Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-105hrpt131/html/CRPT-105hrpt131-pt1.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:39:56+00:00

Document:
Sec. 1. Short title, table of contents.
initial decision stage, transition stage, and implementation stage.
territories of the United States including Puerto Rico.
defined under United States law or international practice.
States Constitution; and in the 1982 case of Rodriguez v.
status as an unincorporated United States territory.
Concurrent Resolution 2, which requested the 105th Congress ``.
held no later than 1998''.
below. Ballot with more than 1 option marked will not be counted.
interested persons as may be appropriate.
question of approval of the transition plan.
be considered by the Congress in accordance with section 6.
for full self-government for Puerto Rico.
President under that section, as the case may be.
agreed to the conference requested by that House.
full self-government for Puerto Rico.
of the North American experience.
conferred by Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S.
the residents under the Foraker Act (Act of April 12, 1900, c.
Congress. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Dorr v.
United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904).
territory also continues, as discussed below.
government where it exercises sovereignty over persons or property.
owned by the U.S. but not a State of the Union.
permanently, nor has permanent union, permanent U.S.
territories. Unless and until Congress extends the U.S.
territory. As soon as a person with full Constitutional U.S.
establishes legal residence in Puerto Rico (see, 48 U.S.C.
consistent with due process and equal protection principles.
U.S. v. Sanchez, 992 F.2d 1143 (1993).
State. 319; codified at 48 U.S.C. 731 et seq.).
instituting a local constitutional government in Puerto Rico.
government over internal affairs and administration.
and other matters of purely local concern.
not binding on a future Congress. Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S.
81-600 (1976); Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S.
1 (1982); U.S. v. Sanchez, 992 F.2d 1143 (1993).
citizenship status of residents of the territory.
Puerto Rico as U.S. citizens subject to the laws of the U.S.
above have been superseded by 8 U.S.C. 1402.
violating due process. See, Legal Memorandum of John H.
American Law Division, November 15, 1990.
individual basis persons already enjoying statutory U.S.
by election or entitlement, as provided by Congress.
provisions in H.R. 856 which end continued statutory U.S.
will, however, prevent conversion of the current statutory U.S.
change of status to separate sovereignty.
this new constitutional status for purposes of the U.N.
regarding Puerto Rico is necessary.
Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories.'' As such, the U.S.
obligated under Chapter XI of the Charter to adhere to U.N.
decolonization procedures with respect to Puerto Rico.
with regard to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.'' (Appendix A).
cease was based on the detailed memorandum to the U.N.
judicial interpretation in the U.S. courts.
related to the non-binding but politically-relevant U.N.
completion of the decolonization process.
cannot be achieved, succession to independence is an option.
subsequent interpretation of information provided to the U.N.
status and the reality of Puerto Rico's status under the U.S.
with the Territorial Clause regime under the U.S.
of these views, however, alter the result.
in the terms of this association.
Consistent with this language in Resolution 748, the U.S.
Puerto Rico at any time that is the preference of the people.
the people to retain the present association change.
solution to the status question possible.
available to territories seeking full self-government.
independence through self-determination if that is their will.
according to Section 9 of Resolution 748; and (iii) the U.S.
to Puerto Rico any time it wants.
with Resolution 1541 (See, Public Law 99-239).
in dealing with all the unincorporated territories under U.S.
sovereignty, as well in the case of the U.N. trusteeship.
separate sovereignty, or absolute national independence.
that Puerto Rico did not achieve full self-government in 1952.
has not been completed as a matter of international or domestic law.
United States to resume annual reporting to the U. N.
approved by Congress--to define the options on the ballot.
subject to the authority of Congress.
Congress itself on behalf of the United States.
territory of an opportunity for meaningful self-determination.
Rico by introducing H.R. 3024 in the 104th Congress.
and S. 2019--a companion bill in the U.S. Senate.
Committee on Rules also filed a report on H.R. 3024 (H. Rept.
1997, represents continuation where the deliberations on H.R.
of the Hon. Don Young regarding H.R. 4281, September 28, 1996.
submitted a proposed definition of separate sovereignty.
The 1993 vote--Why does Congress need to act?
percent and independence received 4.4 percent.
it actually is at this time.
effect called for in the 1993 ballot language.
or even acknowledge--that at present Puerto Rico is a U.S.
exercise of its powers under the Constitution.
irrevocable U.S. citizenship'' (now guaranteed under the U.S.
except by mutual consent of both parties.
III, House Report 104-713, Part 1.
relationship is presumed to be permanent and within the U.S.
ended the U.S. administered U.N. trusteeship in Micronesia.
See, Title II of Public Law 99-239.
Puerto Rico if that is the option chosen by the voters, U.S.
international law is not a status which exists within the U.S.
rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court as already discussed.
Puerto Rico Status Referendum Bill in light of Bowen v.
judicial decision,'' it is significant that in 1980 the U.S.
Clause. Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980).
such as the one prescribed by H.R. 856.
statehood. This revision to H.R. 3024 is reflected in H.R. 856.
Committee if the concerned political party so desired.
At the Committee meeting on May 21, 1997, to consider H.R.
Administration, the Minority and the three political parties.
the definitions proposed in the Chairman's amendment.
improve and reform the relationship in the future.
is approved by Congress and the people.
beneficial implementation will be approved or disapproved by Congress.
government under a local constitution approved by the people.
supporters of the ``commonwealth'' status.
them and their supporters from the self-determination process.
Constitution and binding for all time on Congress.
definition which Congress is willing and able to recognize.
interpret the results of a referendum under this legislation.
the voters of the structure of each available status option.
Resources in response to its invitation to submit a definition.
territory, but would exist as a category by itself.
version referred to in the PDP letter to Chairman Young.
United States sovereignty was established nearly 100 years ago.
sovereignty in free association), and statehood.
On May 21, 1997, the Committee met to mark up H.R. 856.
date of implementation within the transition period.
effect as in the several States.
report, and as discussed below.
Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
1891, and were under the ``protection'' of the United States.
to the treaty of cession and the Territorial Clause.
months of the effective date of the Jones Act. Again, all U.S.
citizens, whether residing in one of the states, the U.S.
classification of their ``citizenship'' under applicable law.
status of U.S. citizens, as well as the underlying U.S.
nationality established by Article IX of the Treaty of Paris.
nationality arising from the Treaty of cession.
defined by Congress for Puerto Rico in 48 U.S.C. 733a.
the States of the Union.
on the basis of permanent equality.
citizen. His posture contrasts with that of Mr.
citizenship that people acquire upon birth in a State.
persons born in Puerto Rico was established under 8 U.S.C.
there is no Constitutional protection under the 14th Amendment.
an American parent overseas, persons whose statutory U.S.
Rico a basis for statutory citizenship.
Puerto Rico, this means Congress would have to repeal 8 U.S.C.
Congress decided in the case of the Philippines in 1916.
such statute to the territories.
the case of both Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.
enabling acts as long as those acts are in effect.
institutions of self-government similar to our own.
manner consistent with the national interest.
then on approval or disapproval of the constitution itself.
properly discerned by the Federal judiciary in the case of U.S. v.
Sanchez, 992 F.2d 1143 (1993).
result of adopting local constitutional self-government.
these two labels had been used in both Spanish and English.
State to the extent practical and consistent with the U.S.
on the basis of the present structure of local self-government.
discretion of Congress under the Territorial Clause.
Rico about international law and practice as well as U.S.
Territory of the Pacific Islands, administered by the U.S.
processes of the U.S. and Puerto Rico.
pursuant to Public Law 81-600.
in Section 9 of U.N. Resolution 748.
approved by the residents of each territory.
the Northern Mariana Islands'' by Public Law 94-241 in 1976.
sovereignty over the Northern Mariana Islands under a U.N.
of those islands as an unincorporated territory of the U.S.
or create any legal or political distinctions between them.
status to separate sovereignty based on national independence.
Rico the same as States are treated to the extent practicable.
Finding (12) is fully applicable with respect to Finding (15).
This Section provides the Congressionally-prescribed U.S.
disenfranchisement of the people of Puerto Rico.
national law on language if statehood is implemented.
party the three options are being presented together.
(C) full self-government through Statehood.
will be implemented in accordance with its terms.
accordance with the Joint Resolution approved by Congress.
fully self-governing status is achieved.
defined choice into the process consistent with applicable U.S.
values as a Nation and the Constitution.
status of Puerto Rico or the alternative status options.
military are allowed to cast absentee ballots.
Territorial Clause powers to be in the national interest.
for conducting the referenda and for voter education.
reflected in the body of this report.
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 856.
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 856.
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Washington, DC, June 3, 1997.
States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are John R.
not the result of a mandate.
then approve or disapprove the enacted transition plan.
available to the State Elections Commission of Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico. The total amount of those funds would not change.
referenda and future actions of the Congress and the President.
impact (other than the minor discretionary costs cited above).
voluntary and not the result of a mandate.
bill would provide for a second referendum within 10 years.
education as well as the cost of holding elections.
such change would be the result of future legislation.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: John R. Righter.
H.R. 856 contains no unfunded mandates.
If enacted, H.R. 856 would make no changes in existing law.
ensure the integrity of the process at each step.
Independence Party (PIP) supports independence.
Puerto Rico with respect to its status with the United States.
statehood; and 4% for independence.
ultimately will be included in the legislation.
bill. The definition submitted by the PIP was largely accepted.
reflect the Party's current perspective.
laws passed by the Congress unless specifically exempted.
own cause and the best interests of the voters of Puerto Rico.
met will the outcome of the plebiscite be accepted.
that the Congress is serious about taking this action.
to full self-government for Puerto Rico.
armed conflicts. Thousands of them paid the ultimate price.
of local self-rule until the status issue could be resolved.
and in which we do not participate.
million United States citizens that reside in Puerto Rico. H.R.
of the United States Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
sovereignty over a territory denied full rights is enough.
now, anyway, the island's statehood party is on a roll.
Tough issues of taxes and benefits must also be calculated.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.