Mr. YOUNG. I want to thank all three honorable gentlemen for their testimony. And, Mr. Miller, I hope you were listening to some of the gentlemen's testimony instead of some radio station. Are you ready?
When I joined Congressman Young in sending a letter to the leaders of the three parties, it was with the belief that this debate within Puerto Rico has a long and important and quietly colorful history and part of the culture of Puerto Rico. And I want to tell the three of you that you adequately confirm my belief on that matter. I think it makes it all the more important in terms of our deliberations.
First, I think it is important that we think of this process as dealing with the future. I think it is very important that we understand that, that whatever actions the people of Puerto Rico take and the Congress of the United States takes, it will be about dealing with the future and not the past. That is part of the reason, again, that I sent the letter along with Congressman Young.
There is no question that throughout this process one of the parties will continue to characterize the other in the give and take of the political dialog and in the testimony that we have already received and will continue to receive.
I will say, however, that when I look at the definitions that were submitted for a new Commonwealth for our consideration when we get to the process of writing the legislation, my reading of it is that there is not much there that there is not some precedent for in previous actions within the Congress of the United States with our treatment of our own citizens or of our various relationships with territories under the control of the United States.
So I do not find it a terribly foreign concept. It is very similar to what this Committee reported in 1990, and it does arrive at a suggestion for the relationship in the future. Whether or not it can be represented as providing full citizenship or not, I am not convinced that it does that.
But it does recognize that, as we have established certainly in the past, there are certainly levels of citizenship and there are levels of citizenship that cannot be arbitrarily denied once granted under the Fifth Amendment. That does not just go to people born in the United States, those constitutional rights go with the responsibility of the Government not to be arbitrary and to be rational in its decisions.
Obviously, the definitions of ''statehood'' are various and speak for and, in fact, probably do provide for the full body of benefits of being a citizen of the United States and all of the responsibilities, and go to the question that our colleague has argued so very often in the Committees that I share with him, about how do we continue to justify treating citizens of the United States differently because of this status and how long can we continue to do that? I think that is clearly drawn into issue.
Mr. Martin, with respect to the basic, fundamental, ideological difference of those two positions and yours, again, very, very well articulated, if I understand you, you would suggest that statehood would not cleanse the stain of colonialism, that this is a relationship that eventually would erupt, would tear into the basic fabric of Puerto Rico.
Mr. MARTIN-GARCIA. Congressman, what I believe very firmly is that the right of self-determination of the Puerto Rican people, Puerto Rico cannot self-determine itself out of the right to self-determination. That is the right that assists us as a people, and certainly this generation cannot take it away from the next.
From my point of view, from the point of view of the independence movement, the right to struggle for our national independence would not in any way be hampered or impeded by the possibility of statehood.
I think it would be a grave mistake on the part of the United States to enter into such an unstable relationship when there is no consensus in Puerto Rico about it, there never will be, and when most people in Puerto Rico, who in my judgment are statehooders, and I know a lot of them are basically for reasons that have to do with insecurity, for reasons that have to do with fear, and very little of the kinds of things that have made people in the past join the union.
This would be the first time in history where a different nation would be knocking at the doors of the United States, and it would mean, I think, a terrible precedent for the United States and one that it would have to think very clearly about.
The questions that I raised in my statement as to whether Congress is willing to face a petition of statehood for Puerto Rico, taking into account those matters, is one that I think raises matters that have to be made at some point explicit by the Congress; explicit, if through no other way, by some kind of sense of the Congress resolution, maybe using the kind of congressional policy statement that you have been using to build with respect to the language issue.
Certainly Congress must transmit to the people of Puerto Rico whether these issues are important issues. Is it important for the Congress for the people of Puerto Rico to somehow show a vocation and a willingness to assimilate into the mainstream of the United States? Not as a constitutional requirement, I am not talking about that, but as a political requirement, whether at some point the United States would be willing to accept a State in which a substantial minority of people are definitely opposed to statehoodnot merely cold toward the idea, but most definitely opposed to this notion.
I do not know what is going to be done with the pro-independence followers in the statehood. Maybe they will put us in a reservation of some sort.
Mr. MILLER. I would appreciate it if the audience, to some extent, could listen to the chair, because now your applause is now coming out of my time.
Mr. YOUNG. Yes, if you would like to, but make it short, because then we have to go to the next one.
Mr. VILA. Well, I really appreciate your comments, and the fact that our party even represented a definition of a ''New Commonwealth'' is a direct consequence of the joint letter both of you sent to us that, as I say in my testimony, we see as an openness and a new approach that will allow us to participate.
In terms of looking to the future, that is one of the problems we have with this bill, because it wants to make a judgment that we cannot agree on the past. If we are going to look to the future, let us look to the future.
And the definition of a ''New Commonwealth'' that we presented is preciselyif someone has any doubts about what happened back in 1950 and 1952, let us do it the right way now. As you say, everything we have proposed, there is some experience in the United States with our proposition.
I just want to make one comment with regard to citizenship. As I see it, basically what you are meaning is that because we are not a State, U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico perhaps do not vote for a President and a Congressman, but it has nothing to do directly with citizenship. That is a problem of residence, if a U.S. citizen living outside the United States is not entitled to vote because he is not a resident of one of the 50 States.
We have heard a lot that we are second class citizens. In Royer v. Bailey, a case before the Supreme Court in 1971, the Supreme Court said, ''Neither we are persuaded that a condition subsequent from this area impressed one with second class citizenship.''
That cliche is too handy and too easy and, like most cliches, can be misleading. And perhaps that is one of the problems we have been having all this time; it is misleading.
Mr. RODRIQUEZ. I agree with you, Congressman, the statehood definition is a very clear definition. It is not a wishing list. This is something we know occurs with those who become full-fledged American citizens. How can we not see in as a civil rights issue?
It was the other week in Birmingham, Alabama, that I went to the Institute of Civil Rights and I saw there U.S. citizens fighting to have equal rights, the same rights that we are denied because we live in Puerto Rico, the same rights we are denied because we cannot vote for the President, who can send us to fly anyplace around the globe to fight for democracy and for this Nation.
The fact that I really get my heart squeezed when I see a Puerto Rican mother who cannot receive equal health benefits because she is not living in one of the 50 States, although she is an American citizen, it also breaks my heart when I see that this lady could have probably had her son killed in action in any of the battlefields, defending this Nation, but she is not entitled to the same rights as other mothers who also gave their children for this Nation in one of the 50 States.
I also have my heart squeezed when I see that our children cannot receive the same education as other U.S. citizens who live in the 50 States are entitled to receive.
I also get my heart squeezed when I see that Puerto Ricans cannot have the same benefits as any other U.S. citizen who lives in the 50 States.
And I really regret to see Puerto Ricans leaving our island to go up to the mainland just to receive those benefits. Almost 3 million Puerto Ricans live on the mainland, and the reason they have left is because they are denied the same rights that other U.S. citizens have if they live in the 50 States.
So our position is very clear of what we want for Puerto Rico. We want equality. It is a civil rights issue.
Mr. YOUNG. I will remind everybody in the audience, I know you are having a good time, you are doing what you want to do, and I have been very lenient, but I am going to call this meeting over at 3 o'clock. And that means that many of your fellow men cannot testify before this Committee, because every time you do what you have just done, you take the time away from the members of the Committee that would like to ask questions to solve a problem and from the witnesses, very frankly, that want to testify. Is that understood?
Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to find out, under the definition of ''New Commonwealth,'' exactly how the issue of sovereignty would play out. Would the United States retain national sovereignty, or would Puerto Rico have its own separate sovereignty?
Mr. VILA. The concept of sovereignty has changed a lot during the last 200 years. At one time the sovereign was the key, and for many years it was even under the concept of sovereignty that many acts of tyranny were done around the world.
Today, who is sovereign is the people. And the first thing that this Committee has to recognize is that if we enter into this relationship we call the New Commonwealth, it is a decision of the people of Puerto Rico; it is a sovereign decision of the people of Puerto Rico.
Once we enter into this arrangement, the definition clearly states that Puerto Rico will be sovereign over all matters contained in our Constitution. So to me it is clear. It is a two-step: First, that the decision, whether we stay in this relationship, whether we change it, it is a decision that belongs to the people of Puerto Rico. That is sovereignty.
Mr. KENNEDY. So where would the United States retain any sovereignty if the people were to remain United States citizens? Over those citizens? How would that work?
Mr. VILA. The United States will have the powers that the people of Puerto Rico have delegated to the United States within this arrangement. That is nothing new for the United States, neither for the entire world.
The fact that you can make a compact with what was in the past called a territory is not only done by the United States, it is around the world.
When the United States came to Puerto Rico in 1898, we had a special arrangement with Spain. We were Spaniard citizens. We had autonomy. The special charter could only be amended if the people of Puerto Rico will accept itin a sense, basically the same concept we want right now to clarify.
Some people, I have heard, are telling the world that the United States is less of a nation than Spain back in 1898. And, to me, that is unbelievable.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, this is a good debate, because this debate has been going on in our own United States history as to what the role of the Constitution of the United States is. And from what I hear you saying, you are saying you will be subject to your own Puerto Rican Constitution and the United States Constitution will not apply to the people of Puerto Rico.
Mr. KENNEDY. So you are saying that if the Constitution of the United States says, the 14th Amendment, we want equal protection for all, and we have had instances in our own country's history where different locales have rejectedthey have said we want States rights or, as you well know, there is an argument that we fought over, and Senator Rodriguez was speaking about it, civil rights, and the notion that the United States Constitution, which guarantees that people are treated equally no matter where they live in the United States, that is fundamental to United States citizenship.
If you want to be a citizen, you have to know that with that you have to live in a country that respects equal opportunity for all. And if the people of Puerto Rico are not treated the same
I know the idea here is that if a person of United States citizenship was not being treated under our Constitution with respect and dignity for their rights, I would want to make sure that the United States Constitution was enforced to make sure that their rights were protected.
Now, how would that be done if the United States does not have any sovereignty, if you will, when it comes to
Mr. VILA. The definition clearly states that a United States citizen, persons born in Puerto Rico, will be guaranteed and secure as provided by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and equal to that of citizens born in the several States.
With regard to sovereignty, as I said, it says that Puerto Rico will be sovereign over matters covered by the Constitution of Puerto Rico, which is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States has said many times. So I do not see what is your concern.
Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman's time has expired, and again I want to remind, every time this occurs, it is just that much less time.
I could not help but notice that as we got progressively over to the right, we got more and more Spanish, and only Fernando was able to inspire applause from people who were wearing both blue shirts and red shirts. So maybe you are on the crest of a tide there.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. It strikes me that the last time we were here and we were discussing the issue, the question always seemed to me that here everything becomes an indicator of your political status choice. Everything, from the selection of a color of a necktie to everything else, apparently seems to be connected in some way or another of a political status option. And in that discussion, the last time we were here, I was concerned that it did not look like people wanted to move toward a common process. And if we do not have a common process, this kind of discussion will inevitably continue forever.
I think we are moving beyond that, and I think, through the leadership of the Committee, we have moved beyond that and we are now at a point where we are trying to figure out what is an appropriate definition.
Now, all of us are involved in politics, and I think it is clear that a legal definition is different from a philosophy; bedrock principle is different from a campaign commitment or from a political party program. And in the process of making these definitions, it seems to me that sometimes, obviously, the statehood definition is a little bit more forthright, although I think, obviously, it is written in a way that makes it stand as the most favored option.
But coming back to that issue, it seems that everyone is trying to now deal with the definitional issue as a way to not merely define what option is being advertised but as a way to campaign for it and at the same time articulate a program of action.
I am wondering what your comments individually might be to that point, that is there a way that we can arrive at a legal definition which is shorn of aspirations? because the question that is before the people is, what do you aspire to? and to try to give as much as possible a legal definition to that.
Mr. RODRIQUEZ. Congressman, the fact that our definition, as you say, may be looked as a most favored option, it is because it is the most favored option if you are a U.S. citizen and you want U.S. citizenship. If you want that, you want to have equal rights. If you want that, you want to have the same benefits.
Now, you cannot come here and say, or anyone could come here and say, listen, we want to have a relationship with the United States whereas we retain the U.S. citizenship. Oh, but we are going to determine what are those things that the Federal Government that represents that national U.S. citizenship can impose in Puerto Rico. Where is the sovereignty on Puerto Rico?
What we want to do, basically, is give us a chance to vote. If those Puerto Ricans who really believe in their U.S. citizenship, the only way they can really guarantee that is by voting for statehood. If that looks the most favored, let it be. Let it be, because there is no right to tell a U.S. citizen that he cannot aspire to be equal as any other U.S. citizen right now on the mainland.
The problem we have with this bill as written right now is the Commonwealth, as we see it and believe in it, is not on the ballot. The reason we presented this definition is not only because we believe in that definition. It is also because it was approved by the full House back in 1990 by this Committee, and then it will make it easier for you guys to work with us if there is a commitment to put in a definition in which we can participate.
So what we are making is a claim of fairness. Believe me, the people of Puerto Rico still believe in commonwealth. They just want the opportunity to express themselves again.
Mr. MARTIN-GARCIA. Well, Mr. Underwood, undoubtedly the alternatives are different not only in terms of content but also their nature. For example, to use the most glaring example, independence is viewed internationally and universally as a right. Nobody would dispute that, if that were the wish of the people of Puerto Rico, the United States would be obligated to grant independence.
In the case of statehood, for example, independently of its merits, it is obviously viewed that statehood is a political decision that the Congress will have to make if it gets a petition; and that in entertaining that petition it can use whatever criteria is politically feasible for the Congress. It may want statehood or may not want statehood for good reasons or bad ones. It is not a right. It is a petition to be made.
For example, in that sense, it is important that the definitions of the alternatives somehow make clear that they represent decisions of a different nature. For example, I think it would be really dangerous to imply by inaction or silence that somehow statehood is a right and that if people in Puerto Rico vote for it, 50 plus 1, it is there for the having.
On the other hand, for example, in the case of independence, although from a strictly legal point of view it is a very straightforward definition, it means the wholesale transfer of any sovereignty the U.S. has over Puerto Rico it is passed over to the people of Puerto Rico. It is a very simple proposition.
Why is it more complex in our proposal? Because independence requires a disengagement process, and that disengagement process has to be fleshed out in some way so it doesn't appear to people as if Puerto Rico is sort of jumping off the eighth floor without a parachute.
So if the ballot is going to be meaningful and the offer is going to be made in good faith, it has to have something in addition to the purely legal question so that it remains or becomes a politically feasible and reasonable alternative that somehow shows good faith.
In the case of the Popularist definition, that involves all sorts of constitutional and political complexities. The issue of sovereignty may seem a purely academic one, but I think it is absolutely the most fundamental question that this bill is facing; and at some point the Popularists are going to have to make a tough decision, which I fear they haven't made yet, of what their priorities are.
If their priority is sovereignty for Puerto Rico, they are going to have to be willing to enter into a relationship of free association which, after all, the bill does offer. For them, if the question of citizenship is the priority one, well, then, perhaps they will have to conform themselves to continue to being a territory another 100 years.
I think that line that Mr. Martin was developing and talking about, the citizenship of the people of Puerto Rico, Mr. Acevedo, what is more important for you and the party you representcitizenship or sovereignty?
Mr. VILA. For the party that I represent, we believe in a relationship that recognizes the dignity of the people of Puerto Rico and a relationship where we can have our U.S. citizenship and, at the same time, our identity.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. If Congress were to tell you, you cannot have both things, you can only have one
Mr. VILA. I would say that is a very narrow-minded view; and there will be an assumption, maybe, just to put into this bill all the elements to tilt the process in favor of statehood.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Your party got a letter signed by Chairman Young. It was signed by Chairman Gallegly of the subcommittee. It was also signed by Mr. Gilman, the Chairman then of the Committee on International Affairs, and by Dan Burton, the Chairman of the Subcommittee of the Western Hemisphere, which indicated in that letter that you couldn't have your sovereignty with your citizenship.
If this Committee were to decide in the markup that you could not have your citizenship with your sovereignty, now what would you say? Would you just not have anything, or would you make a choice? We are asking, if you were told you could not have both things, what would you do?
If you don't want to answer, that is all right. I cannot force you to answer. But I think the people of Puerto Rico deserve an answer. They should know what it is. And the people of the Congress, the people in Congress and in the United States also should have an answer, because they also have to make a decision.
Mr. VILA. In the Corletto v. Persona case from the United States back in 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court said Puerto Rico is to be deemed sovereign over matters not ruled by the United States Constitution.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. That is case law. That is what the court says. I am asking, what do you say? What do you say if you were given a choice and told you could not have your cake and eat it, too?
Mr. VILA. No, I am telling you that a special relationship of autonomy based on the will of the people to enter into this relationship with U.S. citizenship was part of the initial concept when the U.S. citizenship was granted to the people of Puerto Rico. It is possible to have it, and we want it.
Let me ask you another question. Here you say, in the new commonwealth, you are saying that Puerto Rico would be entitled to receive benefits under Federal social programs equally with residents of several States, contingent on equitable contributions from Puerto Rico as provided by law.
I want to ask you, honestly, sincerely, how do you think that the people in the State of Alaska, the people in the State of California, where Congressman George Miller is from, the people in the State of Rhode Island, where Congressman Patrick Kennedy is from, the people in Florida, the people in New York, the people in Pennsylvania, in Kansas, would feel about having to pay Federal income taxes so that Puerto Rico could have SSI, so it could have earned income tax credit, so it can have Medicaid and have full participation in Fed programs? But then you say, don't put your hands in our pockets; just give us the money.
Doesn't that demean us as a people? Doesn't that put us in a reflection with our hands out? All we want from U.S. citizenship is the money? We don't want anything else? Is that what you want to say?
Mr. VILA. Mr. Commissioner, you read the definition, yes, and it says contingent on equitable contributions from Puerto Rico. This is a special deal that went through the Finance Committee back in 1990, and it came out of the Finance Committee in the Senate back in 1990 with a way of how to give this to the people of Puerto Rico and equitable contributions from the government of Puerto Rico to the U.S. Treasury.
The last time I heard someone here in Puerto Rico asking the people of Puerto Rico for a change of status based on how much money we will get from the Federal Government was back in 1993 when the Pro-State Party was telling the people of Puerto Rico how much money we will get from the U.S. Government.
All right, in all due respect, I can suggest to everybody in this audience and all sides of the aisle, you don't really make much of an impression on the deliberations on this problem. I understand what you are doing, but keep in mind we are here trying to hear from each side of the aisle and the middle and to try to make the right decision. Because we are going to make decisions. It is that simple.
I am going to suggest to each one of the gentlemen, I do admire your testimony. I am very, very interested in what has been said. But I want everybody to understand it is the Congress, the Congresswhether it is me or someone elsewho will make the decisions, along with the Puerto Rican people. But we are going forward with this process.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if we could submit a couple of questions to you in writing. I have some concerns about the time line in the legislation, about how we might condense those. I would like to submit those to you for response.
Mr. YOUNG. For the gentleman, every witness that appears before us today, if there is a followup question, we expect a response from them.
As I said in the beginning of the hearing, the first three witnesses were extended a great courtesy and extension of time, including the audience. These gentleman and ladies will be, in fact, limited to 5 minutes.
I am going to ask the Resident Commissioner now, Mr. Romero-Barceló, to chair the second panel; and I will have one of the other members chair the third panel and the fourth panel. This is a bipartisan effort to try to get some input from each one of them. I will be in and out of the meetings.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. [Presiding.] Thank you. I would appreciate your cooperation so that we can listen to the witnesses. We would like to conclude with everybody on the list having time to testify.
Mr. COLON. Honorable Chairman, members, you come100 years after the military occupation of Puerto Ricoin order to offer us full self-government. In order to achieve this objective, we do not start from zero. In 1952, we created our Constitution wherein it was stated and Congress approved as a compact that:
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby constituted. Its political power emanates from the people and shall be exercised in accordance with their will, within the terms of the compact agreed upon between the people of Puerto Rico and the United States of America.
We consider as determining factors in our life our citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual and collective enjoyments of its rights and privileges.
These are the words of compact between the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress, a compact the Congress proposed to rid the United States of the shame of colonialism before the international community, recognizing that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The commonwealth option framed by this bill would violate this compact by placing Puerto Rico under the absolute powers of Congress as it was before 1952. The definition presented to the Committee by the Popular Party would straighten the course of history.
We can hardly believe that this bill sustains the proposition that Congress can strip away American citizenship from the Puerto Rican people. We can hardly believe that it ignores all judicial precedent upholding the compact between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. We can scarcely believe that it sides with the charges of colonialism in Puerto Rico annually leveled at the U.N. against the United States by Fidel Castro.
When, on July 4th, 1776, the 13 colonies proclaimed their independence from the British king, the men assembled in Philadelphia, stated unto the world that they held these truths to be self-evident:
That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, amongst which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We Puerto Ricans subscribe to these beliefs. We also believe that we have been created equal, no less and no more than you who visit us. And we believe that we are also endowed by our creator with the same inalienable rights to life and to exercise our liberty in whatever way we deem appropriate in order to pursue our happiness.
Deciding the political institutions under which a people will live is the supreme act of liberty. In this choice rests our opportunities to mold a future for our integral development, economic, social, culture, political and spiritual.
But the bill's preconceptions as to commonwealth leave little room for democracy. It is framed in concrete from prejudiced legal opinions presented as unbreakable limits to policy.
With regards to our political freedom, the opinions are equivalent to the arguments invoked by Justice Taney to deny Dred Scott's personal freedom the protection of the Federal judicial power.
The time for colonial paternalism is long past. If the Puerto Rican people wish to freely join the Union, so be it. But do not impose this choice upon us by stonewalling your judgment with one-sided legal memoranda against a new commonwealth.
The only real possibilities of achieving full self-government lie in statehood or in full autonomy as a new commonwealth.
The choice between sending Senators and Congressmen to Washington or broadening our autonomy to govern ourselves through our elected representatives here in San Juan is for us to make. You, of course, have the right to say no. If you do not want us as a state, it is a political, not a legal decision. The same with the broader autonomy we seek.
Including all the desired options is up to your political will. Give all the people a chance to participate in this plebescite, and let's get on with it.
First, the Mayor of San Juan, who could not be here today with us, asked me personally to come over to warmly welcome you to Puerto Rico and especially to the city of San Juan. So welcome on behalf of the Mayor of San Juan.
Second, I would have preferred to have Mr. Young hear the Governor's statement and Mr. Young here today. We are dealing with Mr. Young's bill. I would have much rather preferred Mr. Young to be here.
Let me start my remarks by stating in clear terms that my only concern in this process is the well-being of the people of Puerto Rico. I care more about Don Juan Alejandro and Dona Lucia Chevres, who live in Barrio Guadiana in Naranjito; about Virginia Santos and her four children from Cidra; about Mrs. Paulita Colon from Bayamon; and about so many others like them than about attempting to conform the collective lives of Puerto Ricans to the selfish thoughts and insecurities of an ideological nature.
Theirs is a life of constant improvement and success under commonwealth status. I have little respect for empty legalisms and terms which mean nothing to real people who must struggle daily to make ends meet.
At this juncture, it is fundamental to ask the most basic question which, for some unknown reason, this Committee has somehow eluded over the last 2 years. That is, under which political status, under which political relationship with the United States is Puerto Rico better positioned to compete and succeed in the emerging world of the 21st century?
The flexibility and dynamism of commonwealth status has given Puerto Rico the tools to achieve dramatic economic and social progress. Our association with the United States has given us the ability and access to the largest market in the world. Our fiscal autonomy has allowed us to attract industry to the island through low, effective tax rates.
The results have been truly staggering. Puerto Rico has set an example of how a small, poor, agrarian and densely populated island with limited exploitable natural resources can emerge as a bustling and industrious society. Once considered a stricken land, the poorest of the poor countries in the hemisphere, Puerto Rico today enjoys the highest standard of living in Latin America.
Our exports have boomed from $235 million in 1950 to $22.9 billion in 1996. In terms of imports, Puerto Rico purchases over $12 billion annually from the United States, ranking among the top 10 world customers. Perhaps most impressive of all, in a region plagued by political instability, all of these changes have occurred in Puerto Rico without social unrest and under a strong democratic regime.
The productive economic vitality enjoyed by Puerto Rico under commonwealth is impossible under statehood. Statehood requires the imposition of Federal income taxes, individual and corporate, which would destroy Puerto Rico's continued economic prosperity.
Manufacturing presently accounts for 44.5 percent of Puerto Rico's GNP, and it is critically contingent upon the fiscal autonomy that Puerto Rico would lose under statehood. Close to 300,000 direct and indirect jobs are attributable to Puerto Rico's fiscal autonomy. This is one-third of Puerto Rico's total labor force.
Every single study conducted on this issue has established that the elimination of Puerto Rico's fiscal autonomy would entail massive capital flight and job loss.
Statehood would destroy the most productive sectors of our economy, precipitating us into an economic catastrophe of unimaginable proportions, shattering the social solidarity and threatening the stability of our prosperous society. This spiraling decline would destroy our self-sufficiency, demanding ever increasing Federal outlays and creating a state of true and inescapable dependency.
Thus, to put the economic consequences of statehood into perspective, if Puerto Rico chose to lower tax rates to U.S. level as it would under statehood, the government would have to lay off about 90,000 public employees, or two out of five government employees. The question would immediately emerge, how many public schoolteachers would have to be laid off to pay for statehood? How many police officers?
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we in Puerto Rico have come a long way to liberate our people from the chains of poverty and misery. We are now successfully competing with the great economic powers, with skilled workers and attractive incentives that generate jobs. Let us join efforts and energies in building a better Puerto Rico, a prosperous society and a land of true freedom, where our children will be anxious to seize the opportunities that await for them. Let us put people's needs first.
Mr. BHATIA. Let us use this opportunity not to destroy the estado libre asociado, but to strengthen it; not to divide our people, but to unite them; not to stop progress, but to accelerate it.
The Estado Libre Asociado is eager and ready to face the challenges of the 21st century. We are on the move. Don't derail us with this bill.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The Chairman asked that you try to limit yourself to 5 minutes. I have allowed both the proponents to try to limit themselves. The lights: The yellow means it is approaching the 5 minutes.