very unique fashion, which is based on mutual consent. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I agree with you. But if you accept H.R. 900 

and the White House Task Force report, that one is unconstitutional, also. So that is the problem. 

The problem is that they are using legal arguments to leave the 

people of Puerto Rico, and I will add Guam, American Samoa, without options. Using the Constitution. They are using the Constitution to deprive our people of new options, of new alternatives. And 

to deprive Congress of alternatives, of new options. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am so sorry that Gov. Rossello ́ had to 

leave. But again, for you, Mr. Martı ́nez, I know my time is up, and 

I am at the mercy of Madame Chair here. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I will be very short. Madame Chair, if I may, let 

the record be straight that I am more than willing to work on that 

third option. It is free association as has been defined by the Justice Department over and over again. 

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTI ́NEZ. Of course, there are three, four, and 10 

options besides those accepted by international law, which are free 

association, independence, and statehood or integration. They are 

all territorial options. You can be a territory like the Northern 

Marianas, you can be a territory like the Virgin Islands, you can 

be a territory like Puerto Rico. And Congress will itself have the 

prerogative to rule over that territory. So of course you have many 

types of territories. We are seeing of them sitting right here. And 

you can improve them. 

But not, not as permanent political status recognized by international law. Neither by U.S. Constitutional law. That is the issue 

here. So why don’t we face it, and talk it like it is? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. The gentleman’s time is expired. I now recognize Ms. Bordallo for five minutes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Madame Chair. I am not going to 

take my five minutes, but I know there are two panels that are 

still to be heard. But I do want to thank the very distinguished 

leaders of Puerto Rico who traveled all the way here to Washington. Of course, I travel a little bit further to Washington, from 

Guam. 

But I do want to thank them very much for participating. And 

thank you very much, gentlemen, for your time. Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. I recognize myself 

now for five minutes. 

I will start with Mr. Berrı ́os. In your statement you say that the 

political efficacy of H.R. 1230 depends on the outcome of next 

186

year’s election. Could you explain what you mean by that? I mean, 

if I remember correctly, no matter which process has occurred in 

the past, the party in power has always had some more influence 

over the outcome. 

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTI ́NEZ. Yes, of course. It is not only ambiguous, 

but it depends on the efficacy. That means if the PDP wins, if Mr. 

Acevedo-Vila ́ wins, he has already announced what he will propose 

in the next session. Then he promises a constitutional convention, 

with the colonial commonwealth or one of the colonial modified 

versions of the colony. 

So if he wins, then we have in Puerto Rico a constitutional convention which will solve nothing, because commonwealth is the 

problem; and thus, it cannot be the solution. That is what I mean 

by the fact that it depends on the outcome. 

The one I am proposing does not depend on the outcome of the 

next election. First, because the first step is mandated from here. 

Second, because a real constitutional convention has to be called in 

Puerto Rico with international options. And if it is not called, then 

Congress must dispose of the territory. That doesn’t depend on who 

wins the next election. 

I must warn you, also, that Mr. Acevedo’s party has won several 

times, with several promises, and we are still in the unincorporated 

territory of Puerto Rico, for 50 years. So you know, have that in 

mind. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Governor, would you also respond 

to that question? And in the process, could you answer for me, does 

the H.R. 1230 process have, is it geared toward one specific outcome? Or can that constitutional assembly just as easily come up 

with a status that could be statehood or independence? 

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTI ́NEZ. It is a different approach. It is a new approach. And as I said in my written statement, I invite this Congress not to make the same mistakes that were made in the past. 

I think this hearing is a good example of why the constitutional 

convention should be the alternative. First, you have seen our divisions. Even one is missing now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTI ́NEZ. And what H.R. 900 is doing is bringing 

those divisions here. Through a constitutional convention you create a mechanism for the people of Puerto Rico to internally go 

through our divisions and try to find common grounds. So that is 

number one. 

Number two—and I say this with all due respect, and I know 

there have been votes—but you are discussing the most important 

issue in terms of the future of Puerto Rico. You are trying to tell 

the people of Puerto Rico that this Congress is going to decide and 

make clear what are the options. And this room has been empty 

the whole day. I think that is a good example why we shouldn’t repeat the same mistakes. 

H.R. 1230 basically says we recognize that the people of Puerto 

Rico have the power to call a constitutional convention, and we will 

respond, we will hear them. We will hear them. That way the people of Puerto Rico will vote for delegates. I don’t know what is 

going to be the outcome of that; maybe the majority of the deleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
187

gates will be for statehood, maybe not. Maybe when they sit down 

as a group, they change their opinion. 

And once they have a proposal, which has to be validated by the 

people of Puerto Rico, they will come to Congress. And Congress, 

if it is statehood, the alternative, will say well, it has to be statehood in Spanish, it has to be in English what judicial system, taxes 

and all that. Maybe the people of Puerto Rico will say wait, we 

don’t want that offer. Maybe Congress will say forget about statehood. Maybe there won’t be any response from Congress. Then the 

constitutional convention and the people of Puerto Rico will know 

where we stand. 

The same thing with new commonwealth. What I am asking for 

new commonwealth is to give the same opportunity that you are 

willing to grant to statehood. Because, again, the issue, you know, 

what kind of statehood are we talking? Those are very important 

issues. 

Some of you have been in Puerto Rico and seen the campaigns. 

The Statehood Party is telling my party that we can become the 

51st state and still have our national Olympic team. They put T.V. 

ads with that. 

They have said to my people, don’t worry about Spanish in the 

schools; the school system will be in Spanish. The judicial system 

will be in Spanish. So why, you know—H.R. 900 says we don’t 

have to respond to those questions in order to offer statehood. Ah, 

but in order to offer commonwealth, we will respond to all the 

questions beforehand. 

The constitutional convention will allow the people of Puerto Rico 

to have those internal discussions, and then come here and make 

a proposal in which Congress will react. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madame Chairwoman——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I am sorry, but maybe you can answer. I just 

want to get one question in before my time is totally up. And I am 

going to ask it to the Governor, but I will also let you respond. 

In your opinion, Governor, is the current economic situation in 

Puerto Rico related to its status? I have this article here that—I 

know I am still learning, and I may have missed some of the words 

in Spanish, because it is in Spanish. But you have four leading 

economists, I think they are very well-respected economists, who 

talk about the economy. And their recommendation is a restructuring. 

And in all of the things that they list, they don’t list anything 

about changing status. 

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́. I am going to ask you a question, not for you 

to answer, just as my initial answer. 

Is the economic situation in Mississippi, who is the poorest state 

and has been the poorest state for the last 50 or 100 years—and 

I read in the New York Times the other day that in Mississippi and 

the South, the birth rates are coming down instead of going up—

is that a consequence of statehood? Is the economic situation of 

Mississippi a consequence of statehood? 

In terms of developing commonwealth, we can sit down with 

Congress and reach agreements that will empower the people of 

Puerto Rico in areas that will be beneficial economically for Puerto 

Rico and for the United States. But in terms of dealing short term 

188

with our situation is the same challenges that any independent 

country or any other jurisdiction in the United States has. 

And again, I have heard a lot about this issue in terms of statehood, and how is statehood an economic boom. And my answer is 

what happened to Mississippi? The per capita income of Mississippi 

is not the same as California, or Texas. 

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTI ́NEZ. Madame Chairwoman, regarding this 

question let me tell you that of course it has a direct influence on 

the economic problems of Puerto Rico. The only way to put Puerto 

Rico on its own two feet is to internationalize its market and its 

investment opportunities, and that can only be done through the 

full powers of sovereignty. 

But I must, to end my words, say something. As you know, I referred to the fact that I don’t understand how some people will 

refer to the United States as an empire, and yet want to marry 

that empire. 

On the other hand, I don’t understand how somebody can say 

that things have to be resolved in Puerto Rico, and agrees with the 

political system, where everything is so from here. Because that is 

what commonwealth is all about. It is not with we here that you 

command Puerto Rico, it is without anybody here. You have been 

commanding Puerto Rico since 1898. You are still commanding 

Puerto Rico, because you make all rules, regulations, and laws that 

apply to all basic facets of Puerto Rican life. 

And those people that say we have to solve things in Puerto Rico 

are those who agree that you command your destiny from the 

United States. I can’t understand that contradiction, either. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. My time has long expired, and I 

want to thank the witnesses for their very informative testimony, 

and again, the Members for their questions and for your answers 

to our questions. 

We may have more questions for you, which we will send in writing, and we ask you to respond in writing. 

Mr. BERRI ́OS-MARTI ́NEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you again. I would now like to recognize the third panel of witnesses, and they are The Honorable Kenneth D. McClintock, President of the Puerto Rican Senate; The 

Honorable Jose ́ Aponte, Speaker of the Puerto Rican House of Representatives; The Honorable Jose ́ Dalmau, Senate Minority Leader 

of the PDP; The Honorable He ́ctor Ferrer, House Minority Leader, 

Popular Democratic Party; and The Honorable Carlos Romero 

Barcelo ́, former Governor and former Member of Congress. 

[Pause.] 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. The Chair now recognizes Senator McClintock 

for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KENNETH D. McCLINTOCK,

PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICAN SENATE 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much. In the 31 years since 

I first appeared before this Subcommittee, two things have happened with complete certainty. 

First, I haven’t gotten any younger. And second, the argument 

that I have heard the most to excuse 108 years of Congressional 

inaction is that American citizens in Puerto Rico have to speak 

189

with one voice to resolve its status, a standard that hasn’t kept you 

from dealing with racial segregation, oil drilling in the ANWR, protection of the Everglades, or immigration reform, for example. 

As President of the Senate, may I remind you that two years ago, 

Puerto Rico did speak with one voice when a historic tri-partisan 

unanimous majority in the Senate and in the House supported a 

bill asking you to allow Puerto Ricans to choose among non-territorial and non-colonial options, exactly what H.R. 900 proposes. 

While the Governor unexpectedly vetoed the bill he promised to 

sign, fully two thirds of our Senate continued supporting what 

H.R. 900 proposes. 

H.R. 900 provides a reality check, for Puerto Ricans to choose 

among the real options: continuing the current territory status, or 

moving to statehood, independence, or nationhood in a true free association with the U.S. The Governor has wrongly insisted that the 

majority supports so-called commonwealth, but no one can be sure 

until there is a vote among real options, which H.R. 900 would 

provide. 

The current status, without any doubt, is subject to the Territories Clause of the Constitution. Some so-called commonwealth 

supporters defend it, stating that it just needs some development 

toward a non-territorial commonwealth status. Since what they call 

commonwealth is a territorial status, a non-territory commonwealth status is, by definition, an oxymoron. 

The fatal flaw in H.R. 1230 is that it includes an impossible proposal as an option, while it excludes a real status alternative. The 

excluded real status is free association. The impossible proposal is 

what Congressman Fortun ̃ o has called the supersized commonwealth that the Governor espouses, and that CRS made clear isn’t 

possible, for constitutional and basic policy reasons. 

Enacting a Federal law listing a non-territory commonwealth 

status as an option, as the Governor proposes, would invite Puerto 

Rico to choose an alternative that Congress cannot, and would not, 

grant, which would be a cruel hoax. 

H.R. 1230 is less democratic than H.R. 900. Under H.R. 900, 

the people would choose their preferred status. Under H.R. 1230, 

a convention, likely to be comprised of politicians who would speak 

among each other, as well as we speak among each other here, 

would choose, and the people would ultimately only be able to accept or reject the selected proposal; thus cornering the people into 

accepting a proposal that they would otherwise not have chosen by 

a majority. 

The purpose of the constitutional convention in H.R. 1230 is different from that of the constitutional conventions held by the 50 

states, held by Puerto Rico in 1951, authorized under the Constitution of Puerto Rico, held by the U.S., and held by all four other 

populated current territories. The purpose of those constitutional 

conventions was to organize governments under an already determined political status. The purpose of this constitutional convention would be to choose a political status. 

Finally, have you given any thought as to how much longer Congress is empowered to keep us as a territory? The segregationist 

majority of the Supreme Court that resolved Plessy v. Ferguson in 

1896, and the first of the Insular cases, believed that Congress 

190

1 I have been an at-large Senator from the New Progressive Party since 1993. I’m currently 

in my fourth term. From 1993 to 2000, I chaired the Committee on Federal and Economic Affairs and from 1994 to 2000 I also chaired the Government Affairs Committee. I served as the 

first Hispanic Chairman of the Council of State Governments during 1999 and as the second 

President of the Parliamentary Conference of the Americas in 2000. From 2001 to 2004 I was 

the Senate Minority Leader and in 2005 became the thirteenth President of the Senate. 2 Hearings by the Territorial and Insular Affairs Subcommittee of the Committee on Interior 

and Insular Affairs, January 20, 1976, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Among numerous other appearances before Congressional committees, I also appeared before the full Committee on Resources 

of the United States House of Representatives on April 19, 1997 in San Juan, Puerto Rico regarding H.R. 856, known as the Young Bill. 3 It’s a well-known historical fact that when President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil 

Rights Act, he would tell aide Bill Moyers that with a stroke of a pen he had just delivered 

the South to the Grand Old Party for the foreseeable future. As Senator Barack Obama has 

noted, President Johnson chose the ‘‘right side of the battle’’, notwithstanding the fact this was, 

and has been, the most divisive issue our Country has ever faced. Obama, Barack, The Audacity 

of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Crown Publishers. p. 27, 2006. 4See CRS-Issue Brief IB10111, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 

108th Congress, September 29th, 2004. 5See http://www.americanparknetwork.com/parkinfo/content.asp?catid=85&contenttypeid=14

6Substitutive of House Bills 1014, 1054 and 1058

could keep colonies forever. Justice Harlan, whose dissent in Plessy 

became the unanimous opinion of the Court in Brown v. Board of 

Education, stated in his Insular case dissent his belief that the Territories Clause was never intended by its anti-colonial drafters to 

justify Congress keeping territories forever. 

Which interpretation do you support? The segregationist view 

that separate but equal forever, be it racial or geographical, is constitutional? Or do you support Justice Harlan’s view? If you reject 

the segregationist view, inaction is no longer an alternative. The 

only alternative is to establish a process that will allow you to dispose of the territory of Puerto Rico or admit us into the Union. 

H.R. 900 clearly sends Puerto Rico on that path. 

On a personal note, may I say, if you look at every coin in your 

pocket, you will see the phrase e. pluribus unum—among many, 

one. H.R. 900 would allow us someday to become of the many, one. 

We are not part of that one today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Kenneth D. McClintock, 1

President, Senate of Puerto Rico 

I appeared before this Subcommittee for the first time 31 years ago, on January 

20th, 1976, at the age of 18. 2 Since then, two things have happened with complete 

certainty; first, I haven’t gotten any younger, and secondly, the argument that I’ve 

heard the most to excuse 108 years of Congressional inaction is that the American 

citizens in Puerto Rico have to speak with one voice to resolve the status dilemma, 

a standard that hasn’t kept you from dealing with other highly divisive domestic 

issues, such as racial segregation 3 ‘‘in the past—and, more recently, oil drilling in 

the ANWR, 4 the protection of the Everglades 5 and the very delicate issue of immigration reform. 

As President of the Senate, may I remind you that two years ago, Puerto Rico 

spoke with one voice when a historic tri-partisan unanimous vote in the Senate was 

followed by a unanimous vote in the House in favor of a measure 6, in which every 

one of Puerto Rico’s elected senators and representatives voted for a referendum in 

which the People of Puerto Rico would ask the Congress to commit to resolve Puerto 

Rico’s status dilemma. Unexpectedly, Governor Acevedo vetoed the bill, after having 

made the commitment that he would sign it as it was approved. 

Since then, the White House issued its report, and, in spite of the Governor’s inexplicable veto of the bill, two-thirds of Puerto Rico’s Senate supports H.R. 900 and 

opposes H.R. 1230. 

H.R. 900 would provide a ‘‘reality check’’ for Puerto Ricans to choose among the 

real status options that have support in the territory—continuing the current terriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
191

7Spanish for Pro-Independence voters. 

8 ‘‘PDP unveils commonwealth definition’’, San Juan Star, October 17, 1998. 

9 ‘‘Doing Right by Puerto Rico: Congress Must Act’’, Foreign Affairs, August 1998. 

10See Exhibit 1, ‘‘Popular Democratic Party Development of the Commonwealth’’ approved by 

the Governing Board of the Popular Democratic Party On October 15, 1998. 

tory status, U.S. Statehood, independence, and nationhood in a true free association 

with the U.S. 

The bill is based upon the findings and recommendations of the President’s Task 

Force on Puerto Rico’s Status established by President Clinton and comprised of 

senior appointees of President Bush who consulted with Puerto Rico’s leaders and 

studied the issue anew. They generally agreed with the Clinton Administration on 

the options. 

From the past Co-Chairman of the President’s Task Force, Mr. Rube ́n Barrales, 

I know that the two step-choice process was proposed in deference to Gov. Acevedo, 

who wrongly insisted that the majority of Puerto Ricans had always supported 

‘‘commonwealth’’, and who opposed the Puerto Rican people choosing among all the 

options. 

‘‘Commonwealth’’ is understood in Washington to refer to Puerto Rico’s territory 

status. The evidence is that Puerto Ricans do not support it, but no one can be sure 

until there is a vote among real options. The only time that the status as it exists 

was on the ballot—in 1998—it received less than one-tenth of one percent of the 

vote. Many commonwealthers voted for ‘‘None of the Above’’ along with many 

‘‘independentistas’’ 7. Commonwealthers did so because they were told by the current 

Governor that was the way to vote for the ‘‘Development of the Commonwealth’’ proposal. (See the article incorporated into my full statement. 8) This demonstrated why 

federal action is needed to clarify the real status options and was the reason that 

President Clinton agreed to establish the Task Force during a meeting with leaders 

of all three local parties. In the 1952 referendum, there was no ‘‘commonwealth’’ status option on the ballot. A proposal for a ‘‘commonwealth’’—different than the 

present—won the 1967 referendum, but it was rejected by this subcommittee’s predecessor. Another proposal for a ‘‘commonwealth’’ different than the present obtained 

a slight plurality over statehood in 1993, but it was not accepted by the Clinton Administration or congressional leaders. As former Governor Herna ́ndez Colo ́n has 

written, ‘‘all factions do agree on the need to end the present undemocratic arrangement’’ 9—and this is illustrated by the status proposals of the three parties and of 

the faction of the ‘‘commonwealth’’ party that supports free association. 

The current political status of Puerto Rico is, without any doubt, subject to the 

Territorial Clause of the Constitution of the United States. Some ‘‘commonwealth’’ 

supporters defend the current political status stating that it just needs some development, in the direction to a non-territorial Commonwealth status. Since what they 

call ‘‘commonwealth’’ is a territorial status, a non-territory ‘‘commonwealth’’ status 

is by definition an oxymoron. 

The fatal flaw of Governor Acevedo’s H.R. 1230 is that it includes an impossible 

proposal as an option and excludes a real status. The excluded real status is free 

association, which Acevedo opposes but is supported by a growing faction within his 

party. The impossible proposal is the ‘‘commonwealth Status’’, as the testimony of 

the Congressional Research Services constitutional expert made clear at the last 

hearing and was not rebutted by Acevedo’s constitutional expert at the hearing. 

Repeated statements of Acevedo and his representatives and statements in the 

‘‘Development of the Commonwealth’’ proposal itself, as to the purpose of the convention that H.R. 1230 would support, make clear that the non-territory ‘‘commonwealth status’’ is intended to be Governor Acevedo’s ‘‘Development of the Commonwealth’’. This proposal has been rejected as impossible—for constitutional and basic 

policy reasons—by the Clinton Administration and every Congressional leader who 

has commented on it, as well as by President Bush’s Task Force. Under the proposal, Puerto Rico would be a nation to which the U.S. is permanently bound, with 

the power to enter into international agreements; but the U.S. would also be permanently obligated to grant a subsidy, in addition to the present one, new incentives 

for U.S. investment, all current assistance to Puerto Ricans, free entry to any goods 

shipped from Puerto Rico, and U.S. citizenship. Federal laws would apply and the 

federal courts would rule but only to the extent agreed to by the local government 10. 

Enacting a federal law listing a non-territory ‘‘commonwealth status’’ as an option, when the intent of the proponents is the ‘‘Development of the Commonwealth’’ 

proposal, would be to invite Puerto Rico to choose as its status preference a proposal 

that Congress cannot, and would not grant—a cruel hoax. 

Another fundamental flaw of H.R. 1230 is that it is designed to result in a 

‘‘stacked deck’’ against one of the real options, statehood, and produce an artificial 

192

11

12 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Plessy, is the 1896 case in which the United States Supreme Court 

declared constitutional the separate and unequal treatment of Afro-American citizens, a case 

which was later struck down in several contemporary cases, notably Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1953), which held that separate is inherently unequal. 13The following are known as the Insular Cases: De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901); 

Goetze v. United States, 182 U.S. 221 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901); Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Huus v. 

New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co., 182 U.S. 392 (1901). For a critical discussion of the colonialist doctrine set forth in the Insular Cases, see Justice Torruella’s dissent in Igartua-de la 

Rosa v. U.S., 417 F.3d. 145, 158-166 (2005). 14 In Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, p. 559, Harlan’s dissent stated that ‘‘[b]ut in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of 

citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates 

classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.’’ 15Supra Footnote 12. 16 In Downes v. Bidwell, supra, p. 380, Harlan’s dissent stated that ‘‘[t]he idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as 

mere colonies or provinces,—the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress 

chooses to accord to them,—is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well as with 

the words, of the Constitution.’’

majority for the ‘‘commonwealth’’ nationhood proposal. As stated by local senators 

who support Gov. Acevedo’s proposal, 11 the plan is to form a coalition with Pro-independence voters and other nationalists in a convention to outvote statehood delegates. ‘‘Independentistas’’ and other nationalists would probably agree, also knowing 

that the ‘‘commonwealth’’ proposal would be rejected in Washington, leaving true 

nationhood as the only option. 

H.R. 1230 is also less democratic than H.R. 900. Under H.R. 900, the people 

would pick Puerto Rico’s proposed status. Under H.R. 1230 a convention, likely to 

be comprised of politicians, would select among the status proposals for the people 

and the people would only be able to accept or reject the selected proposal. This is 

intended to corner the people into accepting a proposal that they would otherwise 

not choose by majority. 

The purpose of the ‘‘constitutional convention’’ in H.R.1230 is different from that 

of the constitutional conventions Puerto Rico held in the early 1950s, authorized 

under the Constitution of Puerto Rico, held by the United States, held by the 50 

States, and held by all four other populated current territories. The purpose of those 

constitutional conventions was to organize governments under an already determined political status; the purpose of this ‘‘constitutional convention’’ would be to 

choose a status. 

Finally, as the Congress decides whether to act to dispose of the territory or admit 

it as a new state, you should ask yourselves for how much longer do you believe 

that Congress should be empowered to make needful rules and regulations, and 

keep us as the territory we’ve been for over a century. 

The segregationist vision that permeated the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion in Plessy versus Ferguson in 1896 12 spilled over into the first of the Insular 

Cases which suggests that Congress could keep colonies forever. 13 Justice Harlan, 

whose dissent in Plessy 14 became the unanimous opinion of the Court in Brown 15, 

stated in his Insular Case dissent his belief that the Territories Clause of the Constitution was never intended by its anti-colonial drafters to justify 108 years of colonialism 16

Which constitutional interpretation do you support today; the segregationists’ 

view that separate-but-equal forever, be it racial or geographical, is constitutional, 

or Justice Harlan’s view that Puerto Rico cannot be treated differently forever? 

As Justice Harlan, I believe that the Clause’s drafters, who only five years before 

had won a war against colonialism, never intended for you to continue ruling indefinitely over Puerto Rico as a territory. If you share our belief, inaction is no longer 

an alternative. The only alternative is to establish a process that will allow you to 

dispose of the territory of Puerto Rico or admit us into the Union. H.R. 900 clearly 

sends Puerto Rico on that path. 

Thank you. 

EXHIBIT 1

POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY

DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH 

The people of Puerto Rico, in the exercise of their sovereignty, their natural right 

to self government and their free will as ultimate sources of their political power, 

193

hereby reaffirm the validity of the Commonwealth established as an autonomous political body, that is neither colonial or territorial, in permanent union with the 

United States under a covenant that cannot be invalidated or altered unilaterally 

and proposes its autonomic development. The relationship between Puerto Rico and 

the United States will continue to be based on common defense, market and currency and on the irrevocability of the U.S. citizenship, acquired by birth and protected by the U.S. Constitution. 

This relationship guarantees the autonomous development of Puerto Rico based 

on the democratic precept of government with the consent of the governed and the 

recognition that Puerto Rico is a nation with its own history, idiosyncracy, culture 

and Spanish language. 

To achieve its maximum economic progress and well-being, the people of Puerto 

Rico propose to develop Commonwealth retaining all the powers that are not delegated to the United States. Under Puerto Rico’s fiscal autonomy, economic development areas will be identified in which joint action can produce jobs and other benefits for both parties, including the flexibility in the use of federal funds, providing 

that programs of direct aid to individuals will continue as they are present. The 

Commonwealth will be able to enter into commercial and tax agreements, among 

others, with other countries, and belong to regional and international entities, consistent with the common interests of defense and security between the United 

States and Puerto Rico, as agreed to in the covenant. 

Once the request for the development of the people of Puerto Rico is approved, 

a Constituent Assembly will be called to negotiate with the U.S. government the 

terms and conditions of the covenant, which will include a mechanism to approve 

the application of legislation approved by the U.S. Congress. 

ARTICLE I—PUERTO RICAN IDENTITY 

A. PUERTO RICAN NATIONALITY 

Puerto Ricans have a common history, idiosyncracy, culture and language that 

constitute a specific nationality separate from that of any other nation. 

B. PUERTO RICAN CITIZENSHIP 

Persons born in Puerto Rico are Puerto Rican citizens by birth and their Puerto 

Rican citizenship is transmittable to their descendants as determined by the 

Commonwealth and would have the rights, privileges and obligations that derive 

from it. 

ARTICLE II—BASIS OF THE UNION 

The union between Puerto Rico and the United States will continue to be based 

on the following fundamental elements determined by Puerto Rico freely and in 

agreement with the United States: 

A. COMMON CITIZENSHIP 

People born in Puerto Rico will continue to be citizens of the United States by 

birth and this citizenship will continue to be protected by the Constitution of the 

United States and by this Covenant and will not be unilaterally revocable. 

B. COMMON DEFENSE 

The United States will maintain authority and responsibility over defense matters. This will include: the same responsibility for the defense of Puerto Rico and 

its people as the United States and its people; denying and limiting military or strategic access to Puerto Rico to any foreign power, maintaining the bases or other 

military installations currently operating in Puerto Rico as well as the National 

Guard; stipulating that the case of the Municipality of Vieques will be the object 

of the highest attention in agreement with the legitimate call of its residents; and, 

any additional need would be considered and dealt with through specific and separate agreements. 

C. COMMON CURRENCY 

The U.S. dollar is and will continue to be the currency in Puerto Rico. 

D. COMMON MARKET 

A common market will continue to exist between Puerto Rico and the United 

States, by which the free flow of goods and services between the two countries will 

continue. 

194

ARTICLE III—DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 

A. SELF GOVERNMENT 

The Commonwealth emanates from the power of the people to govern themselves, 

and for that reason, the people of Puerto Rico retain all the powers that have not 

been delegated to the United States. 

B. DELEGATION OF POWERS 

The powers related to the Federal laws related to defense, currency, U.S. citizenship, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, banks and brokerage, 

Postal Service and the programs for providing social and educational assistance to 

citizens and veterans are delegated to the United States. In addition, international 

relations are delegated to the extent consisted with this Covenant. 

C. SHARED POWERS 

Areas of special cooperation will be identified in which the United States and the 

Commonwealth will exercise shared powers for the benefit of both people through 

the process established in Article XII. 

ARTICLE IV—RIGHTS OF CITIZENS 

A. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 

The U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico will be protected by all the rights, privileges and immunities granted by the Constitution of the United States and the 

Commonwealth. 

B. ECONOMIC BENEFITS 

The Federal programs that provide social and educational assistance directly to 

Puerto Rico’s residents, such as the Nutritional Assistance Program, Pell Grants 

and educational loans, among others, will continue and be guided by the applicable 

Federal and State regulations. 

The United States recognizes as acquired rights Federal programs for veterans 

and Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance benefits for which 

Puerto Rican workers and employers have made and will continue to make the corresponding Federal contributions. 

ARTICLE V—ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

A. WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

To promote Puerto Rico’s economic development, and considering the present and 

future relations between Puerto Rico and the United States, the U.S. commits to 

provide the Commonwealth an annual block grant adjusted for inflation, so the Government of Puerto Rico can continue to provide social assistance, develop public 

works and infrastructure, and provide incentives for the creation of jobs and socioeconomic development. 

The U.S. and Puerto Rico will identify and agree on areas of economic development in which joint action will produce jobs and other economic benefits for both 

parties, including the creation of special incentives programs for investment in the 

islands. 

B. INTERNATIONAL 

The Commonwealth will have control over international trade and will establish 

a policy to promote its maximum economic development. To that effect, it will have 

the capacity to enter into commercial and tax agreements, among others, with other 

countries, consistent with the common interests of the defense and security of Puerto Rico and the United States. 

The Commonwealth will be able to enter into international agreements and belong to regional and international organizations consistent with the common interests of the defense and security of Puerto Rico and the United States. 

The United States commits to support the participation or membership of Puerto 

Rico in the agreements and organizations to which this article refers. 

ARTICLE VI—FEDERAL LANDS 

The Government of the United States will transfer to Puerto Rico the lands that 

now it has in Puerto Rico with the exception of those lands that are used for common defense or that are necessary to exercise the powers delegated in this Covenant. 

195

ARTICLE VII—AREAS OF SPECIAL COOPERATION 

Puerto Rico and the United States will establish other areas of special cooperation 

intended to guarantee the quality of life of Puerto Ricans and to continue nourishing 

from the collective experiences of institutional and local development of both peoples. 

For the sake of an orderly and calm future and development in harmony with the 

cultural, spiritual, psychological, and economic nature of both peoples, Puerto Rico 

and the United States commit to jointly determine strategies to: control drug trafficking; regulate communications; protect the borders from illegal immigration; protect the environment and recognize guarantees of mutual benefit consistent with 

international rules; promote a new basis for cooperation between workers and management; deal with natural disasters; share technological advances in the sectors of 

agriculture, medicine, pharmacology, criminal justice, and other disciplines in the 

areas of Natural and Social Sciences and Humanities. 

ARTICLE VIII—FEDERAL COURT 

The Federal Court will have jurisdiction over matters that arise from: provisions 

of the Constitution of the United States and of the Federal laws that apply to Puerto Rico consistent with this Covenant and not in violation with the laws of the Constitution of Puerto Rico. Spanish and English will be the official languages of that 

court. 

ARTICLE IX—RESOLVING DISPUTES 

A. NEGOTIATION COMMITTEE 

Any controversy about the interpretation of this Covenant will be resolved 

through negotiations between the parties to this Covenant that is the United States 

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In all negotiations, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico will be represented by a negotiating committee of three (3) members 

appointed by the governor and confirmed by seventy-five percent (75%) of each of 

the two (2) legislative houses of Puerto Rico. 

At least, two (2) of the three (3) members of the committee should believe in the 

political philosophy described in this Covenant, that is, be Commonwealthers. In the 

same manner, the United States of America will be represented by a committee of 

three (3) members appointed by the President of the United States 

B. COMMISSION TO RESOLVE DISPUTES 

If it is not possible to resolve a controversy through a negotiation between the 

parties, the controversy will be submitted to the Commission to Resolve Disputes. 

This commission will have five (5) members, two (2) appointed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two (2) appointed by the United States of America and a fifth 

member appointed by majority of these four (4). The five (5) members will select 

a chairman from their membership. 

Decisions of this Commission in disputes between the Governments of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States of America regarding the interpretation of this Covenant will be final and firm. 

ARTICLE X—LEGALITY 

The agreement between the people of Puerto Rico and the government of the 

United States of America will have the force recognized by the constitutional and 

international rights in force as a bilateral covenant that recognizes rights and delegates powers, based on mutual consent that cannot be unilaterally renounced or altered. 

ARTICLE XI—SYMBOLS 

The symbols, flags and hymns of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will continue 

to be as at present. 

ARTICLE XII—OTHER INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS 

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will retain the authority to ratify cultural, educational, scientific and sports agreements. 

196

ARTICLE XIII—NEGOTIATION 

a. Once this development proposal is approved by the people of Puerto Rico, a 

Constituent Assembly will be called that will negotiate with the Government of the 

United States the terms and conditions of the association between Puerto Rico and 

the United States and the specific drafting of such agreement on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico. This Constituent Assembly will not be able to adopt proposals 

that undermine or cancel the mandate expressed by the people of Puerto Rico or 

that undermines the precepts of common citizenship, market, currency and defense, 

or against the Puerto Rican national identity. 

b. The Constituent Assembly will design and propose to the Government of the 

United States a mechanism for a specific agreement regarding the application of legislation approved by the Congress of the United States after the adoption of the covenant and that the people of Puerto Rico wish to have extended to Puerto Rico. 

The people of Puerto Rico will elect a Resident Commissioner who will represent 

Puerto Rico before the Government of the United States and who will be considered 

a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives for purposes of all legislative matters that have to do with Puerto Rico, but whose role will also be extended to representing Puerto Rico before the Executive Branch of the United States. 

c. The main political parties of Puerto Rico will be represented in the Constituent 

Assembly and will be able to nominate candidates to be part of the assembly. 

d. The Covenant will take effect after it has been negotiated and approved by the 

Government of the United States and the Constituent Assembly, and it has been 

approved by the people of Puerto Rico in a referendum called for that purpose. 

e. Any change to the terms of this Covenant will have to be approved by the people of Puerto Rico in a special vote conducted consistent with its democratic processes and institutions. 

f. The Constituent Assembly will not have authority to alter, modify, amend, and/

or change the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Approved by the Governing Board of the Popular Democratic Party

On October 15, 1998

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Aponte for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOSE ́ APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ, 

SPEAKER OF THE PUERTO RICAN HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. Buenos tardes. I come before you not to 

press my personal position with regards to what I consider to be 

the most beneficial status option for the people of Puerto Rico—

statehood. Rather, I take this opportunity to inform this committee 

of the main initiative undertaken by the House of Representatives 

with regards to the political status of Puerto Rico. 

The initiative to which I am referring was the truly historic 

achievement by the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, referred to as the substitute to House Bills 1014, 1054, and 1058. 

This measure, approved unanimously, would have provided the 

people of Puerto Rico with the opportunity to vote yes or no, demanding the President and the Congress respond to their claim to 

reserve our political status among the fully democratic options of 

a non-colonial and non-territorial nation. 

Unfortunately, Governor Acevedo-Vila ́ vetoed the measure, after 

all of his conditional amendments were included, and after his minority leaders had indicated that he would sign it. Eight and a half 

months later, the first recommendation proposed in the report by 

the person in task force was almost identical to what was proposed 

in our bill. 

197

Let me be clear. A minority of the members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico fully support approval of H.R. 900, 

with the amendments presented in my written testimony. 

Madame Chairwoman, Puerto Rico is at a critical juncture. Your 

fellow citizens in Puerto Rico have waited far too long. Many have 

even become skeptical of the prospect of Congressional action on 

this issue. 

For example, this hearing brings back memories of one held almost 17 years ago, before the Committee of Insular and International Affairs. To those that remember that hearing, they may 

find a clear resemblance of this one. 

Some of the political leaders from our island who were witnesses 

that day are also here with us this afternoon. Just as today, that 

hearing was chaired by the delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Unfortunately, nothing changed. 

Over 200 years ago, the citizens of the 13 original colonies had 

similar grievances against the British Government. In 1775, Patrick Henry eloquently declared, and I quote, ‘‘Shall we try argument, sir? We have been trying that for years. Have we anything 

new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject 

up in every light of which it is capable, but it has been all in vain. 

Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms 

shall we find which have not been already exhausted? We have petitioned, we have demonstrated, we have supplicated, we have 

prostrated ourselves before this wrong. Is life so dear and peace so 

sweet as to repurchase, at the price of chain and slavery? Forbid 

it, Almighty God. I know not what course others might take; but, 

as for me, give me liberty or give me death.’’ End quote. 

These are truly ominous words that, in a way, I dread. As the 

Puerto Rican and proud American that I am, I still have a firm belief in my government, and in this Congress. It is important to 

heed the words of Congressman Serrano, from the previous hearing 

by this Subcommittee, when he expressed that my country has held 

my patria in bondage for more than a century, and I want it to 

end. I do, too. 

It is time to put an end to the discrimination and colonialism by 

my nation, and with regards to my people. And the time to act is 

now. We, the people, your fellow citizens from Puerto Rico, are 

ready to act. The ball is in your court. 

May God bless America, and in particular all my fellow Puerto 

Ricans who place their hopes for their future in your hands. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aponte-Herna ́ndez follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jose ́ F. Aponte-Herna ́ndez,

Speaker of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico 

On behalf of the nearly 4 million U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico, which 

my fellow 50 representatives and I proudly and responsibly represent in our House 

of Representatives, let me recognize the importance of this hearing and the significance of the legislative process which in earnest begins today. Thank you for responding to the petition brought forth to you by our Legislative Assembly. 

This morning, I come before you not to express my personal position and choice 

with regards to what I consider to be the most beneficial status option for the people 

of Puerto Rico; but rather, as an opportunity to inform the United States House of 

Representatives of the three main initiatives undertaken by the House of RepresentVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
198

atives of Puerto Rico throughout the past two years with regards to the political status of Puerto Rico and the basis for these. 

First and foremost, I would like to share with you the historic achievement originated and spearheaded by the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico that resulted 

in the measure referred to as the Substitute to House Bills 1014, 1054 and 1058 

(Enclosure 1). As per Section 7 of that substitute bill, the people of Puerto Rico 

would have been provided with the opportunity to vote yes/no on the following proposition: 

We, the People of Puerto Rico in the exercise of our right to self-determination, demand from the President and the Congress of the United States of 

America, before December 31, 2006, an expression of their commitment to 

respond to the claim of the People of Puerto Rico to solve our political status among fully democratic options of a non-colonial and non-territorial nature. 

As anyone involved may attest, that measure was a product of honest and frank 

negotiations with fellow representatives of the three delegations in the House (thus 

representing the traditional status options in Puerto Rico), as well as with the Governor of Puerto Rico by means of his party’s minority leaders both in the House and 

Senate. The result was a status bill which garnered the UNANIMOUS APPROVAL 

in both chambers. 

That included not only the vote of members of the majority pro-statehood New 

Progressive Party; but also, those of the minority pro-independence Puerto Rican 

Independence Party and the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party. Sadly in 

an unexpected move, Governor Acevedo-Vila ́ vetoed the measure after all of his conditional amendments were included and after his minority leaders had indicated 

that the Governor would sign the aforementioned measure. History and the people 

of Puerto Rico will judge him for not being truly committed in addressing this issue 

and for having fear of the future and the inevitable consequences of change and selfdetermination. 

It is noteworthy to point out that eight and half months later, the first recommendation proposed in the Report by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s 

Status was almost identical to what was proposed in the Substitute to House Bills 

1014, 1054 and 1058. Definitely, the historic consensus first achieved in our House 

of Representatives provided the President’s Task Force with the keystone from 

which to begin an irreversible process that would result in Puerto Rico’s self-determination. 

Second, on April 21, 2005, the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico approved 

House Concurrent Resolution 25 (Enclosure 2), which petitioned 

Congress and the President of the United States of America to respond to 

the democratic aspirations of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico in 

order to ensure that with all deliberate speed, they provide us with an electoral method through which we, ourselves, may choose which shall be our 

political relationship with the United States of America, if any, from among 

fully democratic non-territorial and non-colonial alternatives. 

Third and finally, on February 12, 2007 the House of Representatives of Puerto 

Rico approved House Concurrent Resolution 102 (Enclosure 3), which requests 

the 110th Congress to respond to the democratic aspirations of the people 

of Puerto Rico with all deliberate speed, accepting the recommendations 

contained in the Report of the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, of December 22, 2005, providing through legislation for the holding of 

a plebiscite by virtue of which the people of Puerto Rico may express themselves regarding if they desire to continue as a territory of the United 

States of America, subject to the plenary powers of Congress, or if they desire to undertake a constitutionally viable course of action towards a permanent status that is neither territorial, nor colonial and to order the establishment of a Joint Committee, bestow it with its duties and for other 

purposes. 

As you may see, this recent mandate of the House of Representatives of Puerto 

Rico is totally in line with H.R. 900, formally known as the ‘‘Puerto Rico Democracy 

Act of 2007.’’ Furthermore, let me be as clear as possible when I state that a majority of the members of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico fully support congressional approval of H.R. 900. 

Nonetheless, on behalf of a majority of the people of Puerto Rico, let me request 

that the celebration of any initial referenda be done within the timeframe of the 

110th Congress, so as to avoid any conflict with any future Congress and also, because the U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico have been denied with such an 

opportunity for much too long. Also, in order to conclude the long overdue problem 

of Puerto Rico’s self-determination, you must make certain that the status options 

199

provided in any referendum to the U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico be limited 

to those that are constitutional viable, non-territorial, non-colonial and fully democratic in nature. In other words, they must be limited to options that guarantee full 

self-government by the people of Puerto Rico. 

On February 28 of this year, Representative Nydia Vela ́zquez filed H.R. 1230. 

This measure supported in Puerto Rico by Governor Acevedo-Vila ́ and his Popular 

Democratic Party proposes the recognition of ‘‘the right of the People of Puerto Rico 

to call a Constitutional Convention through which the people would exercise their 

natural right to self-determination, and to establish a mechanism for congressional 

consideration of such decision.’’ I wish that this Subcommittee may have the time 

and opportunity to seriously consider what is proposed by this measure. Particularly, I would like for you to ponder—how democratic would it be for a select and 

limited group of individuals to decide the future of all Puerto Ricans as to our final 

status option? Moreover—wouldn’t the calling of a constitutional convention run 

contrary to our entrenched concept of participatory democracy and the constitutional 

principle of one person, one vote? 

Therefore, I believe it would be extremely important to request legal opinions, 

from both the United States Department of Justice and the Congressional Research 

Service, as per the constitutionality of both measures. 

I commend Chairman Rahall, Ranking Republican Member Young and this Subcommittee in addressing the issue of Puerto Rico’s self-determination. To many people, Puerto Ricans seemingly do not get their act together as to what do they want 

to do—the kind of relationship that we would like to have with the United States. 

Then, among so many pressing issues facing our Nation—immigration—the war 

against terrorism—the fiscal deficit—budget priorities—just to name a few—does it 

make sense to spend time and effort in dealing with such a controversial issue? 

Let me convey to you why it is the right thing to do. 

This Congress represents the citizens of the greatest Nation in the face of this 

Earth. Most nations around the World look upon us—the United States of 

America—to provide the political, economic and moral leadership as the undisputed 

leader of the Free World. As such, we are the beacon of freedom and democracy. 

Today this Nation has thousands of our brave men and women who serve in our 

Armed Services risking their lives in order to provide hope and guarantee freedom 

and democracy in Irak and Afghanistan. Among those everyday heroes, there are 

many Puerto Rican soldiers serving in the various branches of the U.S. Military who 

have responded to the call of duty and ably served in the military operations in this 

War against Terrorism; including several units and or detachments of our U.S. 

Army Reserves and National Guard. Sadly, many have also paid the ultimate sacrifice to our Nation by giving their lives in this war effort. 

Yet, this should come as no surprise to anybody, as Puerto Rico is the proud home 

of many of our Nation’s military heroes, including four recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Let me tell you the brief story of Captain Euripides Rubio, 

from Ponce, Puerto Rico, who was one of the four Congressional Medal of Honor recipients. His tremendous sacrifice occurred in November of 1966. Although he himself suffered three serious wounds as part of an intensive fire fight, he was helping 

to evacuate other wounded personnel when he discovered a smoke grenade had fallen too close to friendly lines. In preparation for friendly airstrikes, the smoke grenades were used to mark the Viet Cong position. Captain Rubio intended to avert 

an unnecessary tragedy and ran to reposition the grenade. He was immediately 

‘‘struck to his knees’’ by enemy fire. Despite his many wounds, he grabbed the grenade, lumbering through the deadly onslaught of enemy gunfire, and made it to 

within 20 meters of the enemy position. Hurling the already smoking grenade into 

the midst of the enemy, he fell for the final time. His death made a difference. The 

hostile position was destroyed because the friendly air strikes were able to use the 

repositioned grenade as a marker. 

This moving anecdote is no different from that of Fernando Luis Garcı ́a, Carlos 

James Lozada, He ́ctor Santiago-Colo ́n or many of the close to 1,300 Puerto Ricans 

who have given their lives in the service to our Nation. Probably, Gen. Douglas MacArthur put it best, when he said ‘‘I wish we had more like them.’’

Regretfully, I have to remind everyone of the extreme irony of the service of so 

many of my fellow Puerto Ricans. Our Nation—the United States of America—has 

allowed for the sacrifice of so many of our men and women to be somewhat in vain. 

We have fought valiantly and without objection ever since we came under the 

American flag. Yet, this flag which stands for freedom, liberty and justice everywhere it flies does not protect my fellow Puerto Ricans from disparate and discriminatory treatment by my Nation. We fight for liberty and democracy all over the 

World—yet we have been denied one of the most basic of human and civil rights—

the right to self determination. 

200

For example, how contrary to the values and principles that have always defined 

our Nation is it to have so many servicemen go to war and, sometimes even giving 

their lives, without having the basic fundamental right to vote for their Commander-in-Chief or for the Members of Congress who have the right to declare war. 

This discriminatory practice has been validated by Supreme Court decisions that incredibly are still valid today, such as Balzac v. People of Porto Rico and more recently in Harris v. Rosario. 

In the latter case, appellees claimed that the lower level of AFDC reimbursement 

provided to families with needy dependent children in Puerto Rico violated the equal 

protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution. Surprisingly, the 

United States Supreme Court disagreed and found that Congress is empowered 

under the Territory Clause of the Constitution to ‘‘...treat Puerto Rico differently 

from States so long as there is a rational basis for its actions.’’ In other words...can 

there be a truly rational basis to discriminate with regards to the need of children 

who are U.S. citizens just because they happen to live in Puerto Rico? I guess none 

of you would feel comfortable with such decision making. Could there be something 

more un-American? After all, wasn’t disparate and discriminatory treatment from 

the British Government what led our forefathers to independence and later establishing this more perfect union? 

Furthermore, the paradox and the inequity of living in the ‘‘Commonwealth’’ of 

Puerto Rico—the ‘‘unincorporated’’ U.S. territory—the ‘‘oldest colony in the World’’ 

(as aptly described by former Chief Justice Jose ́ Trı ́as-Monge, who also happened 

to be the primary legal scholar involved in the forging of our current ‘‘commonwealth territorial arrangement’’) ...is such that if any of you decide to move to Puerto Rico and maintain the desire to vote in federal elections as an absentee voter of 

your last state of residence, you would be denied the right to do so, as we are neither a state of the Union or the District of Columbia, nor a foreign or overseas jurisdiction under the Uniformed Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986. On the 

other hand, if you happened to be in Tehran, Iran, P’yongyang, North Korea, Havana, Cuba or any other rogue nation where there is no U.S. Embassy, you just 

need to go to the U.S. Interest Section of the appropriate foreign embassy in order 

to cast your ballot (assuming that you already filled out in advance a Federal Post 

Card Application for an absentee ballot). As a U.S. citizen, don’t even think about 

moving to Puerto Rico if you wish to continue exercising the most fundamental of 

rights of our democracy—of any democracy—the right to vote for those who legislate 

and make decisions that may affect your daily lives in any way or manner. In other 

words, we do live in a land of unequal rights. 

Even though we may have been blessed with many of the benefits of our citizenship—America cannot tolerate—and our flag—defended by the blood of so many of 

our people—cannot be put to shame by further legitimization and a continuation of 

the misguided policy of separate and unequal. 

Do these policies make any sense to you? I guess they would only makes sense 

to those who feel comfortable with categorizations such as those that describe Puerto Rico—as foreign in a domestic sense—belonging to, but not a part of the United 

States—separate and unequal. Is it possible to have colonialism by consent?...or 

slavery by consent for arguments sake? Was separate but equal valid and acceptable? Can there be consent to discrimination? Can there be true democracy in Puerto Rico with unequal rights under the law? That is the moral challenge before you 

today. 

To those of you who might be somewhat confused with our political reality, let 

me state for the record that Puerto Rico is not a sovereign state in association with 

the United States. There is no compact in our case, as opposed to the Republic of 

the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Freely Associated 

State of the Republic of Palau, all of whom negotiated compacts with the United 

States. Neither are we recognized by any other country as being a sovereign state. 

The United States is the only sovereign in Puerto Rico. In accordance with Article 

IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution ‘‘[t]he Congress shall have 

Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.’’ That is why the people of 

Puerto Rico come before you time after time—because primary constitutional authority rests exclusively in the Congress. 

Thus, even though the official name of our government in Spanish is ‘‘Estado 

Libre Asociado’’, we are not a free associated state (as the name of our Government 

in Spanish claims to be) with our Nation—but rather, we are just the U.S. territory 

with the largest degree of internal self-government by virtue of an act of Congress. 

As the proud American citizen that I am, I cannot possibly be satisfied or resign 

myself to being less than a full-fledged citizen of our Nation. To me it would be just 

201

like if African Americans would have remained satisfied with the untenable condition of segregation—as if separate but equal could ever be right. 

It is clear that your fellow citizens from Puerto Rico can no longer remain within 

the current arrangement. Change towards a final solution that needs to be fully 

democratic, non-territorial and non-colonial has to take place. We cannot be denied 

the inalienable right to self-determination; whereby we would be able to achieve a 

status option that provides for full self-government, be it either under independence, 

free association or statehood. 

This human and civil right firmly entrenched in the constitutional principles of 

our Nation, as well as in International Law, requires that the people of Puerto Rico 

be given a true and fair exercise of their right to self determination. But in order 

to have a real and meaningful process of self-determination, we need to know what 

Congress and the President of the United States understand as constitutionally viable and politically acceptable from among the possible status options. If not, we 

would only have a futile process, just like our three locally sponsored status plebiscites that led to nothing, while further confusing our people as to what is really 

attainable under our three traditional status alternatives (regarding this last point 

I would respectfully refer you to H.R. 4751 from the 106th Congress, whereby this 

same committee had the opportunity to analyze the contents of the ‘‘Enhanced Commonwealth’’ alternative still proposed by the Popular Democratic Party). 

In other words, without an expression by Congress and the Executive Branch, as 

to what is constitutionally and politically viable, everything would be a charade. For 

example, periodic elections in the People’s Republic of China or in Cuba do not make 

them bastions of democracy. 

That is why I commend our President, George W. Bush, for his vision and continued commitment in addressing this issue—in trying to put an end to this unfinished 

business of American democracy. He was firm and resolute in providing leadership 

on an issue that thirsts for a high moral ground. 

To that end, President Bush made sure that the directive begun by former President William Jefferson Clinton, whom I also should commend as per the establishment of the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, would be successful in 

achieving its stated objectives. Amidst all the efforts generated by people who do 

not want this issue to move forward, the President did not allow the members of 

his Task Force to stray from the course of clearly and correctly addressing this 

issue. Seldom has such leadership been exercised by a President with regards to the 

political aspirations of your fellow citizens who reside in Puerto Rico. 

On December 22, 2005, President George W. Bush’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s 

Status made public its Report on the issue, which included a series of recommendations for the United States Congress to consider and act upon. That Report represents the final work product of a group of responsible and highly professional individuals which represented most of the important agencies of the Executive Branch. 

In earnest, they devoted more than a year in analyzing the issue, studying documents and meeting with members of Puerto Rico’s three political parties on multiple 

occasions. The result was a surgically precise and legally correct document that is 

crystal clear as to what needs to be done to resolve this issue. 

As you may be fully aware, there are people, both in Puerto Rico and here in the 

mainland, who would rather not have this issue take center stage at the national 

level. One could easily denominate them as the powerful ‘‘Forces of Inertia’’. You 

may have heard them talk about self determination, but their track record in torpedoing any step that may lead to the exercise of full self-government befits Dr. 

Kevorkian. 

As all of you know, it is easier to kill an initiative than to convince others about 

its importance and merits. Therefore, since they are very able as to what they do 

in order to achieve their nefarious goal, there are three important myths that I want 

to dispel from your minds. 

First myth—that Puerto Ricans need to get their act together first and present the 

federal Government with the solution to this issue. 

I would begin my reply by formulating the following question—how could we get 

our act together if the people have been confused and misinformed for decades as 

to what is truly available under each of the traditional status options? 

The role of the Federal Government in providing for a final solution to our centuries old dilemma is essential to this process, not because we feel or act as subservient to anyone (as that would be totally un-American), but because we fully respect 

and adhere to the rule of law; and under the current Commonwealth territorial arrangement we do not have the power—nor the right—to change our current status 

or relationship with the United States in a unilateral manner. The recognition of 

this congressional power over those of us who reside in Puerto Rico is a legal and 

political reality over which we have no control. Nonetheless, that does not mean 

202

that any process undertaken by the Federal Government would preclude or inhibit 

continuous dialogue and negotiation by the people of Puerto Rico regarding the specifics and details of each option, the process or processes that need to be undertaken 

to finally enable this final choice by our people, as well as the implementation of 

the selected option. 

For the past thirty years, the political and ideological blocks in Puerto Rico have 

been bogged down in a political quagmire. No side commands a solid absolute majority. Misinformation and confusion as per the future and our real status options 

reigns supreme. That is the reason for the results of the three plebiscites of local 

initiative (1967, 1993 and 1998). None have led to anything, particularly those of 

1967 and 1993 where the option of ‘‘Enhanced Commonwealth’’ resulted as the winner (although that may also be the fault of proponents who really did not want Congress to take action with regards to their status options or to the issue in general). 

Why would a constitutional convention be any different? 

Therefore, it should become clear that, in order to resolve this issue once and for 

all, the Federal Government, and Congress in particular need to assume their constitutional prerogatives and responsibilities over the nearly four million U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico. Failing to do so would only complicate the problem 

further. 

Second myth—that Puerto Ricans do not wish to change their status—why force 

something that they do not want? 

This myth is based on pure misinformation. 

Some people in the mainland may ask—haven’t Puerto Ricans long favored Commonwealth in plebiscite after plebiscite? NO. 

Back in the early 1950’s when the Commonwealth territorial arrangement came 

into life, no plebiscite or referenda among options was ever held. In strict accordance with Public Law 600, on June 4, 1951 a referendum was held whereby the people of Puerto Rico were presented with the question whether we wanted to follow 

the path to have a Constitution of our own or remain subject to an Organic Act. 

Then, on March 3, 1952 the people of Puerto Rico voted overwhelmingly in favor 

of the Constitution as it was drafted by the Constitutional Convention whose members they had elected. As you see, neither process could ever be confused with a true 

process of self-determination—as there was never a ballot in which voters were provided with status choices. 

In the first plebiscite or status referenda ever conducted, held in 1967, almost 

60% of voters favored an ‘‘Enhanced Commonwealth’’ option. Statehood achieved 

close to 40%, as the Puerto Rican Independence Party boycotted the plebiscite accounting for almost no votes in favor of Independence. As I have indicated before, 

there was no concerted effort undertaken by commonwealth advocates for Congress 

to take action on the vote. 

The next plebiscite was held in 1993 and another version of ‘‘Enhanced Commonwealth’’ won the electoral vote; this time though, with a plurality of less than 49% 

of the vote. Again, the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party took more than 

half a year to inform the House Subcommittee with jurisdiction over Puerto Rico 

regarding the results of the 1993 Plebiscite. The result was a subcommittee hearing 

on October 17, 1995. 

Then, in 1998, in a plebiscite in which the current Commonwealth (or status quo) 

was an option—that option failed to garner 1% of the vote. Therefore, as anyone 

may see—there is clearly NO mandate by the Puerto Rican electorate to maintain 

our current Commonwealth territorial arrangement as is. 

Befitting the level of confusion and misinformation that exists among Puerto 

Ricans with regards to true contour of the options that would be really available, 

the write-in column, titled ‘‘None of the Above’’, garnered over 51% of the vote. It 

is important to point out that voter participation in these plebiscites hovered around 

75 to 85% and in poll after poll, people select this issue as either the most important 

one that needs to be addressed. or at the very least among their top 5. Obviously, 

this shows the existence of a clear consensus among Puerto Ricans, overlapping ideological and party lines, yearning for a resolution to this issue. 

Third myth—that the White House Report which is the basis for H.R. 900 is 

skewed towards statehood and unfair in its treatment of Commonwealth. 

This myth has two different fronts. 

First, the procedural one, that the initial round was presented in order to corner 

the supporters of Commonwealth with the choice of rejecting ‘‘to pursue a Constitutionally viable path toward a permanent non-territorial status with the United 

States,’’ while sponsoring an ‘‘artificial majority’’ of pro-statehood and pro-independence supporters who would obviously vote in favor of such a proposal. 

This argument is completely flawed for a couple of reasons. On the one hand, on 

what grounds would commonwealth supporters reject the aforementioned language 

203

proposed by the President’s Task Force for the first round? Don’t they want to establish and clarify once-and-for-all that their ‘‘Enhanced Commonwealth’’ is constitutional and a permanent non-territorial status? After all, pro-commonwealth Popular 

Democratic Party legislators voted unanimously in favor of language that was even 

stronger in its stance with regards to the issue in the Substitute to House Bills 

1014, 1054 and 1058. 

On the other hand, any coalition of voters which might favor the aforementioned 

language proposed by the President’s Task Force for the first round do not constitute an ‘‘artificial’’ grouping; but rather, a true measure of the consensus in Puerto Rico that transcends ideologies and party lines with regards to the need for a 

final resolution to this centuries old dilemma. 

Second, the substantive one, that the Report contains a biased and incorrect description of the current Commonwealth territorial arrangement; and furthermore, 

that it is incorrect as well in not recognizing Free Association as an option in the 

second round proposed in its second recommendation. 

With regards to the Report’s description of our current Commonwealth territorial 

arrangement, I would just reiterate what I have stated earlier in this testimony, as 

well as the legally sound conclusions reached by the United States Department of 

Justice on this same issue as included in the Task Force’s Report. 

As per the supposed intentional omission of Free Association, the reason for its 

non-inclusion is very simple. Free Association is a legitimate decolonizing option as 

recognized by International Law and by our own political experience with various 

strategic territories in the Pacific Ocean which we had previously held in ‘‘trusteeship’’ for several decades after the Second World War. The Report does not contradict this reality and our own experiences. On the contrary, the Report recognizes 

Free Association, albeit as an offshoot of separate sovereignty or independence. The 

reason for the position taken by the Task Force in its Report is based in constitutional, legal and political restraints of our Nation, as only Statehood and Independence can truly be permanent options. On the other hand, if Puerto Rico were to become a sovereign nation in free association with the United States, such a relationship would be based on a treaty—but everybody has to keep in mind that no treaty 

can unilaterally force the United States to relinquish its constitutional and political 

prerogatives to withdraw unilaterally whenever it may see fit. 

This shows the sound legal positions taken by the members of the Task Force and 

their commitment in making sure that the people of Puerto Rico may understand 

the implications of each option in the most clear and precise manner. 

Besides all the compelling arguments for Congress to address the issue of Puerto 

Rico’s self-determination, for many of you there could be another very important 

reason for this issue to be resolved now...that is the cost of Puerto Rico to the American taxpayer. In a book titled ‘‘Pay to the Order of Puerto Rico: The Cost of Dependence to the American Taxpayer’’ Alexander Odishelidze and the renowned Arthur B. Laffer concluded that our current Commonwealth territorial arrangement 

‘‘is enormously costly to the American people’’ over the past 20 years alone, it has 

been a $200 billion drain on the American taxpayer. From my perspective, the worst 

part of it all is that it has been equally, if not more costly for the Puerto Rican people, who are taxed in ways they cannot see...by growth that has not occurred...and 

sound policies that cannot develop and flourish in dependency.’’

Today, Puerto Rico receives over $20 billion a year in federal funds, although in 

essence, and particularly with the current misguided policies in place at the state 

level, we certainly need more. The failed economic policies of which Governor 

Acevedo-Vila ́ has been part, demonstrate the total bankruptcy of the current Commonwealth territorial arrangement. There is no economic model for the future wellbeing of our people. The only manner in which they have masked the severe limitations and failure of their model is by bloating the government payrolls and forcing 

outward migration to the mainland. 

The economy is stagnant, if not close to becoming paralyzed. Even though our unemployment rate has been hovering between 10 and 12% for the past few years, the 

reality of our bleak situation can be further understood by looking at our employment participation rates. For example, according to the 2000 Census, Puerto Rico’s 

employment participation rate was at 40.7%; well below the 63.9% of the U.S. mainland. Many of your fellow citizens who reside in Puerto Rico have just lost any hope 

for employment and have rather decided to live on welfare. That is why over 50% 

of all Puerto Ricans live below the federal poverty level. 

A primary solution of the past two pro-commonwealth administrations has been 

a sharp increase in the government payrolls. Puerto Rico’s daily English newspaper, 

The San Juan Star, reported on September 6, 2005 that the previous Caldero ́nAcevedo Vila ́ Administration was responsible for increasing government payrolls by 

14.37% between 2001 and 2005. 

204

Under Commonwealth, and particularly in the last five years, migration to the 

mainland has increased dramatically. Researchers in Florida have indicated that 

every month, close to an average of 5,000 Puerto Ricans move to the Greater Orlando area. With our social and economic situation worsening year after year—what 

could we expect next? If there were various real concerns that were discussed after 

the Katrina temporary displacement of many Gulf residents—what would an exponential increase in a permanent northward migration of our people cause here in 

the mainland? 

Worse of all, rather than being an agent of hope, the current Administration of 

Governor Acevedo-Vila ́ has not provided a concrete and realistic plan for broadbased economic development. In addition to their ineptitude in dealing with the 

socio-economic needs of the majority of Puerto Ricans, the current Commonwealth 

territorial arrangement limits the effectiveness as to what could really be done to 

improve the quality of life for all our people. 

Madam Chairwoman, Puerto Rico is fast approaching one of its most critical moments in its history. Your fellow citizens from your neighboring islands have waited 

for far too long...many have even become skeptical of the prospects of congressional 

action on this issue. There is a growing feeling across ideological lines is that our 

current situation is totally untenable. Are you aware how many times we have come 

before Congress full of hope, only to return back to our Island empty handed and 

completely disappointed? 

For example, this hearing brings back bittersweet memories of another one held 

almost seventeen years ago; specifically on June 28, 1990, when the then Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs was considering H.R. 4765, also 

known as the ‘‘Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act.’’ To those that remember that 

hearing they may find an eerie resemblance with this one. The arguments and the 

positions undertaken by the three political parties are practically the same. Some 

of the political leaders from our Island who were witnesses that day are also here 

with us this morning. Just as today, that hearing was chaired by the delegate from 

the United States Virgin Islands. Regretfully, what spurred so much optimism to 

us in Puerto Rico back then, led to utter disenchantment a few months later. 

Over 200 years ago the citizens of the thirteen original colonies had strikingly 

similar grievances against the British Government. On March 23, 1775 Patrick 

Henry eloquently declared 

Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have 

we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up 

in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort 

to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been 

already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have 

done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We 

have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated 

ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our 

remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have 

been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the 

throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. ‘‘Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of 

chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may 

take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! 

These are truly ominous words that, in a way, I dread and fear. As a Puerto Rican 

and proud American that I am, I still have a firm belief in my Government and in 

this Congress. Thus, I hope that my Nation pay close attention to its history and 

to the principles that led to the independence from the United Kingdom and the 

subsequent establishment of a more perfect union. 

To that end, it is important to heed the words of Congressman Jose ́ E. Serrano 

from the previous hearing by this Subcommittee, when he expressed that ‘‘[m]y 

country has held my patria in bondage for more than a century...I want it to end.’’

Congressman Serrano, we fully agree with you! It is time to put an end to blatant 

discrimination and to colonialism by my Nation with regards to my people...and the 

time to act is now! 

WE THE PEOPLE...your fellow citizens who reside in Puerto Rico are ready to 

act. The ball is in your court. 

May God enlighten you to act according to what may be best for your fellow citizens who reside in Puerto Rico. 

May God bless America...and in particular all my fellow Puerto Ricans who place 

their hopes for their future in your hands. 

Thank you very much. 

205

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Aponte. Next I would recognize The Honorable Carlos Romero Barcelo ́ for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS ROMERO BARCELO ́ , 

FORMER GOVERNOR, COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO 

AND FORMER MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I think 

I would like to approach my presentation, oral presentation from 

a distant perspective. 

All this afternoon I haven’t heard anyone speak about U.S. citizenship, about the citizens’ rights. And I would like to approach it 

from that aspect. 

Recently we had, in Washington, we had a voting rights march. 

It was April 12, based on the revolutionary cry of no taxation without representation. In Puerto Rico we have no representation without taxation. 

Now, since we are not taxed, they say you should be happy that 

you don’t have representation, because you don’t have to pay Federal income taxes. I have had some Members of Congress, some 

Members of the Senate, had some people in the industrial world, 

some businessmen, say why would you want to be a state? You 

don’t have to pay Federal income taxes. My answer to that is, how 

much are you willing to sell your political rights for? 

Anyone that sells their political rights is not entitled to have 

them. And that is what we are talking about, political rights. We 

are talking about the rights of citizens. 

Let us forget about statehood. Let us forget about independence. 

Let us forget about commonwealth. Let us talk about the people of 

Puerto Rico, who are U.S. citizens, and have been natural-born 

U.S. citizens since 1917. That is 90 years franchised U.S. citizens. 

Now, I ask you, Madame Chairman, and any Member of this 

committee, are you willing to support that a law be passed now in 

Congress taking the voting rights away from a part of a state or 

a full state, and say now we are going to take your voting rights 

away, but we are going to give you Federal tax exemption? Would 

you vote for such a bill? 

Now, let us go back to the time of slavery, when Abraham Lincoln issued the Proclamation. Did he say well, first let us have a 

referendum with all the slaves to see if they want freedom or not. 

No, there was not a matter of referendum. It was a matter of something that is wrong, that has to be corrected. And what is wrong? 

That there are 4 million U.S. citizens who are disenfranchised, and 

nothing is being done about it. 

Now, part of those 4 million U.S. citizens are right now in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, fighting to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, foreign nations. Some of them die, and those that have died, 

their mothers, their fathers, their wives, the children, are denied 

the voting rights that he is over there fighting for, for that alien 

country. But the Nation denies him those voting rights. 

We are talking about commonwealth. The commonwealth is the 

problem. If Puerto Rico were a state or we were a republic, we 

wouldn’t be here talking about any referendum. We are talking 

about a referendum because we have 4 million U.S. citizens who 

are denied the right to vote and the right to representation. 

206

I was here in Congress for eight years, eight years without a 

vote. The first part, I had that vote, they would call in the committee as a whole to vote. You know, well, you vote, yes, you participate. But if a number of, the Resident Commissioner and the 

delegate votes are the ones that carry the vote, then there is a reconsideration, and then they don’t vote in the reconsideration. The 

vote is all right as long as not the deciding vote. So that is not really a vote. 

But anyway, then when the Democratic party lost, then even 

that vote was taken away. So I was here for eight years; very, very 

frustrating. And we were entitled to six or seven representatives, 

and two senators. 

Now, we in Puerto Rico, we don’t pay Federal income taxes. But 

because we don’t pay Federal income taxes, the courts have decided 

also that we are not entitled to the same benefits that our poor 

people, those, the destitute, the needy, the single women with children that can’t work, the elderly, are not entitled to the same benefits. 

I know, Madame Chairwoman, that you are fighting for to get 

Medicaid to Virgin Islands. We don’t have it, either. But do you 

know what your big obstacle is? The fact that Puerto Rico is not 

entitled, the fact that we don’t pay Federal income taxes. And we 

are not a state. If we were, you would get it, because the amount 

of money is not that significant compared to the amount of money 

in Puerto Rico. 

Do you know how much we get now? Two hundred million dollars. You know how much Puerto Rico would be getting for 

healthcare for the needy, for the poor? Two billion dollars a year. 

Now, what that would mean for healthcare in Puerto Rico. Are you 

going to support that? Is that fair? Is that what Congress stands 

for? Is that what this nation stands for? Don’t we stand for rights, 

for voting rights? What is democracy? 

We don’t have democracy in Puerto Rico. We have local democracy, but we don’t have democracy in the Nation that we are citizens of, because we are denied the right to vote and the right to 

representation. That is what this is all about. 

How can you say, are we going to have a plebiscite or something? 

That is, somebody is going to object to the fact that we are going 

to decide whether we want the right to vote or not? 

I think it is time that the people of Puerto Rico were told by Congress, look, we are happy that you are U.S. citizens. But look, you 

have to make a decision. First of all, you don’t need a free ride economically any more as far as taxes are concerned. You should assume all your full responsibilities. And you should decide whether 

you want to have the right to vote, or the right to representation, 

or not, because that is what U.S. citizenship means. That is what 

America is all about. 

And if you don’t want that, say it, and then we will give you 

independence. That is what this Congress can do. And what is 

wrong with that? 

But the commonwealth supporters, oh, they like to, you know, 

mix this up and make it look complicated. Even the beginning, 

when they called the name commonwealth, Madame Chair, you 

know, in Spanish it is Estado Libre Social. 

207

But what happened? When we wanted to call it free associated 

state here, the lawyer for the commonwealth, here in Washington, 

what was his name; you are crazy. The associated state is not 

going to fly in Congress, let us look for another name in English. 

And that is the commonwealth. Commonwealth, what does it 

mean? Political entity. 

Commonwealth is not a status. The territorial status is called 

commonwealth, just like we have the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is a state of the Union. We have a Commonwealth of 

Kentucky, which is a state of the Union. It is not a status. It 

means political entity. But they want to muddy the waters and 

confuse the issues. And the issue here is U.S. citizens of Puerto 

Rico, who have been 90 years without a vote, disenfranchised. Do 

you want to be enfranchised? Yes or no. There is only one way. 

There is only one way to be enfranchised, to be a state. 

And there is only, you don’t want to be enfranchised, you want 

equality, you want democracy? Then you want democracy, you 

want to be for rights, a citizen, then be a Republican if you don’t 

want to be enfranchised. And that is what I think this committee 

should really understand when we look at bill 900, which is a way 

to solve this problem. 

Thank you very much, Madame. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Romero Barcelo ́ follows:]

Statement of Carlos Romero Barcelo ́,

Former Governor of Puerto Rico 

To end our territorial status we need to secure voting rights through an informed 

act of self-determination, leading to equal rights and obligations as citizens under 

our national constitution. As some Members of Congress so eloquently explained at 

the last hearing, it all comes down to voting rights. Either you have them, or you 

don’t. 

Many Americans forget that the Constitution itself, originally did not include voting rights as a Constitutional right, which citizens in the states take for granted. 

It is, after all, citizens in the several states who elect the electors who actually chose 

the President, and citizens in the several states who elect senators and voting representatives to Congress. Voting rights have been guaranteed and regulated by state 

law since America became a nation. 

Originally, most states allowed only white males over 21 to vote, provided they 

owned real property with a specified value. White males who had no property were 

the first to demand and win equal voting rights. Then in 1870, racial discrimination 

in federal and state voting rights was put to rest by the 15th Amendment. Racial 

minorities were finally allowed to vote provided they were male and over 21, could 

pass literacy tests designed to prevent black men from voting, and could afford to 

pay poll taxes. 

It took another 50 years for women to win, in 1920, under the 19th Amendment, 

the same voting rights given to former male slaves a half century earlier. And it 

was another 44 years later that the 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, ended denial 

of voting rights through the economic discrimination of poll taxes. The 26th Amendment gave the vote to 18 year olds, ending the last vestige of the original franchise, 

limited to white males over 21 who owned property. 

Residents of Puerto Rico are the last large class of completely disenfranchised 

Americans. Because of the sacrifices of those who went before us, we do not need 

to defy oppression under the color of law, at the risk of our lives. We do not need 

to stand in front of tanks, as our contemporaries around the world have had to do, 

from Tiananmen Square in Beijing, to Red Square in Moscow. All we need to do 

is summon the courage to choose between real options. 

At a time when the U.S. is spending hundreds of billions to try to give Afghanistan and Iraq the democracy which we are denied, we dither over definition of 

choices that are obvious. 

But, we have fallen into a trap. Too many of our people have supported an unacceptable trade-off of so-called special treatment for the territory, in exchange for our 

208

support of the disenfranchised territory called ‘‘Commonwealth’’. Too many of us 

have embraced a second class citizenship, that other Americans in the states, have 

given up their lives, to overcome. In exchange for partial income tax exemption, too 

many American citizens in Puerto Rico, have accepted and tolerated a less than 

equal status. One that our fellow American citizens in the states have rejected. 

We pay billions in federal taxes every year, yet we cling to the myth of fiscal autonomy. The partial exemption from some federal taxes, on some local income, is 

hardly a smart bargain in exchange for equal voting rights and real political power. 

If a person sincerely believes in democracy, would he sell his right to vote and to 

have equal representation? Whoever does so, cannot honestly believe in democracy. 

Instead of taxation without representation, we have ‘‘no representation without 

taxation’’. The President and Congress justify our lack of voting rights and representation, by saying that we shouldn’t complain about the fact that we can’t vote because we don’t have to pay income taxes for the income we earn in Puerto Rico. Yet 

we pay more local income taxes than most Americans. Our partial tax exemptions 

come with a price that includes lack of voting rights, lack of representation and lack 

of right for our people to enjoy equal economic opportunity. 

The real tragedy is that we do not have equal rights, but we do have equal sacrifices. Those economically privileged few who thrive under the status quo, seem 

quite content to preserve their privileges under the current relationship, while our 

young people are sent off to fight and die, so people in foreign lands can have rights, 

they and their families are denied back home in the colony. 

We should not stand for this discrimination. And, neither should Congress. 

H.R. 900 provides for a process to at least make status resolution for Puerto Rico 

possible. It is the least we can do; the least we must do, to honor our brave soldiers 

and sailors, and to honor ourselves before our children. 

H.R. 900 is predicated on these fundamental principles, but accommodates the 

status quo, by allowing the voters to express their wish for things to remain as they 

are now. 

The H.R. 1230 proposal for a local constitutional convention on status is not a serious proposal, it is a cynical diversionary tactic, a waste of time, and should not 

be recognized under federal law. 

I urge Congress to approve H.R. 900. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I now recognize The Honorable 

Jose ́ L. Dalmau-Santiago for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOSE ́ L. DALMAU-SANTIAGO,

SENATE MINORITY LEADER, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

Mr. DALMAU-SANTIAGO. Thank you. Honorable Chairwoman and 

Members of this committee, I will testify before you today in my 

native language, Spanish, which is the native language of the people of Puerto Rico. I do this because, as is the case with almost all 

Puerto Ricans, I feel more comfortable in expressing myself in my 

native tongue than in English. 

However, for the benefit of those of you who don’t speak or understand Spanish, I have provided an English translation of my remarks. 

[Translated from Spanish.] Honorable Christensen. As a fervent 

defender of the commonwealth status of Puerto Rico for over 50 

years, I appear before this Subcommittee to present my views and 

recommendations toward H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, two bills presented before the Congress regarding the status of Puerto Rico. 

However, our current relation with the United States requires 

amendments to allow our country to gain the full advantages of a 

global economy. 

Mentioning some of the issues that must be discussed in this current evaluation process, for example; the restrictions established 

under the Coastwise Laws. Currently, Puerto Rico is restricted to 

use only United States merchant vessels for its imports and exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
209

ports, this restriction imposes an additional cost on an island that 

depends almost 100 percent on merchant vessels for its imports 

and exports. 

Obviously, this restriction is a competitive limitation for Puerto 

Rico. The commonwealth must possess the right to hire merchant 

vessels on a competitive and effective level. This would benefit customers, create new incentives for venture investors and business 

owners, and it would help stimulate the economy of the island. 

Exemption of the Coastwise Laws is nothing new to the Congress 

since the United States Virgin Islands, Mariana Islands, Guam, 

American Samoa, Wake, and Midway are exempt from such provision. This exclusion is indispensable for the development of strategic projects in Puerto Rico; for example, the Transport Port of the 

Americas Rafael Cordero Santiago in Ponce, Puerto Rico. 

Other important issues are related to fiscal matters, issue that 

can be expanded in a later written statement to the Subcommittee 

if the Members are interested. I have a serious concern that I must 

share with this Subcommittee. 

Puerto Rico has more than 100 years of relationship with the 

United States, the last 55 under the agreement of the commonwealth status. In the last 50 years we have celebrated multiple 

plebiscites for the people of Puerto Rico to choose their preferred 

status option. In all of those plebiscites both independence and 

statehood have been rejected by the voters in Puerto Rico. There 

have also been numerous Congressional efforts to promote a process of auto-determination of which I can mention the Bennett Johnston Bill, Young Bill, and the initiatives being evaluated today. 

The truly central aspect to this process is if the Congress has the 

will to respect and enforce the will of the Puerto Rican people. I 

ask you, Members of Congress, are you prepared to concede statehood to Puerto Rico, or the modifications under a new commonwealth compact, if that is the will of the Puerto Rican people? This 

is the most important issue to us as political leaders in the island, 

in Congress willing to the obey the majority will in the island. 

It is your obligation and your duty to answer this question. Are 

you willing to accept as a state to the Union a nation that local 

statehood supporters insist will permit state court proceedings in 

Spanish, international representation outside of the Federal government, separate Olympic delegation, and public education in 

Spanish? 

I can recommend a process that permits Puerto Ricans to reach 

a consensus freely and democratically about the real and viable 

status options that must be presented before the people. I am talking the constitutional convention. This alternative helps the development of an extensive dialogue, a clear debate, and permits reaching a consensus between the different status factions in the island. 

The constitutional assembly is not an unknown mechanism for 

the United States, nor Puerto Rico. The Constitution of the United 

States was adopted in 1787 in a constitutional convention celebrated in Philadelphia. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico was enacted from a consensus in the Assembly celebrated between September of 1951 and July of 1952. 

Both Magna Cartas are documents that have created the backbone for democratic societies, as well as for governments that deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
210

fend civil rights. These documents are the guiding principles of our 

democracies, respected by the people, of whom we feel proud, and 

that many citizens have paid the ultimate prize defending such values and principles. 

The constitutional assembly is also the mechanism most used by 

the different territories of the United States in their process to become a state of the Union. The constitutional assembly must be 

evaluated by this Subcommittee as the real and only viable alternative to solve the status issue in Puerto Rico. 

I recommend that any effort to attend the status of Puerto Rico 

has to recognize that the alternatives must come from Puerto Rico, 

and not the Congress, and that the best mechanism to reach the 

necessary consensus between all different ideologies in the island 

is the constitutional convention. 

Therefore, I strongly endorse H.R. 1230 for proposing a constitutional convention as the mechanism to solve the status issue. I ask 

this Subcommittee and the Congress to approve H.R. 1230 for the 

well-being of the people of Puerto Rico. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dalmau-Santiago follows:]

Statement of Jose ́ L. Dalmau-Santiago, Minority Leader, Popular 

Democratic Party, Senate of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

Honorable Christensen and Members of the Subcommittee: 

As a fervent defender of the Commonwealth status of Puerto Rico, which has 

greatly served the people of Puerto Rico for over fifty years, I appear before this 

subcommittee to present my views and recommendations toward H.R. 900 and 

H.R. 1230, two bills presented before the Congress regarding the status of Puerto 

Rico. 

However, our current relation with the United States requires amendments to 

allow our country gain the full advantages of a global economy. 

Mentioning some of the issues that must be discussed in this current evaluation 

process, for example; the restrictions established under the Coastwise Laws (Cabotage Laws). Currently, Puerto Rico is restricted to use only United States merchant 

vessels for its imports and exports, this restriction imposes and additional cost on 

an island that depends in an almost One Hundred Percent (100%) on merchant vessels for its imports and exports. Obviously, this restriction is a competitive limitation for Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth must posses the right to hire merchant 

vessels on a competitive and effective level, this would benefit consumers, create 

new incentives for venture investors and business owners, and it would help stimulate the economy of the island. 

Exemption of the Coastwise Laws is nothing new to the Congress since the United 

States Virgin Islands, Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Wake, and Midway are exempt from such provision. This exclusion is indispensable for the development of strategic projects in Puerto Rico, for example the Transport Port of the 

Americas Rafael Cordero Santiago in Ponce, Puerto Rico. 

Other important issues are related to fiscal matters, issue that can be expanded 

in a later written statement to the subcommittee if the members are interested. I 

have a serious concern that I must share with this subcommittee. Puerto Rico has 

more than a hundred years of relationship with the United States, the last Fifty 

Five (55) under the agreement of the Commonwealth status. In the last Fifty years 

(50) we have celebrated multiple plebiscites for the people of Puerto Rico to choose 

their preferred status option, in all of those plebiscites both independence and statehood have been rejected by the voters in Puerto Rico. There have also been numerous congressional efforts to promote a process of auto determination of which I can 

mention the Bennet Johnston Bill, Young Bill, and the initiatives being evaluated 

today. 

The truly central aspect to this process is if the Congress has the will to respect 

and enforce the will of the Puerto Rican people. I ask you, Members of Congress, 

are you prepared to concede statehood to Puerto Rico or the modifications under a 

new Commonwealth compact if that is the will of the Puerto Rican people? This is 

the must important issue to us as political leader in the island, in Congress willing 

211

to obey the majority will in the island. It is your obligation and your duty to answer 

this question. Are you willing to accept as a State to the Union a nation that local 

statehood supporters insist will permit state court proceedings in Spanish, international representation outside of the Federal Government, separate Olympic Delegation, and public education in Spanish? 

I can recommend a process that permits Puerto Ricans to reach a consensus freely 

and democratically about the real and viable status options that must be presented 

before the people. I am talking about the Constitutional Convention. This alternative helps the development of an extensive dialogue, a clear debate, and permits 

reaching a consensus between the different status factions in the island. 

The Constitutional Assembly is not an unknown mechanism for the United States 

nor Puerto Rico. The Constitution of the United States was adopted in 1787 in a 

Constitutional Convention celebrated in Philadelphia. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was enacted from a consensus in the Assembly celebrated 

between September of 1951 and July of 1952. Both Manga Cartas are documents 

that have created the backbone for democratic societies, as well as for governments 

that defend civil rights. These documents are the guiding principles of our democracies, respected by the people, of whom we feel proud and that many citizens have 

paid the ultimate prize defending such values and principles. 

The Constitutional Assembly is also the mechanism most used by the different 

territories of the United States in their process to become a State of the Union. The 

Constitutional Assembly must be evaluated by this subcommittee as the real and 

only viable alternative to solve the status issue in Puerto Rico. 

I recommend that any effort to attend the status of Puerto Rico has to recognize 

that the alternatives must come from Puerto Rico and not the Congress and that 

the best mechanism to reach the necessary consensus between all different 

ideologies in the island is the Constitutional Convention. 

Therefore I strongly endorse H.R. 1230 for proposing a Constitutional Convention 

as the mechanism to solve the status issue. I ask this subcommittee and the Congress to approve H.R. 1230 for the well-being of the people of Puerto Rico. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. And the last speaker on this panel 

would be The Honorable He ́ctor Ferrer Rı ́os. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HE ́ CTOR FERRER RI ́OS, HOUSE 

MINORITY LEADER, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

Mr. FERRER R ́IOS. Madame Chairwoman, Commissioner Fortun ̃ o, 

and Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is He ́ctor Ferrer Rı ́os. I am the Minority Leader of the 

House of Representatives of Puerto Rico for the Popular Democratic 

Party. 

I welcome the opportunity to present and share my views on behalf of over a million Puerto Ricans which believe not only in the 

commonwealth, but also in a process of true self-determination, 

through a Puerto Rican constitutional convention. 

The status of Puerto Rico brings passion in the daily discussion 

of our collective lives. I believe the current status, commonwealth, 

has fulfilled its purpose. What started in 1952 between the U.S. 

and Puerto Rico, el Estado Libre Asociado, has been good for both 

nations. 

It is time to develop a new commonwealth status, which responds to the new global economy and political trends. 

House Bill 900 provides for a Federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. This proposed bill 

is based entirely on the report issued by the President’s Task Force 

on December 22, 2005, which has not been, as a matter of fact, 

adopted by the President. Let me correct my statement. That has 

just been adopted. I wonder why. An outgoing present of an outgoing President. 

212

The report summarizes its finding by concluding that Congress 

can directly legislate and change the island’s governmental structure unilaterally; that the Federal government may relinquish U.S. 

sovereignty by ceding Puerto Rico to another nation; that U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico may be deprived of their citizenship at 

any time, because of the statutory nature of it, and that the Federal Constitution somehow prohibits the U.S. Government from entering into a relationship with Puerto Rico based on mutual consent. 

These outrageous and disturbing conclusions are the roots of our 

bill, which by itself also violates the principles of American democracy and Republicanism. Let me explain myself. 

House Bill 900 proposes a two-stage process for a plebiscite in 

where commonwealth, the option that has won every single plebiscite held in Puerto Rico, will be faced against statehood and independence, not on equal terms. The first stage will automatically 

unite statehooders and independent defenders in one options, 

against commonwealth, creating an artificial majority with the sole 

purpose of eliminating the only option that, like I said before, has 

won every plebiscite in the commonwealth. 

Moreover, stage two faces off statehood, that, as a matter of fact, 

for the purpose of this bill or any other bill, has never been fully 

explained of its definition, limitations, and consequences to the people of Puerto Rico, against independence and free association. In 

fact, these two options, independence and free association, in the 

last plebiscite only summed 7 percent of the votes casted. 

Are these the principles of democracy and Republicanism the 

United States was founded? I don’t think so. Neither should anyone. 

However, House Bill 1230, presented by Ms. Vela ́zquez, truly embraces the principle under which the United States was conceived: 

the process of the constitutional convention has been used since the 

times of the founding fathers—for example, Annapolis Convention, 

1786; Philadelphia Convention, 1787; which drafted the United 

States Constitution—and by individual states to create, replace, or 

revise their own constitution. 

As we can see, it is a proven mechanism within the United 

States history. 

It is a process of full representation by elected delegates, delegates of the people, just like you and me. It is, after all, the process 

through which this government was created. But there is a much 

important issue that should be addressed in these hearings, an 

issue that surpasses my support to the constitutional convention, 

and that only is recognized in House Bill 1230. 

The bill is not presented on the basis of four pages of immoral 

of illegal conclusions, like House Bill 900. It is presented on the 

principle of self-determination and sovereignty of the people of 

Puerto Rico. 

It is the universal and natural right of the people of Puerto Rico 

to exercise its supreme authority of sovereignty over ourselves by 

way of defending our moral and legal rights, the same as every nation is entitled to, to decide our destiny. In other words, to exercise 

our natural right to self-determination. 

213

The United States was founded under a political value system 

that stresses liberty and rights as their central value. Where its 

people have natural rights and government has the responsibility 

of protecting these rights and liberties. These are the same principles and values adopted by the United Nations General Assembly 

in various resolutions about the peoples’ right of self-determination 

by virtue of that right. They freely determine their political status, 

and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. 

House Bill 1230 is, without a doubt, the right way of attending 

the political status of Puerto Rico. This bill represents the best of 

the United States and Puerto Rico. 

The people of Puerto Rico have the right to pursue its political, 

economic, and social development. These are my people’s rights 

that I defend before you. It is your responsibility, Members of Congress, to embrace our will. 

Thanks for your time and the opportunity to address the Subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferrer Rı ́os follows:]

Statement of Honorable He ́ctor Ferrer Rı ́os, Minority Leader of the

House of Representatives of Puerto Rico 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is He ́ctor 

Ferrer Rı ́os, I am the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives of Puerto 

Rico for the Popular Democratic Party. 

I welcome the opportunity to present and share my views on behalf of almost one 

million of Puerto Ricans, which believe, not only in the Commonwealth, but also, 

on a process of true self-determination through a Puerto Rican Constitutional Convention. 

I appreciate the interest that the Subcommittee has shown in dealing with this 

important matter in the lives of all Puerto Ricans. 

The status of Puerto Rico brings passion in the daily discussion of our collective 

lives. I belief the current status, Commonwealth, has fulfill its purpose. What started in 1952 between the U.S. and Puerto Rico, el Estado Libre Asociado, has been 

good for both nations. 

But the circumstances have changed. We don’t live in the Cold War of the 50’s, 

or in the underdeveloped nation that was Puerto Rico. It is time to develop a New 

Commonwealth Status, which responds to the new global economy and political 

trends. 

House Bill 900, provides ‘‘for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for 

the people of Puerto Rico’’. This proposed bill, is based entirely on the report issued 

by the President’s Task Force on December 22nd, 2005, which has not been, as a 

matter of fact, adopted by the President. 

The ‘‘report’’, summarizes its findings by concluding that Congress can directly 

legislate and change the island’s governmental structure unilaterally; that the Federal Government may relinquish U.S. sovereignty by ceding Puerto Rico to another 

nation; that U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico may be deprived of their citizenship 

at any time because of the statutory nature of it, and that the Federal Constitution, 

somehow, prohibits the U.S. Government from entering into a relationship with 

Puerto Rico base on mutual consent. 

These outrageous, disturbing and disrespectful conclusions are the roots of a bill, 

which by itself, also violates, the principles of American Democracy and Republicanism. Let me explain myself. 

House Bill 900 proposes a two stage process for a plebiscite in where Commonwealth, the option that has won every single plebiscite held in Puerto Rico, will be 

faced against Statehood and Independence, not in equal terms. The first stage will 

automatically unite statehooders and independence defenders in one option, against 

Commonwealth, creating an artificial majority, with the sole purpose of eliminating 

the only option that, like I said before, has won every plebiscite, Commonwealth. 

Moreover, stage two faces off statehood, that as a matter of fact, for the purpose 

of this bill or any other bill, has never been fully explained of its definition, limitations and consequences to the people of Puerto Rico, against independence and freeassociation. In fact, these two options, in the last plebiscite, only summed seven percent of the votes casted. 

214

Are these the principles of Democracy and Republicanism the United States was 

founded? I don’t think so. Neither should anyone. 

However, House Bill 1230, presented by Ms. Vela ́zquez, which ‘‘recognizes the 

right of the People of Puerto Rico to call a Constitutional Convention through which 

the people would exercise their natural right to self-determination, and to establish 

a mechanism for congressional consideration of such decision.’’, truly embraces the 

principles under which the United States was conceived. 

The process of the Constitutional Convention has been used, since the times of 

the Founding Fathers, for example; Annapolis Convention (1786); Philadelphia Convention (1787), which drafted the Unites States Constitution; and by individual 

states to create, replace, or revise their own constitutions. As we can see, it is a 

proven mechanism within the United States history. 

It is a process of full representation by elected delegates, delegates of the people 

just like you and me. It is after all the process through which this government was 

created. 

But, there is a much important issue that should be addressed in these hearings. 

An issue that surpasses my support to the Constitutional Convention and that only 

is recognized on House Bill 1230. 

The bill is not presented on the basis of four pages of immoral or illegal conclusions, like House Bill 900. It is presented on the principles of self-determination and 

sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico. It is the universal and natural right of the 

people of Puerto Rico to exercise its supreme authority of sovereignty over ourselves, 

by way of defending our moral and legal rights, the same as every nation is entitled 

to, to decide our destiny. In other words, to exercise our natural right to self-determination. 

The United States was founded under a political values system, that stresses liberty and rights as their central values. Where its people have natural rights and 

government has the responsibility of protecting these rights and liberties. 

These are the same principles and values adopted by the United Nations General 

Assembly in various resolutions about the peoples’ right ‘‘of self-determination by 

virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue 

their economic, social and cultural development.’’

House Bill 1230 is without a doubt, the right way of attending the political status 

of Puerto Rico. This bill represents the best of the United States and Puerto Rico. 

The people of Puerto Rico have the right to pursue its political, economic and social development. 

These are my peoples rights, that I defend before you. 

It is your responsibility, Members of Congress, to embrace our will. 

Thanks for your time, and the opportunity to address the subcommittee. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I will recognize myself for five 

minutes for questions. And I want to begin with a question that I 

would ask to the entire panel, because it is an issue that has not 

been addressed, even though it is something, it is a provision that 

is found in both bills. 

Both of them envision participation of non-resident Puerto 

Ricans in any final plebiscite on status. Do you each support that? 

And have you been able to assess the sentiment of the people of 

Puerto Rico on that issue? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. In our nation there have been varying degrees 

of allowing people to vote, depending on their nexus to the jurisdiction where they would be voting. 

In Puerto Rico, for example, we only allow people who are students or military personnel, or flight attendants and so forth, to 

vote absentee. In other states, many more people are allowed to 

vote absentee. 

The Federal government allows people who have not lived in a 

state for 30 years and live in Paris, an American in Paris, can vote 

for President 30 years after they left the U.S. So there is varying 

degrees regarding that issue. 

My only concern is that whoever is allowed to vote have enough 

of a nexus with Puerto Rico to at least know what is going on in 

215

Puerto Rico, and have some reasonable possibility of returning to 

Puerto Rico. 

If you ask a Puerto Rican living on the mainland how long does 

it take to go from San Juan to Ponce, and they tell you three and 

a half hours, that person should not be able to vote, because we 

have had an expressway that cuts that down to an hour for the 

past 30 years. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. It would seem to me that that would be very 

difficult to determine, you know. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes. At the very least they should be required 

to have been, if they don’t live in Puerto Rico, to have been born 

in Puerto Rico or born of a Puerto Rican parent. And the reason 

I say a Puerto Rican parent is because I wasn’t born in Puerto 

Rico, I was born in London, England, from a Puerto Rican mother. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Aponte? Sorry. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But it is really a policy decision that you, as 

Congress, have to make. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. But as the other panelists answer, I am very 

much interested in knowing what the people of Puerto Rico feel 

about, that those who live there feel about it. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. It is difficult to establish a policy. What 

a people, what a Puerto Rican had the opportunity to vote in a referendum, because the foreigners of the people. 

I went to university in 2005, and many Puerto Ricans born in 

U.S. in mainland, not in the island, and never went to Puerto Rico, 

never goes to Puerto Rico. But they claim that they were Puerto 

Ricans. Have they the same benefits that, that is ours in the island? It is difficult. We have to pass over you in that way. 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. Madame Chairperson, it is a very hard 

question for me, and let me tell you why, for emotional, personal 

reasons. 

Serrano is a friend of mine. This issue is close to his heart. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I know. 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. But I have always disagreed on that. I 

feel that someone who is not going to receive either the benefits or 

the prejudices of his decision should not be allowed to vote. And, 

you know, how do you define it? It is very difficult to define. 

One bill says those born in Puerto Rico. Well, if somebody was 

born in the Puerto Rico. Let us say a couple moves from Missouri 

to Puerto Rico on a job, and they are there for five years, the last 

year they have a son. They move back to Missouri. And then he 

has never gone back to Puerto Rico. His parents were not Puerto 

Rican, but he was born in Puerto Rico. He lived there his first year 

of his life. All he knows about Puerto Rico is what he reads once 

in a while in the news or sees in the television. And he is entitled 

to vote? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Well——

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. Another case, where a couple moves to 

Puerto Rico, and they have children. Their son is five years old, 

and he goes to school in Puerto Rico. He goes to high school, he 

goes to college, gets a job in Puerto Rico, gets married, has children. 

And then in the job they say oh, we need you in Florida, so they 

send him to Florida. Now he is in Florida. And he is going to be 

216

there in Florida. But he would like to vote, but he can’t, because 

he wasn’t born in Puerto Rico. But his parents were Puerto Rican, 

and he was there in Puerto Rico living. Now, how do you——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I think the bill provides for people who are 

registered voters and are already in Puerto Rico. If he moves away, 

but still continues his residency and voting rights. 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. That is, if somebody is a registered voter 

in Puerto Rico and moves away, and is still registered, that means 

he is temporarily away. And those people definitely, they will have, 

they can vote, if they go to Puerto Rico. 

Now, whether they can be given absentee votes, those that are 

registered in Puerto Rico and are planning to return and have 

domiciled residence in Puerto Rico, that could be worked out, definitely. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Dalmau. 

Mr. DALMAU-SANTIAGO. I think that every Puerto Rican that 

could be affected by this process or by this bill could be vote in the 

process. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. That doesn’t quite answer, but I will accept it. 

Mr. FERRER R ́IOS. If I recall correctly the question, it is if Puerto 

Ricans who live in the States or any other nation can vote on this 

process? That was the question, right? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. The bill, both bills provide that persons 

who were born in Puerto Rico but live away can vote. And one provides that if you, one of your parents was born in Puerto Rico, you 

can vote. 

Mr. FERRER R ́IOS. Well, I do believe it is a correct amendment 

to the bills. I also think that Puerto Ricans, sons of Puerto Ricans 

that were born here in the States may vote on this issue. It all depends on whatever the hearing says, but I am in favor of it. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. OK. Well, we want to be guided by people who 

live and know. I would just add, before I turn the mike to recognize 

Mr. Fortun ̃ o for questions, that you would be aware, I am sure, 

that many people, for reasons of health in the Virgin Islands, go 

to Puerto Rico to have their children. One of my siblings was born 

in Puerto Rico. And you have to take those kinds of things into consideration, as well. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. I welcome Governor Romero and the 

leaders from Puerto Rico who made it here. We only have five minutes, so I will try to be quick. 

With all due respect to everyone, in this panel there is one person that has a lot more experience than anybody else, and that is 

Gov. Romero. And, Governor, I will ask you, my recollection is that 

since I can remember, one of the main issues used against statehood was that a sales tax would be imposed on the people of Puerto 

Rico if we became a state. 

And I asked you if that is true, and if it is also true that this 

Governor, who just left, imposed on us a 7 percent sales tax just 

recently. 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. Not only the sales tax, but in the campaigns the, particularly in the last month of every campaign, the 

popular party misled the people. Because they said not only the 

sales tax would be imposed, it would become a state, because we 

already had a sales tax, but it was a hidden sales tax. It was called 

217

an excise tax, which was very, very prejudicial, not only to the people, but also to the businessmen, because they had to pay the tax 

before they sold their products. 

But beyond that, they also told the people that if we became a 

state, the Federal government would be collecting property tax. 

And the Federal government does not collect property tax anywhere in the nation. It is the state government or the local county 

or the municipality, but not the Federal government. 

But they have always lied about the tax situation. And the tax 

benefits, the tax exemptions in Puerto Rico, for income tax earned 

in Puerto Rico are only for the wealthiest. Because the people in 

Puerto Rico, our local income taxes are higher than the Federal income tax and most state tax put together. So the middle class, the 

worker, the people in Puerto Rico pay more income taxes than they 

do in the nation. And the only ones that really benefit from the tax 

exemptions are the wealthiest of all corporations. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. I also wanted to clarify something. 

Mississippi has been brought up several times, that the per capita 

income in Mississippi is more than twice the per capita income in 

Puerto Rico today. And that should be clarified in the record for everyone. 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. And not only that, Mr. Commissioner, 

also the fuel. About 20 years ago the difference between the per 

capita income between Mississippi and Puerto Rico was much less 

than it is now. The gap has widened. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Exactly. The gap is widening as we speak. 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. And with all of the states. And part of the 

reason for that is because the poor people in Puerto Rico do not receive the same benefits. The needy people, the single women with 

children, the elderly, the people who have problems with mental 

problems, they don’t receive the same benefits as they do in the 

mainland, in the rest of the states. So that creates an immediate 

difference at the lowest level of income. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Gov. Acevedo-Vila ́ actually published in today’s 

roll call an article called Self-Determination is Key to Puerto Rico’s 

Status Debate. I mean, his last paragraph—and I will quote from 

what he wrote—says, ‘‘Puerto Ricans are excited by the island’s 

progress in economic development, education, infrastructure 

growth, and fiscal stability, among others.’’

Without laughing while you are answering, Gov. Acevedo-Vila ́

published this today in——

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. What is he talking about? Who is he talking about? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Well, about Puerto Rico. 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. Oh, Puerto Rico? 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. I know, for example, in terms of fiscal stability, 

isn’t it true that we have had a deficit for the last three years 

while he has been Governor? And that Puerto Rico has the lowest 

credit rating of any jurisdiction under the U.S. flag? 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. Not only that, but the Banco Popular finished, they had their yearly report. And they said that the recession in Puerto Rico is not part of the nationwide economy; it is a 

locally created recession. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. For two years. 

218

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. That is what the Banco Popular’s report. 

And the Banco Popular is certainly not involved in the politics in 

that report. They are trying to inform the people about what the 

bank is doing, and what is happening in Puerto Rico. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. We will include, for the record, some economic 

data that will show, among other things, in the last five years 

Puerto Rico has experienced the slowest growth rates since the 

early eighties in Puerto Rico. 

Also has the lowest achievement test scores of a nation, in terms 

of the location, are in Puerto Rico. So that is clarified. 

I will close, Governor, with your opinion on the constitutional 

convention, and why do you oppose it. 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. The constitutional convention is a sham. 

I mean, first of all, what is a constitutional convention can vote for? 

A constitutional convention is called in to either amend a constitution, or to draft a new constitution; not to tell the people, or jurisdiction, what they should opt for their future. That is ridiculous. 

To put 20, 30 people elected to tell the people of Puerto Rico 

what their future is going to be, and submit it into a vote, that is 

ridiculous. After we decide where we want to go—do we want to 

be a state, do we want to be a republic—then we can call a constitutional convention, to either amend our local Constitution as a 

state, or else have a new Constitution as a republic. That is what 

a constitutional convention is for. Not to tell the people what they 

should opt for in the future. That would be ridiculous. 

And then to say, the bill goes further—it is more ridiculous even. 

It says after the first constitutional convention, if the people don’t 

vote for the option that is offered to them, then there will be another, that same constitutional convention can then draft another 

option to submit again to the people. This bill is not a serious bill. 

This bill has been filed just to create obstructions and to separate 

those people who want Puerto Rico to solve their status issue, to 

confuse them, and have something to perhaps prevent the 

H.R. 900 from getting a majority vote on the Floor. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Very quickly, since we have the Governor here, 

Gov. Acevedo-Vila ́ held this position in the last previous four years. 

He never filed that bill. Do you know why he never filed that bill? 

Could it be that now they are filing this bill just to stall and try 

to stop the process? 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. Because they are afraid of the referendum. The commonwealth hasn’t won all the referenda; that is 

not true. 

The people of Puerto Rico have voted against commonwealth as 

a majority in the last three referendums. But the things is that the 

referendum has gotten more votes than other formulas individually, but the people have rejected the relationship between the 

Nation and Puerto Rico. 

The majority of the people reject the relationship. So we are now 

being governed without the consent of the governed. And that is 

also undemocratic. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you again, and thank you for the panel. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. I want to make a correction, because in 

the last plebiscite, the commonwealth has not had the majority. 

None of the above, the people of Puerto Rico don’t support the comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
219

monwealth, the active commonwealth. And vote in majority, none 

of the above. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. 

Faleomavaega for five minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madame Chair. I want to again 

thank Gov. Romero for his most eloquent statement, as I have always known him over the years, and also still very consistent in 

terms of his strong views in the political future of Puerto Rico. 

I do want to note again and ask the members of the panel, my 

good friend, President McClintock, as I have tried to dissect or divide or some form of understanding of the two versions that we 

have before us of the bills. H.R. 900 provides these options: independence, free association, or statehood. And I hope my good 

friend, Mr. Fortun ̃ o, will correct me on that. 

Now, the provisions or options for H.R. 1230 is commonwealth 

for a new or modified commonwealth status, one option. Statehood 

or independence. What this boils down to, as much as I can—I welcome your comments—we have a problem here with definitions. 

How do you define free association? How do you define commonwealth, or enhanced commonwealth? 

There is no question about statehood or independence. I think 

that is pretty much understood throughout our dialogue here. 

And one of the ironies as I observed here, we have a Governor 

who is pro-commonwealth, elected by the people of Puerto Rico, and 

my good friend, Mr. Fortun ̃ o, the Resident Commissioner, elected, 

but for statehood. I am confused. And I know, because my good 

friend is good-looking, and I know that is probably the reason why 

he got elected Resident Commissioner. Not only is he intelligent, 

but I am smart, if I want to put that categorization again. 

But truly——

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. They said that about Barack Obama the other 

day. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But I do want to ask, especially——

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I may add that you also have two attractive 

speakers and Senate Presidents who are also for statehood, just as 

Fortun ̃ o. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK, well taken. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Seriously, H.R. 900 provides a two-step process. The first step is where Congress asks a question that it has 

not dared ask in 108 years. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, here is my problem. There is definitely 

a question of process. This is what we are getting fuzzy on, OK? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. There is no question that this is one issue 

that I notice we are hung up on. And then the definition, as we 

have been taught, as I have tried exhorting, my understanding of 

free association and the classy examples of free association, if you 

want to talk, discuss that as a political status, are the Micronesian 

entities of Palau, probably the Marshall Islands, and the free Federated States of Micronesia. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, you provide sovereignty, and then you 

turn to a negotiation. 

220

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Right. But there are some conditions, 

though, on how free association has evolved, and the way it is 

going to be applied by the Micronesian entity is quite different. 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. One of the things is that all the ones that 

have the free association, they are not U.S. citizens. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That is true, but——

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. And that is what the commonwealth supporters are afraid of. They are afraid that then the people—we 

want a status without U.S. citizens. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am reclaiming my time. These entities 

also, the citizens are allowed to join the military. And they can also 

become U.S. citizens once they join the military. And that is a very 

unique situation, too. 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. Aliens are allowed to join the military. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The citizens of the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands, Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia, can join 

the military, and they can become U.S. citizens as an option once 

they are in the military. There is approximately five to six hundred 

Micronesians now serving in the armed services of the United 

States, some very, very, outstanding performers, just like our people from Puerto Rico or all the other entities, as well. 

My point is that, is there an agreement that we definitely have 

a problem with definitions? We definitely have a problem with 

process. Is there some way that we can formulate, or some way—

I know my good friend, Mr. Fortun ̃ o, has a different definition of 

free association. I have a different definition of association, and I 

am sure Gov. Vila ́ has a different definition of enhanced commonwealth, since that seems to be one of the options stated under provisions of H.R. 1230. 

I want to ask my good friends who are pro-commonwealth if, 

what is their understanding of how you are defining—I know it is 

there, but is there anything different from what has been stated 

earlier by my good friend, Mr. Fortun ̃ o, as to what enhanced commonwealth status does or proposes to do? 

Mr. FERRER R ́IOS. Let me answer a question with one, just one 

example. A new commonwealth or enhanced commonwealth would 

be in agreement with the United States that the Jones Act or the 

law don’t apply to Puerto Rico. That may be a new commonwealth. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You are only talking about one instance, because there could be several other factors that you negotiate. 

Mr. FERRER R ́

IOS. I am just giving you one example. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Right, right. 

Mr. FERRER R ́IOS. I am just giving you one example. That relation with the United States with Puerto Rico has to be drawn on 

the table. And that is one example of what we can have as a new 

commonwealth. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I do want——

Mr. FERRER R ́

IOS. A new commonwealth, if I may, has to be 

based on the principle of developing economy of Puerto Rico. And 

I think that is the key here. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me tell you, I know my time is up, I just 

want to say right now, in my humble opinion, we definitely have 

a problem with definitions. How free association and commonwealth are going to be properly defined, so that the people of 

221

Puerto Rico know exactly the differences of these two options. We 

know what independence is about, we know what statehood is 

about. 

Mr. FERRER R ́IOS. Not in Puerto Rico, though. Not in Puerto 

Rico. The people of Puerto Rico, they don’t know what statehood is. 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. This is all by H.R. 900. This is all by 

H.R. 900. Because the first question on the referendum, the first 

referendum would be do you want to have a non-territorial status. 

And then if the people say they want to have a non-territorial status, that means they don’t want commonwealth. So that is solved, 

that problem is solved by the first question. 

But if they say yes, they do want a territorial status, then you 

have to go to——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My time is up, Ms. Chairman. But I will say 

in closing, Madame Chair, I am a very proud grandfather. My 

grandson, his mother is Puerto Rican. Can she vote? 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. She doesn’t live in Puerto Rico, she is not 

a resident in Puerto Rico, I don’t think so. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. 

Mr. ROMERO BARCELO ́. Anyway, the problem is, why should 

somebody that has the right to vote and the right to representation, in your case not because they are also a territory, but someone that has the right to vote and the right to representation tell 

me that I cannot have a right to vote or a right to representation? 

Mr. FERRER R ́

IOS. I believe she can. I believe she can. 

Mr. APONTE-HERNA ́ NDEZ. The problem is the definition. In 1952, 

we have some definition for commonwealth. In 1977, 1967, we have 

another. In 1993, we have another one. In 1998, another one. And 

now, the proposal of commonwealth has another definition, and 

they don’t know what he wants for commonwealth. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and their answers. We may forward 

questions to you in writing, and would ask that you—oh, Mr. 

Dalmau, sorry. 

Mr. DALMAU-SANTIAGO. Yes. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I will allow this last statement, because I 

think he was answering the question. 

Mr. DALMAU-SANTIAGO. I want only to invite this committee to 

celebrate a hearing in Puerto Rico. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Again, thank you for your testimony and for your answers to our questions. 

I would like to now recognize the fourth panel, the fourth and 

final panel. They include Mr. Fernando Martı ́n, Executive President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party; Mr. Nestor Duprey, 

Spokesman for the Puerto Ricans for Free Association and Social 

Justice; and Mr. Juan Manuel Garcia Passalacqua, Writer and Columnist. 

We would like the final panel to take their seats. He is trying 

to get there, OK. 

Thank you, and thank you for your patience. It has been a long 

afternoon into the evening. I now recognize Mr. Martı ́n for five 

minutes. 

222

STATEMENT OF FERNANDO MARTI ́N, EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT, 

PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY 

Mr. MARTI ́N. Good afternoon. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Could we keep the noise in the back down, 

please? 

Mr. MARTI ́N. Puerto Rico is the only nation of even remotely comparable population where the most fundamental and important 

laws regulating its collective life are made by the legislature of another country, and are administered and enforced by the government of this other country, without the participation of the subject 

people. 

This indefensible and unacceptable condition of subordination 

and servitude has existed for more than 100 years, since the 

United States, having demanded and obtained Puerto Rico as booty 

of war from Spain, first organized a civil government for its newly 

acquired possession. 

That such an anachronistic and mutually demeaning state of affairs has persisted until the present requires explanation. Two fundamental policy considerations in the U.S. have sustained colonialism in Puerto Rico during the 20th century. The first has been 

the determination to exercise absolute control over Puerto Rico for 

military, strategic, and geopolitical reasons. The two World Wars 

reinforced this overarching motivation, while the subsequent Cold 

War made the need for such control even more acute. 

In other circumstances, such long-range national security considerations would have led to annexation as a territory followed by 

eventual statehood. Here is where the second bedrock explanation 

for the persistence of colonialism comes into play. For in contrast 

to Hawaii, where by 1898 the natives were already a small minority overwhelmed by an immigration process which rapidly Americanized the new arrivals, and with an Anglo-Saxon elite long in 

control of politics and the economy, Puerto Rico presented a totally 

different situation. 

Here was a full-blown Latin-American nation densely populated, 

Spanish-speaking, intensely proud of its cultural identity, and possessing its own indigenous and entrenched political and economic 

elite. It did not require William Howard Taft’s colonial and political 

experience to recognize that it was inconceivable that Puerto Rico 

could ever be a state of the Union, because it was, in fact, a different nation. 

It was obvious then, as it is today, that Puerto Rico is a non-compatible donor to the historical project of American Federalism. 

After all, if Puerto Rico were a real candidate for statehood, why 

not Jamaica or Guatemala? Many desperately poor in these countries might perhaps support it, albeit, as in Puerto Rico, for the 

wrong reasons. 

This is why the imposition of U.S. citizenship in Puerto Rico in 

1917, together with the reaffirmation that such a step did not incorporate Puerto Rico, was such a pragmatic manifestation of the 

underlying basis of U.S. policy toward Puerto Rico. 

U.S. citizenship was, at the same time, both an attempt to close 

off the path toward independence, while not opening the one that 

might lead to statehood. This left only the option of reforms within 

the statutes of non-incorporated territory. 

223

It no doubt remained as to what U.S. policy would be toward 

Puerto Rico thereafter. It was to be a colony indefinitely. And so 

it continued to be until the relationship has recently been brought 

sharply into question in the United States by the profound geopolitical and military consequences of the collapse of the Soviet 

Union and the end of the Cold War. 

The armed forces no longer have any significant presence in 

Puerto Rico. That other traditional lobbying ally for colonialism, 

the 936 companies, are now a mere memory of the time when any 

change in political status would have meant the end of their Federal tax privileges. 

The only reason remaining for the U.S. to support continued colonialism would be if this were the only way to ward off the possibility of an embarrassing statehood bid. Yet the truth is to the contrary; continued colonialism will only breed evermore statehooders. 

Furthermore, international opinion, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean, is increasingly demanding that Puerto Rico 

be recognized its independence. The United Nations Committee on 

the Colonization, for example, has been approving resolutions 

unanimously during the past five years, recognizing Puerto Rico’s 

inalienable right to independence, and our party is presently engaged, together with the most representative political forces in 

Latin America and the Caribbean, in a campaign that will culminate in a similar resolution by the General Assembly. 

The decolonization committee has consistently called for the U.S. 

Government to take the necessary steps that will promote the exercise of our right to self-determination, according to international 

law. Only a process that will lead to a serious and responsible offer 

of independence, that must begin by putting an end to the colonial 

option, and will inevitably require considerable straight talking on 

the part of Congress as to why statehood is not an alternative to 

be acceptable to the U.S. Only this will finally put an end to this 

failed and discredited colonial experiment that has gone on for far 

too long, to the detriment of both our nations. 

The proposal put forward earlier today by the President of the 

PIP, Rube ́n Berrı ́os, if approved in its essential components, will 

undoubtedly put in motion a process that can only lead to 

decolonization and independence. For the first time in more than 

100 years, there are no fundamental contradictions between your 

interests and ours, as far as political status is concerned. It is up 

to Congress to seize this opportunity without delay. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martı ́n follows:]

Statement of Fernando Martı ́n, Executive President of the

Puerto Rican Independence Party 

Puerto Rico is the only nation of even remotely comparable population where the 

most fundamental and important laws regulating its collective life are made by the 

legislature of another country, and are administered and enforced by the government of the other country, without the participation of the people who are thus governed. Even local laws enacted by Puerto Rico’s Legislative Assembly ‘‘as well as 

municipal ordinances and administrative regulations’’ must conform to the constitution and laws of another country, the United States. 

This indefensible and unacceptable condition of subordination and political servitude has existed for more than one hundred years since the United States, having 

demanded and obtained Puerto Rico as booty of war from Spain in 1898, first orgaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
224

nized a civil government for its newly acquired possession through the Foraker Act 

of 1900. 

That such an anachronic and mutually demeaning state of affairs has persisted 

until the present requires explanation. Two fundamental policy considerations in 

the U.S. have sustained colonialism in Puerto Rico during the 20th century. The 

first has been the determination to exercise absolute control over Puerto Rico for 

military, strategic and geopolitical reasons. The first and second world wars reinforced this overarching motivation while the subsequent era of the Cold War made 

the need for such control even more acute. 

In other circumstances such long range national security considerations would 

have led to annexation as a territory followed by eventual statehood. Here is where 

the second bedrock explanation for the persistence of colonialism comes into play; 

for in contrast to Hawaii where by 1898 the native Hawaiians were already a small 

minority overwhelmed by an immigration process which rapidly Americanized the 

new arrivals, and with an Anglo-Saxon elite firmly in control of politics and the 

economy, Puerto Rico presented a totally different situation. 

Here was a full blown Latin American nation densely populated, Spanish speaking, intensively proud of its cultural identity, mature in its cultural manifestations 

‘‘not only in folklore but in high culture’’ and possessing its own indigenous and entrenched political and economic elite. It did not take William Howard Taft’s colonial, 

political and judicial experience to recognize (as he did in Balzac, the culmination 

of the Insular Cases) that it was inconceivable that Puerto Rico could ever be a state 

of the union because it was in fact, a different nation. It was obvious then, as it 

is today, that Puerto Rico is a non compatible donor to the historical project of 

American federalism. After all, if Puerto Rico were a real candidate for statehood, 

why not Jamaica or Guatemala? Many desperately poor in these countries might 

perhaps support it, as in Puerto Rico, for the wrong reasons. 

This is why the imposition of U.S. citizenship in 1917, together with the reaffirmation that such a step did not incorporate Puerto Rico, is such a paradigmatic 

manifestation of the underlying basis of the U.S. policy toward Puerto Rico. United 

States citizenship was at the same time, both an attempt to close off the path towards independence while not opening the one that might lead to statehood. This 

left only the option of reforms within the status of non incorporated territory. No 

doubt remained as to what U.S. policy would be towards Puerto Rico thereafter: it 

was to be a colony indefinitely. And so it continued to be until it has recently been 

brought into question in the United States by the profound geopolitical and military 

consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. 

The armed forces of the United States no longer have any significant presence in 

Puerto Rico. That other traditional lobbying ally for colonialism, the 936 companies, 

are now a mere memory of the time when any change in political status would have 

meant the end of their federal tax privileges (which under 936 applied only if the 

profits were generated in a possession). 

The only reason remaining for the U.S. to support continued colonialism would 

be if this were the only way to ward off forever the possibility of an embarrassing 

statehood bid. Yet the truth is to the contrary; continued colonialism will only breed 

evermore statehooders. 

Furthermore, international opinion, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean will increasingly demand that Puerto Rico be recognized its independence. The 

United Nations Committee on Decolonization, for example, has been approving resolutions unanimously during the past five years recognizing Puerto Rico’s inalienable 

right to independence and our party is presently engaged—together with the most 

representative political forces in Latin America and the Caribbean—in a campaign 

that will culminate in similar resolution by the General Assembly. The 

Decolonization Committee has consistently called for the Government of the United 

States to take the necessary steps that will promote the exercise by the People of 

Puerto Rico of their right to self determination according to international law. 

Only a process that will lead to a serious and responsible offer of independence 

that must begin by putting an end to the colonial option, and will inevitably require 

considerable straight talking on the part of Congress as to why statehood is not an 

alternative that could be acceptable to the U.S. in the foreseeable future, will finally 

put an end to this failed and discredited colonial experiment that has gone on for 

far too long to the detriment of both our nations. 

The proposal put forward earlier today by the President of the PIP, Rube ́n 

Berrı ́os, if approved in its essential components will undoubtedly put in motion a 

process that can only lead to decolonization and independence. 

For the first time in more than one hundred years there are no fundamental contradictions between your interests and ours as far as political status in concerned. 

It is up to Congress to seize this opportunity without delay. 

225

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. The next person we will hear from 

is Mr. Nestor Duprey Salgado. We recognize you for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NESTOR DUPREY SALGADO, SPOKESMAN,

PUERTO RICANS FOR FREE ASSOCIATION AND SOCIAL 

JUSTICE 

Mr. SALGADO. Thank you, Madame Chair and Members of the 

Subcommittee. 

I appear before you as spokesperson of Movimiento Autonomista 

Socialdemo ́crata, also known in English as Puerto Ricans for Free 

Association and Social Justice. We advocate for the development of 

Puerto Rico’s current relationship with the United States to a compact of free association. 

MAS follows in the tradition of more than 20 years, whereby supporters of free association have appeared before Congress. As MAS 

has previously addressed the substantive and procedural aspects of 

both H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, I should underline at this time that 

MAS firmly believes that any bill passed by Congress must recognize three separate status options, presented to the Puerto Rican 

electors in a fair and balanced way. Statehood, independence, and 

free association. No more, no less. 

International law and U.S. constitutional practice have recognized free association as a valid, non-colonial and non-territorial 

self-determination option. 

Free association is based on the sovereignty of the people of 

Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico would delegate or share several areas of 

authority with the United States. The existing compacts of free association between the U.S. and the Micronesian nations have been 

negotiated and executed under the treaty-making power of the U.S. 

Constitution. 

The compacts are clearly outside Congressional authority under 

the Territorial Clause of the Constitution. 

Some argue that Congress has the authority to partially or permanently cede some of its plenary powers over Puerto Rico under 

the Territorial Clause. MAS believes that it is a risky proposition 

that will ultimately leave the new form of association between 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. in substantially the same place that it is 

now: at the mercy of future actions and interpretations of Congress, the Justice Department, and the Federal Courts. 

Furthermore, the existing compacts of free association are a recognized model in U.S. constitutional practice that would accommodate all the political and economic authority desired by the majority of Puerto Ricans that do not believe in statehood or independence. When we are talking about the enhanced commonwealth, 

what we are really talking about is free association. 

MAS understands that the best way for an association agreement 

to work is to forgo altogether the Territorial Clause, and use the 

International Agreement Clause of the Constitution. Puerto Rico 

must become a sovereign nation, all while entering at the same 

time into a compact of free association with the United States. This 

was exactly the way in which the Micronesian Compacts were established since 1986. 

Contrary to what some have argued in the past, free association 

is not independence. Free association is bilateral by nature, and reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:13 Jul 18, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34236.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
226

quires mutual consent. Contrary to independence, it is based on the 

concepts of association, mutual trust, and understanding. 

Most of those who have studied the process that concluded in the 

signing of the existing compacts of free association have agreed on 

some very important issues. First, U.S. citizenship possessed by 

Puerto Ricans by birth since 1917 cannot be unilaterally revoked 

by Congress. 

Second. Dual U.S. and Puerto Rico citizenship is not only possible, but desirable. There are no constitutional or legal impediments for the permanence of U.S. citizenship in the case of sovereign free association. It is only a matter of political will. 

Third. Some argue that you have to become an independent nation first, and then enter into an association. That is wrong. The 

Freely Associated States of the Pacific went directly from trust territory status to political association with the U.S. Puerto Rico and 

the U.S. can commence negotiation toward free association without 

the need to change the current relationship. 

In conclusion, free association is the only viable alternative that 

harmonizes both United States and Puerto Rico interests. It would 

provide Puerto Rico economic tools to deal with our problems in a 

dignified relationship of security and trust with the U.S. The 

United States would acquire a most desired partner in Latin America, in a democratic friendship of mutual interests and values, all 

while promoting self-sufficiency, economic growth with social justice. 

Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I came here 

as part of a new generation of Puerto Ricans who are tired of discussing the status issue. We want to solve it. And this afternoon, 

the Resident Commissioner, Mr. Fortun ̃ o, opens a door to propose 

amendments to H.R. 900 to separate free association as a distinct 

option, as it is recognized by international law and U.S. constitutional experience. 

I invite you, Commissioner, in representation not of your party, 

not of your ideal, but of the people of Puerto Rico, of all Puerto 

Ricans, to work out an inclusive process that includes the three alternatives that the people of Puerto Rico traditionally supports: 

statehood, independence, and association with the United States in 

a compact of free association. 

Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duprey Salgado follows:]

Statement of Nestor Duprey Salgado, Spokesperson,

Movimiento Autonomista Socialdemo ́ crata 

Madame Chair, members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Nestor Duprey Salgado. I appear before this Subcommittee as spokesperson of the Movimiento Autonomista Socialdemo ́crata (MAS). MAS is a non-governmental organization that advocates for the development of Puerto Rico’s current 

relationship with the United States to a Compact of Free Association, in compliance 

with U.S. and International law. MAS follows in the tradition of more than 20 years 

whereby supporters of Free Association have appeared before the Congress to advocate for this political status alternative. 

As MAS has previously addressed the substantive and procedural aspects of both 

H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, I should underline at this time that MAS firmly believes 

that any bill passed by Congress must recognize three separate status options, presented to the Puerto Rican electors in a fair and balanced way: statehood, independence and free association. No more, no less. 

227

International Law and U.S. constitutional practice have recognized Free Association as a valid non-colonial and non-territorial self-determination option. The Compacts of Free Association adopted since 1986 between the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau and the United States are recognized both as 

international agreements and U.S. domestic law. 

Free Association is based on the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico. In the 

exercise of said sovereignty, Puerto Rico would delegate or share several areas of 

authority with the United States. The existing Compacts of Free Association between the U.S. and the Micronesian nations have been negotiated and executed 

under the Treaty Making Power of the U.S. Constitution. The Compacts are clearly 

outside congressional authority under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution. 

Some argue that Congress has the authority to partially and permanently cede 

some of its plenary powers over Puerto Rico under the Territorial Clause. MAS believes that is a risky proposition that will ultimately leave the new form of association between Puerto Rico and the U.S. in substantially the same place that it is 

now: at the mercy of future actions and interpretations of Congress, the Justice Department and the Federal Courts. Furthermore, the existing Compacts of Free Association are a recognized model in U.S. constitutional practice that would accommodate all the political and economic authority desired by the majority of Puerto 

Ricans that do not believe in statehood or independence. 

MAS understands that the best way for an association agreement to work is to 

forgo altogether the Territorial Clause and use the International Agreements Clause 

of the Constitution. Puerto Rico must become a sovereign nation, all while entering 

at the same time into a Compact of Free Association with the United States. This 

was exactly the way in which the Micronesian Compacts were established since 

1986. 

Contrary to what some have argued in the past, Free Association is not independence. Free Association is bilateral by nature and requires mutual consent. Contrary 

to independence, it is based on the concepts of association, mutual trust and understanding. 

Having said this, it is proper to clarify certain important issues regarding the viability and nature of a Compact of Free Association between Puerto Rico and the 

United States. 

Most of those who have studied the process that concluded in the signing of the 

existing Compacts of Free Association have agreed on some very important issues 

that I most highlight today: 

1. U.S. citizenship possessed by Puerto Ricans by birth since 1917 cannot be unilaterally revoked by the Congress. The overwhelming weight of legal authority 

is that citizenship is an individual right that cannot be taken away arbitrarily 

by Congress without violating fundamental constitutional principles. 

2. Dual U.S. and Puerto Rico citizenship is not only possible, but desirable. Dual 

U.S. citizens now include persons from Israel and Mexico, and the list is growing. Even the Department of Justice has concluded that in the case of Puerto 

Rico, there are no constitutional or legal impediments for the permanence of 

U.S. citizenship in the case of sovereign free association. It is only a matter 

of political will. 

3. Some argue that you have to become an independent nation first and then 

enter into an association. That is wrong. The Freely Associated States of the 

Pacific went directly from trust territory status to political association with the 

U.S. Puerto Rico and the U.S. can commence negotiations toward free association without the need to change the current relationship. 

4. MAS also understand that economic self reliance must be a fundamental principle in a future relationship with the US. Economic dependence runs counter 

to the interests of the Puerto Rican nation and the U.S. government. As an essential part of a model of free association, we believe that both nations must 

agree on a new economic covenant. As happened in the Micronesian experience, 

both nations would agree on an economic arrangement that includes the strategic assignment of federal funds; the creative use of trust funds, as well as 

other economic incentives. 

Free Association is the only viable alternative that harmonizes both United States 

and Puerto Rico strategic interests. It would provide Puerto Rico the economic tools 

to deal with our problems in a dignified relationship of security and trust with the 

U.S. At the same time, the United States would acquire a must desired partner in 

Latin America and in the global community, in a democratic friendship of mutual 

interests and values, all while promoting self-sufficiency, economic growth with social justice. 

Congress has an obligation to fulfill. It is two-fold: to provide for a fair, inclusive 

and effective process of self determination and, secondly, to offer the complete array 

228

of non-territorial options recognized by International Law in the simplest and clearest way possible. Thus, you must offer Free Association as a distinct alternative to 

all others. Free association must be able to stand on its own feet as the people of 

Puerto Rico make their choice in the ballot box. 

After more than 109 years of U.S. rule, Puerto Rico is more than ready to take 

the next step forward in its process of self-determination. While some forces in Puerto Rico insist on maintaining and preserving the status quo, Congress should assume its responsibility and promptly enact legislation providing the People of Puerto 

Rico with a much awaited federally sanctioned self-determination process. The People of Puerto Rico are ready. We wait for your response and action. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Finally, our final panelist will be 

Mr. Juan Manuel Garcia Passalacqua, Lawyer, Writer, and 

Political Analyst. 

STATEMENT OF JUAN MANUEL GARCIA PASSALACQUA,

LAWYER, WRITER, POLITICAL ANALYST 

Mr. PASSALACQUA. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I appear before you hereby in support of H.R. 900 of Congressman Jose ́

Serrano, without amendments. 

I do so as a student of constitutional law at Harvard University 

Law School; as a visiting professor of constitutional law at Yale 

University; as an advisor on constitutional issues in the Caribbean 

for the Council on Foreign Relations in New York; and as a member of the Ambassadors Circle of the Carter Center in Atlanta. 

I give you those qualifications only to support my endorsement 

of H.R. 900. 

I support H.R. 900 for 10 reasons that are in my written statement, and I will not use too much of my time for that purpose. But 

I want to make a point that has not been made this afternoon by 

anybody else. 

Your action now is necessary, in view of the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of February 7, 

that I recommend you read carefully, all of you. 

The case is Boumediene v. Bush. And in it, the Court unanimously insisted once again that since 1900, Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. That decision, in the 

cases of Intregua Guantanamo and Boumediene v. Bush, was affirmed without opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States 

of America. And that affirmative action by the Supreme Court, ladies and gentlemen of this commission, make it the law of the land 

as of this month. 

So there should be no question whatsoever that that is the issue 

that this 111th Congress has to address, this one and the next one. 

I must quote to you what the opinion says, because it is a fascinating aspect of this question. The detainees in the Guantanamo 

prison cite the Insular cases in which fundamental personal rights 

extended to U.S. territories like Puerto Rico. But in each of those 

cases, referring to the extension of constitutional rights to Puerto 

Ricans, Congress exercised its power under Article IV, Section 3 of 

the Constitution, to regulate territory or other property belonging 

to the United States of America. 

Those cases, says the Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court, do 

not establish anything regarding the sort of sovereignty that the 

detainees say exists at Guantanamo. Here, in the Guantanamo 

case, Congress and the President have specifically disclaimed the 

229

sort of territorial jurisdiction that they assert in Puerto Rico. That 

is the law of the land. 

Now, I am, of course, surprised that no one else has quoted that 

case to you, but I am more surprised still that the Governor of 

Puerto Rico thought of quoting to you one book by Aleksei 

Aleinikoff. And I must contribute to this hearing by suggesting that 

you read nine other books that say what the Governor has refused 

to say here. 

So let me use very quickly my time to cite the following. Amy 

Kaplan and Donald Pease, Cultures of U.S. Imperialism. Matthew 

Fry Jacobsen, the United States Encounters Foreign People at 

Home and Abroad. Amy Kaplan again, the Anarchy of Empire in 

the Making of U.S. Culture. Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman, the 

Constitution of Empire, Territorial Expansion in American Legal 

History. Robert Statham, Colonial Constitutionalism, the Tyranny 

of United States Off-Shore Territorial Policy and Relations. Bartholomew Sparrow, the Insular Cases and the Emergency of the 

American Empire. And most notably, Nancy Morris, Puerto Rico 

Culture, Politics, and Identity. 

If you want to read one book recommended by the Governor of 

Puerto Rico, I, as a professor, am recommending nine other books, 

so you can read them all. 

Finally, I am delivering to your staff here 10 exhibits, 

addendums of my statement, including, Madame Chairman and 

Members of the committee, one proposed bill that I have submitted 

already to the staffers in the Senate of the United States that 

would simplify matters absolutely. I again recommend the approval 

of H.R. 900 without amendments. 

But in the case that you are tempted to amend H.R. 900 in the 

markup session or on the Floor, I insist that you consider my bill 

that has a very simple title. It is only a one-page bill, whose title 

is to dispose of the territory of Puerto Rico, in light, of course, of 

Boumediene v. Bush. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Passalacqua follows:]

Statement of Juan Manuel Garcia Passalacqua,

Professor and Political Analyst 

Members of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives: 

I appear before you hereby in support of H.R. 900 of Congressman Jose Serrano, 

without amendments. I do so, for ten reasons that I will enumerate. I am a graduate 

of Harvard University and have served as Visiting Professor of Political Science at 

Yale University. I am at present a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in 

New York and of the Ambassadors Circle of the Carter Center in Atlanta. It is with 

those qualifications that I appear before you in writing. 

I support H.R. 900 because: It recognizes our nation of8 million beings. It denounces our century old colonialism. It announces persistence in our anti-colonialism. It makes clear it is your responsibility to end it. It recognizes the right of 

all those born in Puerto Rico wherever they reside, to participate in deciding our 

country’s future. It constructs that decision to demand that some option gets a clear 

majority. It challenges you to act. It forces the White House and the full Congress 

to respond to our people’s demands. And, finally, it makes possible the end our consent to colonialism in Puerto Rico in the year 2009. Those ten reasons should be 

enough to move you. 

Furthermore, since this hearing has been called to include an academic analysis 

of the conundrum before you, I want to contribute to it, the intellectual analysis you 

have invited. 

230

Your action is necessary in view of the decision of the Circuit of Appeals Court 

for the District of Columbia of last February 7 in the case of Boumediene v. United 

States, in which it insisted Puerto Rico is, since 1900, an unincorporated territory 

of the United States. That is what this III the Congress has to end after more than 

a century of indecision and avoidance. 

For the sake of brevity, ] will just recommend instead of extensively citing, a series of published academic texts that by their reasoning would support the approval 

of H.R. 900: Amy Kaplan and Donald E. Pease, Cultures of US. Imperialism; 

Mathew Frye Jacobson, The United Stales Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and 

Abroad; Amy Kaplan again, The Anarchy of Empire in the Making of US. Culture; 

Alexander Aleinikoff, Semblances of Sovereignty: The Constitution, the State and 

American Citizenship; Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman, The Constitution of Empire: 

Territorial Expansion and American Legal History; Robert Statham, Colonial Constitutionalism: The Tyranny of United States’ Offshore Territorial Policy and Relations; Bartholomew H. Sparrow, The Insular Cases and the Emergence of American 

Empire; and most important of all Nancy Morris, Puerto Rico: Culture, Politics and 

Identity. 

Reading those eight texts will be enough to convince you to adopt H.R. 900. I am 

of course available to elaborate for you the relevance of these and other texts published in recent years, as well as the relevance of the cases of In re Guantanamo 

and Boumediene v. United States, and I request that these brief remarks be made 

part of the record of these hearings. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Passalacqua. And thank you 

for giving us a little, some abstracts in one of your commentaries 

on April 22, so that I wouldn’t have to try to read all of those books 

before today. So I have a little idea of what they say. 

Mr. PASSALACQUA. Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. By the way, Madame Chair, if I may say so, I also 

used this as a reference for today’s hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I am going to try to get three 

questions in, in my five minutes. 

Mr. Martı ́n, in your testimony you said that the people in Jamaica or Guatemala, for the wrong reasons, for example, might 

also choose statehood. Might the same thing happen in Puerto 

Rico? People might choose statehood for the wrong reasons? And 

what would those, and what do you mean by wrong reasons? 

Mr. MARTI ́N. That is precisely what I say in my statement, that 

albeit, like in Puerto Rico, for the wrong reasons. Because I am 

convinced that in Puerto Rico, in the vast majority of support for 

statehood is simply a function of a sense of insecurity and dependence. That if Puerto Ricans are faced at some point with an option 

of independence that is seen as viable, and that is seen as a choice 

that it will not be penalized, as has been seen for the past 100 

years, I have no doubt that the people of Puerto Rico, like any 

other people, will choose independence. 

So in that sense, the political preferences of the Puerto Ricans 

expressed in votes, as should be relatively obvious, is really a function of how they perceive the consequences of such a, of such a 

vote. And historically, Puerto Ricans have been conditioned to believe that a vote for independence is sort of like jumping off an 

eighth floor without a parachute. And therefore, it is not surprising 

that only around 5 percent of the people have enough faith to say 

I will do it anyway, because historically U.S. policy has been that 

if Puerto Rico were to become independent, it would mean the closing off of the U.S. market, the closing off of all substantial trade, 

231

once Puerto Rico had been turned into a dependent country economically. 

So it is not at all strange to me that independence is very much 

a minority faction. The day when independence is seen in another 

way, when a reasonable offer is made of independence, as should 

be made, you can be quite sure that independence will, in the end, 

be chosen by most people. 

If to that you add that colonialism is disrobed publicly for what 

it really is, and that statehood is presented with some political sincerity—that is to say, with the small print that would evidently be 

used by Congress—at some point, Puerto Ricans may choose statehood. At some point. 

This may happen, that the statehooders have been growing in 

Puerto Rico. Whenever that happens, or before it happens, at some 

point, Congress will have to say what are the terms and conditions 

under which statehood for Puerto Rico would be possible, if at all, 

and on what timetable. Whenever that day comes, we will also see 

that the vote for statehood will then become a function of that alternative, and not simply a function of an obstruction. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Mr. Duprey, in your testimony 

you referred to U.S. citizenship and dual citizenship. When you 

talk about that in the free association, are you speaking of those 

who would already be citizens when, at the time of the compact or 

the agreement? Or are you talking about persons born in Puerto 

Rico after that? 

Mr. DUPREY. Right. I am talking about U.S. citizens at the moment of the signing of the compact. In the negotiations between the 

people, the Government of Puerto Rico and the Government of the 

United States, we have to negotiate what we are going to do about 

citizenship in a future relationship. 

But there is a consensus in the legal community that there is, 

it is very difficult to take away the citizenship, the U.S. citizenship 

of the Puerto Ricans who have it now. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And I agree with that. I agree with that. But 

I have seen one definition, or one tenet, some of the tenets of free 

association that have been proposed, and they include American 

citizenship. That is why I ask that question. 

Mr. DUPREY. Yes. I think that that is some other political will 

at the time of the negotiation. And it is something that, as you can 

know—I know that Mr. Fortun ̃ o knows—it is some other hotly political debate in Puerto Rico. But you need to separate what is the 

political debate and what is the legal reality of the issue of citizenship, U.S. citizenship, in the case of Puerto Rico. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Mr. Passalacqua, one of the 

quotes that you have from Robert Statham, the University of 

Guam, ends with ‘‘now either incorporate or release Puerto Rico.’’ 

And you said that you agree with everything that you quoted in 

here. 

So my question is a simple one. Do you consider free association 

to be one of those that would be included in releasing Puerto Rico? 

Mr. PASSALACQUA. I agree with my friend, Nestor Duprey, that 

if the Resident Commissioner, as he offered, is willing to invite to 

his office the representatives of free association, they will be more 

than capable of proposing a treaty of free association that can be 

232

included as a separate alternative in the plebiscite. And then have 

a runoff between the two that garner more votes. 

Therefore, I very strongly urge the friends at this table to accept 

the invitation extended by the Resident Commissioner. Write up 

the Treaty of Free Association Proposal, and to the Resident Commissioner, to, in reciprocity for that gesture, accept a runoff after 

the first vote. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Fortun ̃ o for 

questions. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. Thank you. I again want to thank all the members 

of the panel for being here, for your contribution to this discussion. 

And I think it is very important, actually, what we are trying to 

do here. 

We are trying to legislate. And you may see us discussing different aspects as this is going on. We are trying to legislate here. 

And Mr. Duprey, Mr. Passalacqua, I will tell you something that 

I haven’t said publicly. 

Last year, when we had, back in March we had hearing here, 

Mr. Acevedo-Vila ́ did not show up, but he sent Mr. Dalmau. I offered Mr. Dalmau the offer I made public today. I have followed 

that up with other representatives from Acevedo-Vila ́. 

Today, openly, in open mic, I restated my statement. Obviously, 

Mr. Duprey, you have the pantalones he doesn’t have. So I will 

take you up on that one, because it has been a year. I will assume 

that my offer expired, and I will take you up, and I will work with 

you and your organization to try and see if we can legislate in a 

way that allows for that third option, to, one way or another, be 

clearly included in this legislative process. 

And my desire, as you all know, I have my status preference. But 

I have a responsibility that goes beyond that. And that is for the 

people of Puerto Rico to have clearly defined options, so that they 

can make an informed and honest choice among options that are 

doable, that are constitutionally feasible, that is not pie in the sky. 

That is not [Spanish phrase], as Jose ́ Serrano, my friend, says all 

the time, that is really something that is doable. We owe that to 

the 4 million residents of Puerto Rico. And I am more than willing 

to engage in that dialogue. And I know many others on this dais 

and Members of the full committee are willing to engage, as well. 

So I restate my statement. 

Mr. DUPREY. You know one of your predecessors, Luis Vegas 

Ramos, I think that is a phrase that can guide us in this process. 

Puerto Rico por encima de todo. Puerto Rico of all. 

And I think that we are part of our new generation. As I said 

in my statement, that don’t want to discuss any more this issue. 

I don’t know how many hearings we need to solve this issue. 

We know which are the controversies. We know which are the 

real options. Forget about the political labels; we know which are 

the real options. There are only three. Free association, statehood, 

and independence. Let us legislate, and let the people decide. 

Mr. FORTUN ̃ O. That is the way I see it, and again, the doors in 

my office are open to indeed achieve that. Since the Governor has 

been actually running away from that decision. And actually, many 

in his party have been running away from that decision for 50 

233

years. So the fact that he has been doing it for one years is not 

that bad, I guess. 

Mr. Garcia Passalacqua, I am glad that you raised the recent 

Court decision having to do with the Guantanamo situation. And 

indeed, I know it is shocking at times, and some of my colleagues 

have been shocked by the statement in the report that indeed, you 

know, we could be ceded to a foreign power, whatever. We are 

property of the United States. And I was very glad to hear what 

you had to say. 

I also would like to restate very clearly. The Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, in different ways and fashions, 

have stated very clearly that free association is one of the real options to solve this issue once and for all. So we have Democrats and 

Republicans stating the same thing, and the time is now, indeed, 

to move forward. 

And I just wanted to close with that statement. I wanted to 

thank Chairwoman, I wanted to thank you all for being here. And 

I wanted to thank the committee staff for hanging on there. And 

I only wish that the next step will be a markup session, so that 

the people of Puerto Rico will have clearly defined options before 

them. And if we can achieve that, I think we will all have discharged our responsibilities to the citizens, ones that we serve or 

represent. 

Thank you again, Madame Chairwoman, thank you for your 

leadership. And good night. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. And again, let me thank the witnesses on behalf of the Subcommittee and the committee for being 

here, for your patience, and for your testimony and your answers 

to our questions. 

We may have more questions as we review the transcript of this 

hearing, and we would be submitting them to you in writing. And 

the hearing record is held open for 10 days, as well. 

This is our last hearing. I think that we have worked together, 

Mr. Fortun ̃ o and I, to ensure that all perspectives have been 

brought to the table. We have been very liberal in our time, and 

tried to accommodate each party’s wishes to the best of our ability. 

And I think it has worked well for the Subcommittee and committee; it has been very well informed. 

So again, thank you. And this Subcommittee hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 7:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

[A statement submitted for the record by Hon. Eliot L. Engel, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of New York, follows:]

Statement submitted for the record by Eliot L. Engel 

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has a long, proud history and it has become 

an integral part of the United States. The people of Puerto Rico have contributed 

immeasurably to American culture in every way imaginable, including in the political arena, music, business, cuisine, creative writing, sports, and science. Perhaps 

the most important contribution made by the Puerto Rican people has been to our 

national defense. They have bravely served in the U.S. military in every major war 

since WWI and during the current conflict in Iraq, 29 Puerto Rican soldiers have 

made the ultimate sacrifice. 

234

The people of Puerto Rico have given us so much but for over 100 years now, we 

have failed to give them a fair opportunity to determine their own future and their 

own form of government. Every U.S. President over the past 50 years has supported 

self determination. However, politics here and in Puerto Rico has denied the Puerto 

Rican people an opportunity to voice their true desires about whether they would 

like to continue as a commonwealth, achieve independence, or become our 51st 

state. 

My friend and colleague, Representative Jose Serrano, has written legislation 

which will remedy this situation. By creating a sensible two plebiscite structure, 

and requiring plainly worded questions describing the different options, H.R. 900, 

the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007, will allow the Puerto Rican people to decide 

how they would like to be governed. We owe it to the Puerto Rican people to work 

together and pass this important legislation so this group of U.S. citizens can sensibly plan their future. 

[A statement submitted for the record by Hon. Ron Kind, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ron Kind, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Wisconsin 

Madam Chairman: While I am not a member of the Subcommittee, as a cosponsor 

of H.R. 900, I would like to weigh-in to add my voice to those supporting the bill. 

It offers us the opportunity to transcend the confused and befuddled ideological debate that has kept Congress and the people of Puerto Rico from finding a solution 

to the issue of the island’s status. In keeping with the traditions and ideals of our 

nation, this bill will allow the people of Puerto Rico to determine their own destiny. 

It is fitting that we consider this legislation one week after the House passed the 

D.C. House Voting Rights Act, which would give residents of the District of Columbia a voice in the House of Representatives so that they, too, may have the same 

democratic voice as their fellow citizens in every other city, town, and village in the 

50 United States. 

The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007 would test the assertion made by some 

that a majority of voters in the territory favor continuation of the status quo. If that 

is, indeed, the case, this bill will accept the democratic verdict of the people and 

maintain the current relationship with the United States. Alternatively, it would 

allow a majority of citizens the ability to exercise their right to call for change if 

that is what they desire. 

H.R. 900 offers a fair, status neutral, and, most importantly, a constitutionally 

valid approach to discerning the will of the people of Puerto Rico. This bill is the 

best way to establish true and legitimate majority rule in Puerto Rico on the question of whether or not the voters want to maintain the current status as defined 

by federal law. Such a determination is the first step that must be taken. Congress 

should become involved in deciding next steps only if a majority of Puerto Ricans 

rejects continuation of the current status. 

H.R. 1230 is the alternative proposed by opponents of H.R. 900. By proposing 

that the island’s status be determined through a constitutional convention, it would 

allow a less democratic local process than is currently required under the local constitution. Such a convention could produce a proposal based on the local commonwealth party’s platform rather than one that is supported by a majority of residents, 

and which Congress would likely reject. 

The responsible course for Congress is to approve H.R. 900 and find out if the 

people of Puerto Rico do or do not want change. Only then will this body be able 

to move forward with a status determination that meets the needs and the will of 

the people who would be affected. 

[A statement submitted for the record by Hon. Loretta Sanchez, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Califonnia, follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Loretta Sanchez,

a Representative in Congress from the State of California 

Madame Chair, 

Thank you for allowing me to participate in this important discussion, and for 

calling this hearing on the future of Puerto Rico. The two bills we will review here 

today concern the most glaring lack of democracy under our flag. Last week, this 

235

House voted to grant the District of Columbia, and its 60,000 residents, the right 

to be represented in our government. There has been a lot of attention to the issue, 

but an even more egregious disenfranchisement is going on almost without notice. 

There are nearly four million people in Puerto Rico. They have been U.S. citizens 

for 90 years but they remain without a single real vote in the government that 

makes and implements their national laws. This, even though ALL of their leaders 

want a democratic government at the national level. 

There is scarcely a more important issue before the Congress than righting this 

historical wrong. 

It is of special significance to those of us who are Latino or who represent Latinos. 

One of the reasons that the issue has not been resolved is the wrong-headed view 

that equal rights and responsibilities and permanence within our Union should not 

be an option for our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico because of their Latin culture. 

I reject that view completely. 

I personally have no preference regarding the territory’s ultimate status; Puerto 

Ricans have earned the right to make the choice among all the options—statehood, 

independence, nationhood in a free association with the United States. They even 

could choose to continue as a territory if they don’t want to decide yet on the islands’ ultimate status. 

One of the bills before you, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, H.R. 900, which I 

have co-sponsored, would enable Puerto Ricans to make the choice among all the 

options. 

The other bill, H.R. 1230, would not. It excludes one of the options, free association. 

It also would include the ill-defined option of a ‘‘Commonwealth’’, a proposal that 

would only confuse and further delay the choice. 

This ‘‘option’’ for a non-territory ‘‘Commonwealth status’’ has already been rejected by the Clinton Administration on constitutional and basic policy grounds, as 

well as by President Bush’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s status. It is a proposal that 

Congress could not accept even if it wanted to. 

Under this proposal, Puerto Rico would be a nation with the power to enter into 

international agreements but the United States would be permanently bound to it, 

granting: • an additional subsidy to the insular government; • all current aid to Puerto Ricans; • free entry to all goods shipped from the islands; and • citizenship. 

U.S. laws would apply and U.S. courts would have jurisdiction—but the ‘‘Commonwealth’’ government would be able to nullify federal authority. 

To be fair and meaningful, the decision has to be made among real choices of status. 

I urge the Subcommittee to favorably report H.R. 900 without delay and enable 

Puerto Rico to finally attain a democratic national government. 

Thank you again, Madame Chair, for letting me join you here today. 

[A statement submitted for the record by Hon. Nydia M. 

Vela ́zquez, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Nydia M. Vela ́ zquez,

a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 

Thank you, Chairwoman Christensen, for holding this hearing today. I appreciate 

the opportunity to be here and offer my views on our bipartisan bill H.R. 1230, The 

Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2007. It is so important that we clarify what 

is really at stake here. 

As I have said from the beginning—the path to self-determination for the people 

of Puerto Rico must be a conclusion that Puerto Ricans forge themselves. Whether 

they reside in Puerto Rico, New York, Illinois or Florida—it is up to them to decide 

their future. 

In addition to discussing H.R. 1230, we are also focusing on the alternative legislation, H.R. 900, today. While this bill is well intended, it mandates a flawed process. It only exacerbates the divisions on the island and fails to offer any hope to 

settle the matter. 

The status of Puerto Rico has been an issue for the past century—any solution 

today needs to be one that has the consensus and support of the people of Puerto 

Rico. This is why I introduced ‘‘The Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act.’’ I saw the 

236

need for a true path towards a long-term solution to the status issue. This is a bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by my colleagues Congressmen Gutierrez and Wicker. 

H.R. 1230 represents a fair and just path because it seeks to bring consensus to 

the over 8 million Puerto Ricans that live on the island, and in the States. 

It is apparent that the real issue here is process. Members of Congress cannot 

favor Puerto Ricans deciding their future, but then support legislation that dictates 

the key terms to them, and fails to define those terms. What happened to real freedom to choose? I thought we were talking about a self-determination process, not 

Congressional mandates and meddling. The best thing Congress can do is to step 

aside; it is the Puerto Ricans process of self-determination we are trying to discuss 

here. 

Congress’ best role at this stage should be to facilitate, not dictate. My friends, 

a vote can only be fair when you know what you are voting for and know the consequences of that vote. Have we not learned the hard way in Congress the consequences of voting for something without having all the correct information? How 

can we ask Puerto Ricans to make the most important decision without helping 

them see what it all means? 

You may be asking why H.R. 1230 is better? This bill does provide for a democratic self-determination process. It is fair—Congress does not place one group or 

idea ahead of any other. It is open—groups advocating for one option or another get 

to convince voters that their way is the best option. It is transparent—the people 

will be able to decipher what the options mean to them, for the future of Puerto 

Rico, and then vote. H.R. 1230 ensures people will be able to debate the ideas and 

reach consensus. 

The Governor of Puerto, and the followers in his party, perceive H.R. 900 as unfair. Just looking back at history, you will see that bills that have been perceived 

in similar ways in the past, by either of the main parties, have not succeeded. Without a consensus the process would always be under suspicion by a large segment 

of the population in Puerto Rico. If this is a true self-determination process, it would 

not be for us to define their status option for them—it would be for them to define 

it on their own consensus. That is what my bill allows. 

Chairwoman Christensen, I appreciate the time you have granted me today and 

I urge you to act judiciously on this important issue. I would like to again strongly 

encourage you to convene a third hearing so that this sub-committee can hear from 

local community leaders in New York, Illinois and Florida. They are also part of this 

process and their opinions must be heard. Thank you.

Æ