SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
40–445 l
1997
PUERTO RICO STATUS
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 856
A BILL TO PROVIDE A PROCESS LEADING TO FULL SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR PUERTO RICO
MARCH 19, 1997—WASHINGTON, DC
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Serial No. 105–16
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held March 19, 1997
Text of H.R. 856
Statement of Members:
Burton, Hon. Dan, a U.S. Representative from Indiana
Christian-Green, Hon. Donna, a U.S. Delegate from the Virgin Islands
Deutsch, Hon. Peter, a U.S. Representative from Florida
Gutierrez, Hon. Luis, a U.S. Representative from Illinois
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement
Lagomarsino, Hon. Robert J., a U.S. Representative from California
McCollum, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from Florida
Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California
Romero-Barceló, Hon. Carlos A., a U.S. Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico
Serrano, Hon. José, a U.S. Representative from New York
Velázquez, Hon. Nydia, a U.S. Representative from New York
Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska; and Chairman, Committee on Resources
Prepared statement
Statement of Witnesses:
Acevedo-Vilá, Anibal, President of the Popular Democreatic Party
Prepared statement
Berríos-Martinez, Ruben, President of Puerto Rican Independence Party
Prepared statement
Farrow, Jeffrey L., Co-Chair, The President's Administration Working Group on Puerto Rico
Prepared statement
Ferré, Luis, President of the New Progressive Party
Prepared statement
Rosselló, Pedro, Governor of Puerto Rico
Prepared statement
Zeder, Fred M., II, Rancho Mirage, CA (prepared statement)
Additional material supplied:
Administration Shelves Plan To Give Guam More Autonomy, by Peter Baker (Washington Post)
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Hill Panels to Probe China Influence Buying Allegations, by Robert Suro (Washington, Post)
House Concurrent Resolution 2 (PR)
Introducrion of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act—Hon. Don Young (Congressional Record)
Letters between Clinton, Young could bode ill for 'bilateral' pact, by Robert Friedman (STAR Washington Bureau)
Memorandum on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, George Bush
Oversight Plan for the 105th Congress, Committee on Resources, and Legislative History
Press Releases of Committee on Resources
Puerto Rico's New Self-governing Status (Dept. of State Bulletin
Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly (UN) at its Eighth Session
Resolutions from the Popular Democratic Party
Signs of Policy Shift on Status of Guam Appeared After Contributions to Democrats, by John Pomfret (Washington Post)
Summary of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Act
Updated United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, by Hon. Don Young (Congressional Record)
Zeder, Fred M., II: Understanding Free Association as a Form of Separate Sovereignty and Political Independence in the Case of Decolonization of Puerto Rico
Communications submitted:
Clinton, President Bill: Letter of January 21, 1997, to Chairman Don Young
Romero-Barceló, Hon. Carlos, and Hon. Robert A. Underwood: Letter to Hon. William J. Clinton dated January 13, 1997
Young, Hon. Don: Letter to Hon. William Jefferson Clintom of December 11, 1996
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:07 a.m. in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order.
It is a pleasure to welcome the witnesses here today as the Committee on Resources considers H.R. 856, the U.S.-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
I am going to ask the audience if you would please try to restrain yourselves. This is going to be a hearing that may take a great deal of time. I want to offer as much courtesy as I can to the witnesses who appear today.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
The CHAIRMAN. Today, we begin an important part of the congressional consideration of legislation to resolve Puerto Rico's political status by hearing from some of our colleagues in the House, the Governor of Puerto Rico, leaders of the three political parties of Puerto Rico and the Clinton Administration.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last month, the top leader of the Puerto Rico Legislature presented copies of House Concurrent Resolution 2 asking the Congress to authorize a political status referendum to be held before the end of 1998. This legislation responds to the legislature's request to provide the necessary framework leading to full self-government for Puerto Rico.
I thank the witnesses from Puerto Rico for traveling to Washington to personally present their views on this legislation to the Committee. Your views today, and others later in Puerto Rico, are a crucial part of development of final legislation to resolve Puerto Rico's political status.
Next month, the Committee will go to San Juan and Mayaguez to hear from the people of Puerto Rico.
We will start today's hearings with a Members panel, whose comments I know will be very helpful to the Committee. I want to mention that the Committee has received a statement regarding this legislation and Puerto Rico's political status from a former member of this Committee, Bob Lagomarsino. I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit his comments.
[Statement of Mr. Lagomarsino follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
On January 23, 1997, the Legislature of Puerto Rico adopted Concurrent Resolution 2. This measure called upon the 105th Congress to establish a self-determination process which will enable the Congress and the people of Puerto Rico to complete the decolonization of the territory which began in 1952. It was in 1952 that an earlier joint self-determination process approved by Congress and the people pursuant to U.S. Public Law 600 culminated in establishment of internal constitutional self-government for Puerto Rico.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Chairman of the Resources Committee and all the co-sponsors of H.R. 856 are to be commended for responding in a timely and bipartisan manner to the Legislature's request by introducing this historic legislation on February 27, 1997. I support the bill without reservation, and in my own view every Member of Congress who joins the sponsors of this bill in securing its early approval will be serving the national interest in a very significant way.
For far too long Congress acquiesced in the deferral of self determination for Puerto Rico. I had always hoped we could deliver on the American idea of equality and full self-government for the 3.8 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico when I was in Congress. Of course, that could only be accomplished by offering the people of Puerto Rico accurately defined choices between the status quo, statehood or separate nationhood, and then determining if Congress and the people can agree on the terms for implementing the option chosen.
While that somehow never seemed possible in the past, I believe H.R. 856 will accomplish this goal. Thus I welcome the opportunity to submit this statement in support of the measure.
THE MOMENT OF TRUTH FOR THE UNITED STATES AND PUERTO RICO: MORE PERFECT UNION THROUGH STATEHOOD OR AN END TO UNION THROUGH SEPARATE NATIONALITY?
In the U.S. system of constitutional federalism, statehood is the most perfect form of political union. For any territory within the sovereignty of the U.S. and having a U.S. citizen population, only statehood constitutes full self-government based on the principle of equality with all other citizens. Short of statehood, the less perfected but next most complete condition of political union is that of an incorporated territory to which the U.S. Constitution and political rights have been extended to the fullest extent possible for a non-state area within U.S. sovereignty. Historically, this is the conventional path to statehood.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unincorporated status with internal self-government under a local constitution, including the ''commonwealth'' structure of local self-government, is the status which occupies the next lower position in the scheme of political union under the constitution. While the federal constitution applies in full to the states, and incorporated territories can achieve ''virtual statehood'' through integration into the constitutional process on the broadest level possible, under the territorial clause and the court-invented legal status theory of the Insular Cases an unincorporated territory is integrated into the union in a far more narrow sense. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1904); Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904).
Thus, even where statutory U.S. citizenship is extended and there is elected local government under a constitution or an organic act, only ''fundamental rights'' under the federal constitution apply of their own force in an unincorporated territory. Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922). Otherwise the U.S. Constitution and federal law apply only temporarily to the extent Congress determines in its discretion under the territorial clause. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
These U.S. Supreme Court decisions establish that the unincorporated ''commonwealth'' relationship is temporary by nature, and disenfranchisement and less-than-equal discriminatory treatment of citizens of the territory is deemed constitutionally permissible. Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980). Even in the organized and locally self-governing unincorporated territories, including Puerto Rico, the plenary nature of the territorial clause power reduces the operation and effect of the principles of limited government, national uniformity, and rule of law as practiced in the states.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The only more imperfect form of union than that of the unincorporated U.S. territories is that of unorganized possessions (Example: Wake Island). While residents of incorporated and unincorporated territories and possessions can enjoy many of the blessings of American citizenship to the extent Congress determines, including economic benefits and security through various degrees of political union with the United States, only statehood confers a condition of permanent and constitutionally guaranteed equal citizenship and full self-government.
Thus, for the population of any territory which wishes to remain within U.S. sovereignty, completion of the process of integration through statehood is the only path to full self-government. The only alternative within the framework of the U.S. Constitution is to continue indefinitely in a less than fully self-governing status, which is plausible only as long as Congress deems that to be consistent with the national interest and the people concerned do not themselves make the choices required to seek a change of status.
The only other path to full self-government for the peoples of the unincorporated U.S. territories is to seek though self-determination to achieve equal citizenship and full self-government based on separate sovereignty, nationality and citizenship. The options of separate sovereignty in the form of simple independence or free association are the two forms of full self-government through nationhood recognized under both international and U.S. law. See, Compact of Free Association Act of 1985 (U.S. Public Law 99-239).
UNDERSTANDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS FOR SELF-DETERMINATION
Obviously, there is a cultural dimension to the process for full and compete decolonization of Puerto Rico. However, the process for sustaining cultural identity and achieving social integration in our nation will continue to be played out through the evolution of American civilization at the cultural level.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Without minimizing the importance of the cultural reconciliation that is essential to successful decolonization, it must recognized that as a political transaction decolonization is accomplished through the legal and constitutional mechanisms by which the inherent sovereignty of our people is established, recognized and exercised. Until the ultimate status of the people of Puerto Rico is resolved through sovereign self-government based on either statehood or separate nationality, the manner in which sovereignty is exercised in the case of Puerto Rico will be dysfunctional to the extent that it is constitutionally incomplete and less than equal.
To promote recovery by Puerto Rico and the nation as a whole from the dysfunctional dynamics of the colonial relationship, it is necessary to recognize that in our political economic system prosperity and a higher quality of life must never be taken for granted. Rather, as Ronald Reagan told the General Assembly of the United Nation in 1987, all the things we identify with the ''good life'' in America are the product or results of the rights we have under our constitutional system.
These includes equal justice under the law, freedom of expression and conscience, limited government, consent of the governed, rule of law, an ordered scheme of liberty and due process. Once these rights are secured we must exercise them vigorously and meet the responsibilities of citizenship in order to preserve the national interest and pursue individual happiness.
In the case of Puerto Rico, however, the full rights of citizenship have not yet been secured, and the residents of Puerto Rico have not yet experienced in their homeland the full responsibilities and rewards of equal citizenship. The conditions that have prevented completion of decolonization in favor of a recognized form of sovereign self-government have been more political and legal than cultural.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Full decolonization has been delayed for so long that the failure to resolve the underlying political status issue has become the most problematic element of the overall process of cultural and economic integration as well. In other words, the incomplete political status process is impeding the social, economic and cultural process of decolonization and reconciliation.
Thus, in 100 years the people of Puerto Rico and the other peoples of our nation as a whole have developed strong and positive cultural and economics inter-relationships, but the failure to resolve the political status question in a legal and constitutional sense is preventing the achievement an ultimate social reconciliation which can be sustained through either statehood or separate sovereignty in accordance with the wishes of the people.
In order for the people to express their wishes as to which political status will be adopted to sustain their identity as well as their relationship with the U.S., there must be a constitutionally valid process in which the options are defined clearly. That is what H.R. 856 will provide.
Thus, rather than focusing here on the cultural dimension of the decolonization process, it is imperative that we examine more closely the legal and constitutional mechanics of the process. For it is through these mechanisms that the people will be empowered to express their will at the political, as well as the cultural, levels. This is how the true identity of a people is translated through self determination into full self-government.
Definitions of status options that are not realistic or which can not be implemented disempower the people and undermine the decolonization process. That is what happened in 1993, and the following discussion reflects my judgment that H.R. 856 will establish a process that will produce results which both Puerto Rico and the Congress will be able to understand. This will provide the basis for completion of the decolonization process that began with adoption of the local constitution under P.L. 600 in 1952.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is significant, therefore, that, like the provisions of Public Law 600 which established the process for approval of the local constitution in 1952, H.R. 856 would establish a multi-staged process for completing the next—and final—phase of decolonization. Thus, H.R. 856 recognizes that until the decolonization process is completed the political union between the U.S. and Puerto Rico is defined constitutionally as impermanent, and both of the two parties to the present political relationship retain the right of self-determination with respect to its future.
Recognition that there are two parties to the self determination process—Congress and the residents of the less than fully self-governing territory, is entirely different from and contrary to the assertion of a ''bilateral'' relationship between an ''autonomous'' Puerto Rico and the U.S. based on an unalterable pact. The notion of a formal and legally binding ''bilateralism'' between the Congress and an unincorporated territory with the framework of the federal constitution is untenable.
Indeed, putting aside for the moment only the cultural bonds which exist after 100 years of close albeit impermanent political union, the U.S. has the sovereign power constitutionally, as well as a right under applicable international law, unilaterally to terminate the relationship at any time in favor of independence for Puerto Rico. Nevertheless, the U.S. clearly intends, prefers and—in the absence of currently unforeseen circumstances—is committed to resolution of the status of Puerto Rico through a cooperative self-determination process.
Thus, as a legally non-binding but voluntarily assumed obligation consistent with international standards of self-determination recognized by the United States, every Congress and every U.S. President since 1952 has recognized that the current status of Puerto Rico can be terminated in favor of permanent union or separate nationhood on terms approved by Congress and the people of Puerto Rico. As a consequence, only if Puerto Rico exercised the right of self-determination in favor of unilateral action on its part to terminate the relationship without an agreed succession process would the excellent prospects for a very orderly and cooperative process perhaps be changed.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to demonstrating that decolonization and a permanent status have not been achieved, the willingness of Congress and the President to recognize an on-going right of self-determination for both parties to the existing temporary form of political union confirms the need to include in any further self-determination process the same multi-staged decision-making mechanism as Congress employed in P.L. 600. For just as Congress recognized in Section 1 of P.L. 600 and must continue to recognize, the principle of consent of the governed applies in this case to both the people of the United States as a whole and to the people of Puerto Rico.
It is required, therefore, that in resolving the status of Puerto Rico the Congress must exercise the right of self-determination on behalf of the U.S. citizens in the nation as a whole, while the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico whose status and relationship with the U.S. will be decided also have a right to self-determination. For as a distinct body politic in an impermanent political union with the United States, the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico also must have the opportunity to express freely their wishes as to the status of Puerto Rico.
Because H.R. 856 is grounded firmly in the historical process through which the people of an unincorporated territory can achieve full self-government through a legitimate process of self-determination, I strongly endorse and support its enactment. Upon approval, it will enable Congress and the people of Puerto Rico to enter the next century on a path to liberty and equality.
SELF-DETERMINATION BASED ON DIGNITY AND MUTUAL RESPECT
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Within the evolutionary cultural process in our society there can exist many peoples and many nations in the cultural sense. Respect for this ethnic diversity and dignity, cultural pluralism, and transcendence of ethnocentricty in its negative forms is one of the difficult but essential lessons through which any civilization comes of age. The learning of this lesson through conflict and reconciliation, a drama played out in our open society for all the world to see, has been but another of the ways in which the United States of America has been a leader of world civilization in this century.
Again, the resolution of Puerto Rico's political status remains the last act in the drama of decolonization and social reconciliation for our citizenry of the territory and the nation as a whole. In addition to the political and social dimensions of this process, economic integration is also an element of the evolving relationship. Luis Munoz Marin realized that continued political union with the U.S. was in Puerto Rico's economic interest, and that has been proven in recent years.
Whether self-determination leads to statehood or separate nationhood, Puerto Rico would do well to stay with market-oriented reforms and private sector led development which have emerged after years of command economics and government managed markets. Only the market-driven economic model can be sustained without undue dependence on the discretion of Congress—which didn't prove too reliable in the case of the experimental economics of Section 936. Through strategic economic diversification Puerto Rico will recover from the Section 936 corporate welfare scheme which was the economic engine of the colonial status quo—perpetrated in the name of the poor for the benefit of the powerful.
In this cultural and economic context, the social integration between the people of Puerto Rico and the other peoples of this great nation has been one of the most enriching and rewarding of the major cultural processes which have shaped the American experience as our nation come of age in this century. It is a complex and challenging process, and there have been miscalculations and mistakes made by federal and territorial leaders which have not served well the people of the territory or the nation as a whole.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, in the territory and in the larger nation we have never given up on finding a solution, and while the momentum toward an ultimate status has been slowed at times it has never been broken. Now as the century draws to a close, it is time for the anachronistic political, legal and constitutional relationship between Puerto Rico and the nation as a whole to be brought into alignment with the more evolved social, cultural as well as economic relationships.
Thus, as noted above, in drafting legislation to prescribe a self-determination process it is necessary to focus on how to resolve the political, legal and constitutional status of Puerto Rico in both procedural and substantive legal terms, rather than in cultural and ideological terms.
Having underscored that point, I also want to note that it has been suggested to me on numerous occasions that there is little which is philosophically resonant about the legal mechanics of the constitutional process for self-determination. The lack of a poetic dimension to the politics of solutions instead of protest is something that has been pointed out to me frequently.
I could not disagree more. For in my mind the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, and the Preamble to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico all contain the poetry of freedom.
Some people may be more moved or have their passions more aroused by the literature of political alienation and cultural anger over past grievances. However, that kind of vitriolic self-indulgence and ideological solipsism often is a luxury that can be afforded by those who like to taste of fruit of freedom but have never had to pay for it.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Perhaps we all need to stop and remember that in this century Puerto Rico's best and bravest have joined the best and bravest from throughout our nation and gone in harm's way so the rest of us can continue to live free. To honor their sacrifice, we have a duty to do the hard and sometimes tedious work of democracy and self-determination within the ordered scheme of liberty under our constitutional documents of freedom.
Even if it is not always as glamorous or exhilarating as making pedantic pronouncements or reciting poetry about abstract notions of political philosophy, we owe it to those who saved all of us from the common enemy to resolve the status of Puerto Rico because that is what they would want us to do.
So the next time some cultural separatist or ideological elitist condescendingly notes that there are no poems about the constitutional process for resolving the legal and political status of Puerto Rico, we should remember that in liberating strife the blood of Puerto Rican born Americans has mixed with that of Americans of all other backgrounds in the sands of Somalia and the muddy soil of Sicily. Apparently, these heroic people who made everything we have in America possible found the literature in the documents of our democracy inspiration enough to march into the gaping jaws of annihilation to preserve liberty for our common patria-pueblo.
You want poetry about the difference between perpetual colonial status and constitutional equality? Have you read the words to the ''Star-Spangled Banner'' recently? Are you longing to hear the poetic expression of dignity through full participation in democracy? Try listening to a group of kids sing ''...God shed His Grace on thee, and crowned thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea...'' That does not mean we have never fallen short of that ideal in the past, but it expresses what America—including Puerto Rico—has the potential to become if we all take the solemn work of democracy seriously.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COLLAPSE OF THE ''UNALTERABLE BILATERAL PACT'' DOCTRINE OF COMMONWEALTH
Recognition by Congress in Section 1 of P.L. 600 of the principle of consent was ''in the nature of a compact'' involved joint consent only with respect to the process for approval of the constitution. When the people voted to approve the terms of P.L. 600 on June 4, 1951, the agreement which was ''in the nature of a compact'' was that the constitution would be approved in the manner prescribed by P.L. 600. It was an agreement to organize local constitutional self government through the P.L. 600 procedure to which both parties consented.
Contrary to what has been asserted for forty years by those who seek to deny both the U.S. and the people of the right to further self determination, the agreement ''in the nature of a compact'' related to the process of approval of the constitution by joint consent and did not convert the relationship into a permanent form of union that can be altered only by ''mutual consent.'' Those who espouse that ideological doctrine do not want the people of the U.S. as a whole, or the people of Puerto Rico in their own name and right, to have a choice to change the current status.
This attempt to convert the commonwealth structure for local self-government into a political status straight-jacket for Puerto Rico has become an impediment to completion of the decolonization process that began in 1952. The adoption of local constitutional self government at that time was a historically significant stage in the decolonization process, but it was not intended to be the final stage. Those who argue that the current status is the best that the U.S. and Puerto Rico can do merely usurp the power and diminish the meaning of the local constitution as an instrument through which the continuing right of self-determination can be redeemed.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Indeed, adoption of a local constitution in 1952 was historic because it enabled the people of Puerto Rico to act in their own name and right as to the internal affairs of the territory, as well as in legal and political relations with the national government. This, of course, was on the basis of U.S. sovereignty and within the framework of our American system of constitutional federalism, meaning that Congress retained its territorial clause authority and responsibility until the decolonization process commenced in 1952 was fulfilled through statehood or separate nationhood for Puerto Rico.
Through the institutions of internal self-government established in 1952 Puerto Ricans were empowered, among other things, freely to express their wishes regarding a permanent and fully self governing political status. Thus, establishment of the ''Commonwealth of Puerto Rico'' structure for local constitutional self-government in 1952 was a great democratic self-determination accomplishment, one which afforded the residents of the territory the ability to govern their own internal affairs and achieve an ultimate status consistent with a recognized form of full self-government through informed self determination.
That this decolonization process would be fulfilled in accordance with the U.S. federal constitutional process was entirely consistent with the continuation of U.S. sovereignty, nationality and citizenship in Puerto Rico as provided under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico approved by Congress and with the consent of the people in 1952. Indeed, in 1953 the U.S. circulated to the General Assembly of the United nations a written legal statement which informed Puerto Rico and that world that under the commonwealth structure of local self-government Puerto Rico was subject to ''...compliance with the applicable provisions of the Federal Constitution, the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act and the acts of Congress authorizing and approving the Constitution [of Puerto Rico], as may be interpreted by judicial decision.''
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On that basis, the U.N. General Assembly accepted the U.S. decision to cease reporting to the U.N. on the status of Puerto Rico. See, G.A. Resolution 748 (VIII), September 27, 1953. The Committee on Resources documented these matter quite thoroughly in House Report 104 713, Part 1, so I will not elaborate further here.
However, the attempt of some Puerto Rican leaders and political groups to create ''bilateralism'' within the U.S. federal system has been perpetrated under a ''nation-within-a-nation'' interpretation of the commonwealth structure of local constitutional self-government which must fail.
That doctrine of an illusory bilateralism between the people of Puerto Rico and the larger national community is the product of tortured intellectualism which has been harnessed in service to paternalistic and anti-democratic attitudes. Those who do not trust the people, or do not want them to have a free choice, have used the myth of an ''unalterable bilateral pact'' to perpetuate their own power and prevent the decolonization process from being fulfilled.
Having been involved in the question of Puerto Rico's status for many years as a Member of Congress, I continue to study developments in the relationship with keen interest. My sense is that with the end of the Cold War and the demise of the command economics-social engineering policies epitomized by the Section 936 tax credit provisions, the time for completion of the decolonization process for Puerto Rico finally is at hand.
For so many years it seemed that those who sought fulfillment of the promise of self-determination might never overcome the influence of those whose economic and political power was derived from the ''invisible'' colonialism of the Section 936 tax credit regime. However, the neo-colonialist nature of that political-economic model was revealed when Congress exercised its territorial clause power to unilaterally eliminate one of the pillars of the ''unalterable bilateral pact'' ideology.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
No one can take any personal pleasure whatsoever in the disillusionment of all those honest and patriotic Puerto Rican born Americans who were misled into believing in the revisionist interpretation of commonwealth. It is no coincidence, though, that the advocates of the mythological version of commonwealth in many cases also profited from it. For those who chose self-interest over self determination for their own fatherland, the path to redemption and reconciliation is to choose one of the legitimate paths to full self government as defined in H.R. 856.
In this regard, I recently was told of the article in El Nuevo Dia which quoted former Governor Hernandez Colon as comparing Resources Committee Chairman Don Young to the Spanish General Palacio, who was described in the article as a tyrant who inflicted brutality on the people of Puerto Rico. The occasion of the former Governor's remarks was the 107th birthday of Roman Baldotioty de Castro, who espoused autonomy for Puerto Rico.
This causes me to ask, who is the oppressor? Who are the victims?
During the 1996 elections, Mr. Hernandez Colon told the people that the election should be viewed as a referendum on the Young bill, and that the voters should support candidates who stood with him in defense of the bilateral pact doctrine. By historic margins the voters elected candidates who are willing to roll up their shirt sleeves and work with Congress to forge acceptable self-determination legislation based on the Young bill—without pandering to those who will not recognize that the ''unalterable bilateral pact'' doctrine has been discredited ethically as well as politically.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Who, then, is seeking social justice and self-determination by the truest course? Who seeks most directly and without device or presupposition to empower the people of Puerto Rico to achieve decolonization? Who accepts the verdict of the people and who resists the democratically expressed will of the voters?
It is one of the confirming symptoms of prolonged albeit benevolent colonialism that those who thrived financially or wielded great power under the less than fully self-governing status develop elaborate theories to justify the continuation of that status. Thus, a whole host of lesser known commentators have become the spin doctors of commonwealth, administering almost daily doses of the tortured logic of the bilateral pact theory of ''autonomy.''
What would Luis Munoz Marin do if he were alive today? What about Roman Baldotoity de Castro? Would they turn their backs on a U.S. Congressman who thinks it is time for Puerto Rico and Congress to determine if Puerto Rico should become a state on the basis of equality or a nation based on separate sovereignty? Would they insist on a form of ''autonomy'' that does not protect the rights or the dignity of the people of Puerto Rico?
Has ''autonomy'' as Mr. Hernandez Colon defines it become the enemy of the people's inherent sovereignty and their right to make a choice between equal citizenship or separate nationality? Has the vision of Mr. Munoz Marin which started the process of decolonization in 1952 been hijacked by those who can not believe the hour has come to fulfill that vision?
Are the apologists, protectors and defenders of the accommodations made to colonial realities in the name of ''autonomy'' in 1952 so completely beguiled by their own rationalizations for the current status that they are resisting completion of the decolonization process now that the it is possible to do what could not be done in 1952?
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Who is really playing the role of Palacio in this more enlightened era? Who seeks to retain power at the expense of liberty?
Who is withholding the keys to freedom from the people? Who is telling them that what they have is the best they can hope for? Who is telling them that waiting for the political elite to bestow enhancements is safer for the people than taking control of their own destiny?
Who are the victims of the bilateral pact myth? Who was diverted from the path to decolonization by the schizophrenic doctrine that gave the current status one name in Washington and another in San Juan?
The answers to these questions are now self-evident. We all were victims, even as we all were beneficiaries in some degree. However, for the people of Puerto Rico and the nation as a whole the point of diminishing returns on our political, economic and social investment in ''commonwealth'' was reached even before Section 936 was repealed.
It is just as self-evident that statehood, if chosen freely by the people in a legitimate act of self-determination, is not a form of ''annexation.'' Similarly, living under the false doctrine of empowerment which is not recognized or respected by the colonial power is not ''autonomy.''
Rather, statehood is just as valid, ethical and patriotic way to sustain the individual and collective dignity and identity of the people of Puerto Rico as separate nationality.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The love which people born in Puerto Rico have for patria pueblo can be expressed through either statehood or nationhood. If the U.S. Congress is ready to recognize that reality, why are some in Puerto Rico unwilling to do so?
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to submit the comments of Former Governor Hernandez Colon.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Mr. Colon may be found at end of hearing.]
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lagomarsino served on this Committee as Ranking Republican on territorial issues for a decade and dealt with insular issues for almost 20 years and was intimately involved with Puerto Rico's political status.
In reviewing Mr. Lagomarsino's statement, one should remember he introduced legislation in 1988 authorizing a referendum on Puerto Rica's political status and was heavily criticized by some for raising what many considered to be a very difficult issue that should be left alone. The only hearing on Lagomarsino's Puerto Rico political status referendum legislation in the 100th Congress was a forum in the Capitol sponsored by Senator Strom Thurmond and former Senator Spark Matsunaga.
However, Bob Lagomarsino's foresight and leadership regarding Puerto Rico's political status was affirmed the next year in 1989 when President Bush asked the Congress in his first State of the Union address to authorize a referendum on Puerto Rico's political status. In addition, a number of the same voices who criticized Lagomarsino's 1988 call for a referendum on Puerto Rico's political status began early in 1989 to urge the Congress to pass a bill for a federally authorized status referendum.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, no Puerto Rico political status legislation was enacted into law during President Bush's term in office. That was in spite of tremendous efforts by individuals like Bob Lagomarsino, who of course was in the Minority at that time, and many others on both sides of the aisle in the Capitol.
The 1989 to 1991 legislative initiatives of the House and Senate to resolve Puerto Rico's political status were unsuccessful primarily because they did too little or required too much.
In contrast, I believe the three-stage process in the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act provides a manageable and practical approach to resolving Puerto Rico's political status. Budgetary, legal, political concerns are dealt with as necessary in the appropriate stages of the process and are consistent with past precedents of the United States in dealing with the evolution of territories to permanent forms of full self-government. Perhaps most importantly, the legislation incorporates the principles of self-determination for the United States and Puerto Rico, as both the Congress and the people of Puerto Rico must approve of each stage in order for the political status process to advance.
In 1998, we will observe the 100th anniversary of the United States administration of Puerto Rico. During this century, the residents of Puerto Rico and the United States have enjoyed the benefits of U.S. sovereignty and nationality in Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory, including increasing levels of self-government and statutory U.S. citizenship since 1917.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, the time has come to complete the self-determination process so that a recognized form of full self-government can be established for the islands. The degree of local constitutional self-government established under Federal law in 1952 has allowed the Federal-territorial relationship to evolve, but it can't be sustained forever in the absence of an informed act of self-determination in which the options are defined accurately.
Currently, Puerto Rico remains in political, but not permanent, union with the United States and is governed under the territorial clause authority of Congress defined in article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Surely after a hundred years of U.S. sovereignty Congress also has the responsibility under the territorial clause to define the terms under which it would be willing to bring the 3.8 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico into the more perfect State of the Union enjoyed by the citizens of territories which have achieved statehood such as Alaska and Hawaii.
Similarly, Congress has a responsibility to define the basis upon which it would approve termination of Puerto Rico's territorial status in favor of separate nationhood as an independent country or a separate sovereign in free association with the United States. Only when these options for full self-government—as Congress is willing to consider them—have been accurately defined can the people make an informed choice.
The current process and status definitions embodied in the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act is a result of the record established in the last Congress through hearings in Washington, D.C. on October 17, 1995, and in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on March 23, 1996, as well as the deliberative process of subcommittee and Committee actions during the balance of 1996. These cumulative efforts resulted in the legislation being placed on the Union Calendar at the end of the 104th Congress and the introduction of an updated U.S.-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 4281, which served as the basis for and with text identical to the that of the current H.R. 856.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The year of 1997 is the year to act, to empower the people of Puerto Rico in 1998 to choose their final political status destiny. No more excuses and delays to the resolution of Puerto Rico's political status. Puerto Rico has demonstrated the ability to function democratically under local constitutional self-government for 45 years. Even more significantly, the people of Puerto Rico have overwhelmingly and loyally supported this Nation in every armed conflict with enormous personal sacrifice for nearly a century. They have earned the right many times over to seek separate nationality and citizenship or full and guaranteed U.S. citizenship as a permanent part of the United States.
Now we have a moral obligation to deliver, finally, to the Americans of Puerto Rico the blessings of liberty and democracy which General Miles proclaimed to have brought upon arrival of the United States in Puerto Rico in 1898. This can be accomplished through a federally authorized status referendum in 1998 as provided in the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 856.
I am very proud to be the cosponsor of this legislation along with Mr. Miller.
I yield to him for an opening statement.
[The statement of Mr. Young follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is a pleasure to welcome the witnesses here today as the Committee on Resources considers H.R.856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Today we begin an important part of the congressional consideration of legislation to resolve Puerto Rico's political status by hearing from some of our colleagues in the House, the Governor of Puerto Rico, leaders of the three political parties of Puerto Rico, and the Clinton Administration.
Last month, the top leaders of the Puerto Rico Legislature presented copies of House Concurrent Resoultion 2, asking the Congress to authorize a political status referendum in Puerto Rico to be held before the end of 1998. This legislation responds to the legislature's request by providing the necessary framework leading to full self-government for Puerto Rico.
I thank the witnesses from Puerto Rico for traveling to Washington to personally present their views on the legislation to the Committee. Your views today, and others later in Puerto Rico, are a crucial part of the development of final legislation to resolve Puerto Rico's political status.
Next month the Committee will go to San Juan and Mayaguez to hear from other leaders of the people of Puerto Rico.
As we will start today's hearing with a Members panel, whose comments I know will be very helpful to the Committee, I want to mention that the Committee has received a statement regarding this legislation and Puerto Rico's political status from a former Member of this Committee, Robert J. ''Bob'' Lagomarsino. Mr. Lagomarsino served on this Committee as Ranking Republican on territorial issues for a decade, dealt with insular issues for almost 20 years, and was intimately involved with Puerto Rico's political status. In reviewing Mr. Lagomarsino's statement, one should remember that he introduced legislation in 1988 authorizing a referendum on Puerto Rico political status, and was heavily criticized by some for raising what many considered to be a very difficult issue that should be left alone. The only hearing on Lagomarsino's Puerto Rico political status referendum legislation in the 100th Congress, was a forum in the Capitol sponsored by Senator Strom Thurmond and former Senator Spark Matsunaga.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, Bob Lagomarsino's foresight and leadership regarding Puerto Rico's political status was affirmed the next year in 1989, when President Bush asked the Congress, in his first State-of-the-Union address, to authorize a referendum on Puerto Rico's political status. In addition, a number of the same voices who criticized Lagomarsino's 1988 call for a referendum on Puerto Rico's political status, began in early 1989 to urge the Congress to pass a bill for a federally authorized status referendum.
However, no Puerto Rico status legislation was enacted into law during President Bush's term in office. That was in spite of tremendous efforts by individuals like Bob Lagomarsino, who of course was in the Minority at the time, and many others on both sides of the aisle and the Capitol.
The 1989 to 1991 legislative initiatives of the House and Senate to resolve Puerto Rico's political status were unsuccessful, primarily because they did too little or required too much.
In contrast, I believe the three stage process in the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, provides a manageable and practical approach to resolving Puerto Rico's political status.
Budgetary, legal, political concerns are dealt with as necessary in the appropriate stages of the process and are consistent with past precedents of the United States in dealing with the evolution of territories to permanent forms of full self-government. Perhaps most importantly, the legislation incorporates the principles of self-determination for the United States and Puerto Rico, as both the Congress and the people of Puerto Rico must approve of each stage in order for the political status process to advance.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1998 we will observe the 100th anniversary of United States administration of Puerto Rico. During this century, the residents of Puerto Rico and the United States have enjoyed the benefits of U.S. sovereignty and nationality in Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory, including increasing levels of self-government and statutory U.S. citizenship since 1917.
However, the time has come to complete the self-determination process so that a recognized form of full self-government can be established for the islands. The degree of local constitutional self-government established under federal law in 1952 has allowed the federal-territorial relationship to evolve, but it can't be sustained forever in the absence of an informed act of self-determination in which the options for full self-government are defined accurately.
Currently Puerto Rico remains in political, but not permanent, union with the U.S. and is governed under the territorial clause authority of Congress defined in article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Surely after 100 years of U.S. sovereignty Congress also has the responsibility under the territorial clause to define the terms under which it would be willing to bring the 3.8 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico into the more perfect state of union enjoyed by the citizens of territories which have achieved statehood.
Similarly, Congress has a responsibility to define the basis upon which it would approve termination of Puerto Rico's territorial status in favor of separate nationhood as an independent country or a separate sovereign in free association with the United States. Only when these options for full self-government—as Congress is willing to consider them—have been accurately defined can the people make an informed choice.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The current process and status definitions embodied in the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act is a result of the record established during the last Congress through hearings in Washington, DC, on October 17, 1995, and in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on March 23, 1996, as well as the deliberative process of subcommittee and committee actions during the balance of 1996. These cumulative efforts resulted in the legislation being placed on the Union Calendar at the end of the 104th Congress and the introduction of an updated United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 4281, which served as the basis for and with text identical to that of the current H.R. 856.
The year of 1997 is the time to act, to empower the people of Puerto Rico in 1998 to choose their final political status destiny. No more excuses and delays to the resolution of Puerto Rico's political status. Puerto Rico has demonstrated the ability to function democratically under local constitutional self-government for 45 years. Even more significantly, the people of Puerto Rico have overwhelmingly and loyally supported this Nation in every armed conflict with enormous personal sacrifice for nearly a century. They have earned the right many times over to seek separate nationality and citizenship or full and guaranteed U.S. citizenship as a permanent part of the United States.
Now, we have a moral obligation to deliver, finally, to the Americans of Puerto Rico, the blessings of liberty and democracy which General Miles proclaimed to have brought upon arrival of the United States in Puerto Rico in 1898. This can be accomplished through a federally authorized status referendum in 1998, as provided in the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 856.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent that my statement be placed in the record, and I will yield to Carlos Romero-Barceló of San Juan for the purpose of an opening statement, and then my understanding is we will go to the questions.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
We are here this morning to receive testimony from the three political parties in Puerto Rico as well as the Administration regarding H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
This issue and its resolution is of great importance not only to the 3.4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico but to All of us as Americans. It tells us that this Congress has a moral obligation to seriously consider all aspects surrounding status. This bill will mandate that a vote be taken in one year's time to decide a political status option for the future. The options in the bill are between the current status of commonwealth, admittance into the union as the 51st state, or an independent nation.
This is not a symbolic exercise. We can not demand a vote by Federal law and then refuse to carry out the wishes of the voters. If you are not willing to offer commonwealth, statehood, or independence, then we must not proceed further with this bill. To the voters of Puerto Rico I pledge that I will do all that I can to make sure that what is written into law will become reality if you so chose and within a reasonable transition period.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As many of you know I was not a cosponsor of similar legislation last year, I am however, a cosponsor of H.R. 856 because important changes have been made. A major concern is that the political parties have the opportunity to submit what they believe to be appropriate definitions for their status option. A request went out from Chairman Young and myself, and I expect to see definitions at the end of the month. These will be given serious consideration and Congress will ultimately determine the definitions.
During the hearing and mark up process, I will address the transition time frame for I believe the ''minimum of 10 years'' now in the bill is far too long. The voters of Puerto Rico deserve to know that we are serious in offering this status plebiscite, and that the transition to a new status, should that be chosen, will occur expeditiously.
I want to commend my colleagues, Chairman Young and Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcello for keeping this important issue before us. I also serve on the Economic and Education Opportunities Committee with Carlos where he has taught me much about the way education programs are extended in Puerto Rico.
I thank all those here this morning and look forward to what I'm sure will be a lively and enlightening debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Puerto Rico is recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, A U.S. RESIDENT COMMISSIONER FROM PUERTO RICO
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. This morning I got up and looked out the window and saw it was snowing; and I commented to my wife, joking, perhaps that this was an omen to have a hearing on the status of Puerto Rico.
I would like to begin my remarks today by commending you, Mr. Chairman, for your initiative in scheduling this hearing of H.R. 856, the United States Puerto Rico Political Status Act, and for your commitment to the force of government in ending the disenfranchisement of the 3.8 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico.
I want to thank our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Miller, for his efforts to have the opportunity to decide freely, without ambiguity and decisively what the island's political relationship with the 50 States should be. The leadership on this issue has been instrumental in allowing us to reach the point where we are today.
Last, but not least, I want to publicly thank the 80 Members from Congress on both sides of the aisle who cosponsored this legislation. Their support is certainly appreciated and needed.
Mr. Chairman and fellow Members, it was almost 100 years ago that in 1898 Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States at the end of the Spanish-American war. In 1917, Puerto Ricans became U.S. citizens, a citizenship we have cherished and valued ever since and a citizenship that we have defended with our lives and with our blood.
Then, in 1952, the island adopted a local Constitution and gave us a name of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a purely cosmetic change that did not in any way affect the island's status as an unincorporated territory of the United States, subject to the authority and powers of Congress under the territorial clause of the Constitution. In international terms, Puerto Rico remained a colony.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many of the advocates for commonwealth have testified in the congressional hearing on March 4, 1950, that the proposed changes to the island's status, quote, ''did not change the fundamental conditions of Puerto Rico's nonincorporation and only permitted Puerto Rico to develop its own self-government.''
Since that moment, a former Chief Judge of the Supreme Court and member of the Puerto Rico Constitutional Assembly and one of the legal architects of the Commonwealth commented, even after 1952, Puerto Rico clearly continued suffering colonial status; and he said Puerto Ricans have the distinction of having the longest history of colonialism in the whole world. What a sad distinction to be commended.
There is a famous Chinese saying that a journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. But to reach the destination a traveler must be headed in the right direction.
H.R. 856 is not only the most important step we have taken in this journey to resolve the disenfranchisement of the citizens of Puerto Rico, it is also the first measure affecting self-determination to come before the House since the Alaska and Hawaii admission acts of the 1950's.
I have devoted most of my adult life to leading my people in this long journey. As former Mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico's capital city, Governor and now Member of Congress, I have heard my people's voices and shared their dreams and aspirations. These voices resonate loudly in the island, although to most Americans living in the continental United States they might seem as distant echoes, reflecting the deep unease and disenchantment with the current relationship that would deny them equal treatment in Federal education programs that they desperately need to succeed in today's competitive world.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Young couples ask me why they have to move to the States in order to search for opportunities that are not available in Puerto Rico.
Veterans who have fought in all of the Nation's wars in this century ask me why they cannot vote for the President that, as commander-in-chief, may tomorrow also send sons and daughters to fight and die. The elderly ask about support programs that are less than if they resided in New York, Illinois, California, Florida, or any State of the Union.
I have heard a mother ask why her son died in Vietnam and gave his life for a country that denies her and her grandchildren the right to participate on equal terms.
The answer to these questions is clear. We are unequals because we are not partners. We are unequals because we are submerged in a colonial relationship in which our economic, social and political affairs are controlled to a large degree by a government in which we have no voting influence and in which we do not participate.
We are unequals because we cannot vote for the President of the Nation of which we are citizens and because we do not have a proportional voting representation in the Congress that determines the rules under which we conduct our daily lives and the rules that influence and determine our future.
Mr. Chairman, this great Nation of ours, the example and inspiration of democracy throughout the world, inspiration in the peaceful revolt in Tiananmen Square and the revolt of Poland against Communism, revolt in Russia, the Soviet Union against Communism and other nations of Eastern Europe and throughout the world, cannot continue to uphold a policy that denies political participation and disenfranchises 3.8 million of its own citizens. We cannot continue to hide our heads in the sand like ostriches and pretend nothing is happening. The lives and well-being of 3.8 million U.S. citizens is at stake here. Their dignity and democratic heritage is the issue.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am encouraged by the fact that we have been able to gather so much bipartisan support for this legislation in so little time. As a matter of fact, Senators Bob Graham and Senator Larry Craig will introduce a similar version of this bill later. The initial support in the Senate seems to be growing, to be as strong and bipartisan here in the House.
Mr. Chairman, we are more than halfway through the 1990's, a decade that the United Nations General Assembly declared to be the international decade for the eradication of colonialism. Next year, Puerto Rico will commemorate 100 years as a U.S. colony. Should we celebrate or should we mourn? Will we see a silver lining in the sky by 1998 or will we be seeing more of the same?
The United States cannot seek to promote and at times enforce democracy elsewhere in the world while it relegates 3.8 million of its own citizens to an indefinite second-class status, disenfranchised, discriminated against and unable to exercise the most basic right in a democracy, the right to vote and participate in its government. To ignore the situation in Puerto Rico is to betray the spirit of our democratic values and heritage.
Mr. Chairman, I feel honored with having the opportunity to find myself in the center of this important process. Once again, I want to thank you for your lead and your vision in filing this bill and for holding this hearing. And I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished panel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The statement of Mr. Romero-Barceló follows:]
???
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. Thank you for your eloquent statement.
At this time, I would like to call the first panel up.
For the other members, your statements, by unanimous consent, will be submitted for the record at this time, because I have—in all due respects, I wanted to try to get this thing moving along because of the other members—we may have a vote here after while.
The Honorable Dan Burton, Luis Gutierrez, Bill McCollum, José Serrano, Peter Deutsch, Nydia Velázquez. They all are there? Everybody there but Dan Burton. All right.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. MILLER. I would ask unanimous consent that at the end of their testimony those members of this panel who desire to sit with the Committee be allowed to do so. I know some of them have scheduling conflicts, but some of them expressed a desire to do to.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Luis, I believe we will go right down the line, if we can do that, in the way I called you out. Dan Burton is not here, so we will go with you first.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. You are up.
STATEMENT OF HON. LUIS GUTIERREZ, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Young, Congressman Miller, distinguished colleagues, distinguished witnesses, I wish to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to Chairman Young and the members of the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this hearing today. In a democratic society, we must allow for differences of opinion, even strong differences of opinion, to be truly expressed and freely discussed in search of truth.
As a Member of Congress of Puerto Rican origin, and as a Member of Congress with a large Puerto Rican constituency, I feel it is my duty to participate in the discussion about the future of Puerto Rico and the future relationship of Puerto Rico and the United States. The outcome of these discussions will directly affect the lives of many of my constituents.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I strongly favor for Puerto Rico the status we in this country celebrate every 4th of July, the status that allows us to enjoy the benefits of our Constitution, that allowed us to write and to adopt our own Constitution in the first place, the status we have enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the status of independence, the inalienable right of all people on earth.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also fully respect yet another inalienable right, the right of a people to self-determination. Therefore, I have never sought to impose my views on the people of Puerto Rico.
Mr. Chairman, the time to resolve the colonial situation of Puerto Rico is now. The time for decisive action on this matter is long overdue. This is a situation that should never have arisen.
In 1898 American troops invaded Puerto Rico, a non-combatant in the Spanish-American War. This could have been done in the long-held American anti-colonial tradition, to rid the island of any Spanish military and turn the island over to its rightful owners, the Puerto Rican people. Unfortunately, the United States not only invaded Puerto Rico, it occupied it and annexed it.
In 1917, while saying that this action did not constitute an offer of statehood to Puerto Rico, the U.S. granted U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans. You know only too well the rest of the story.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to ask that the rest of my testimony be submitted for the record. I would just like to make the following points.
Mr. Chairman, I think that as we enter this debate and discussion about a future Puerto Rico and its relationship to the United States we need to ensure that all the different political perspectives and parties and their opinions be offered full and fair consideration—and we need to ensure that we reach consensus, Mr. Chairman, so that no one feels that this process is a process which favors one status or political option over another as it is presented to the people of Puerto Rico.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In that vein, Mr. Chairman, let me make a few suggestions. Number one, Mr. Chairman, I think that if Puerto Rico has a colonial relationship with the United States and you are going to go into a process of decolonization, then we must distinguish between American citizenship, which was offered to the people of Puerto Rico and granted to the people of Puerto Rico, and nationality. Who are the nationals of the island of Puerto Rico? Who are the nationals of Puerto Rico?
Let me suggest that because there is a colonial situation, that we should do everything possible, Mr. Chairman, to insure that all of the nationals, whether they happen to reside on the island of Puerto Rico or whether they reside in the continental United States be offered the opportunity—all Puerto Ricans be offered the opportunity to participate fully, and to vote in any process of plebiscite to solve the colonial status of Puerto Rico. And let me quickly suggest a quick definition of who qualifies as a Puerto Rican national. Those who were born on the island of Puerto Rico and the immediate children of those born on the island of Puerto Rico.
I think later on you will hear testimony that will be supportive of that definition, because we have a continuing migration in Puerto Rico to the island and back. Mr. Chairman, I lived on the island of Puerto Rico when my parents returned in 1969 after living 15 years in the United States. I returned there. I graduated from high school there. I went to college there. I returned there once again, Mr. Chairman, to be married with my wife Soraida 19 years ago.
So I too have been going back and forth and back and forth. Many Puerto Ricans do that, Mr. Chairman, and many of us are interested in being able to participate in deciding the future of Puerto Rico.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, if we leave it as it is today, everybody who goes to Puerto Rico 70 days before the plebiscite could register to vote and participate and then leave the island anytime thereafter. I think we should look for a more expanded franchise, Mr. Chairman, that will allow more of us to participate.
Because of the limitation of time, Mr. Chairman, let me just say the following. I think that Don Luis A. Ferré, who was here, who has fought valiantly and with distinction for statehood for Puerto Rico, should be allowed to see the day when Puerto Rico—when there is a vote before this Congress should the people of Puerto Rico so request statehood, where he can see that day where it is admitted as a State. Let us not wait ten years after such a vote. Justice delayed is justice denied for Luis A. Ferré and for any of the proponents of any of the different options.
Let us offer the people of Puerto Rico not another opinion poll so that we can gauge their sentiment. We think we know what their sentiments are on the different status options, Mr. Chairman, so I respectfully say to you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this Committee let us make the result of the vote self-executing. Let us have respect for the people of Puerto Rico. Let us have respect, Mr. Chairman, for our fine institution, the Congress of the United States. And should statehood win or independence win or free association win, that those things can be executed.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if you would allow 30 additional seconds more, unanimous consent for 30 seconds, I just want to quickly speak about independence, Mr. Chairman.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think that if we are going to be fair and we are going to live in the 21st Century, let us give them, the independentistas from Puerto Rico, an option that is not burdened, Mr. Chairman, an option that they can go and promote among the Puerto Rican people that is not burdened, an option that says, you know, maybe Luis's mom and dad and Nydia's mom and dad in Puerto Rico can still come to the United States of America should there be independence, and maybe they can continue to have their citizenship and their rights and their Social Security and their military benefits, because they fought for them, Mr. Chairman, and they gained them rightfully so, and other kinds of economics so that we can build a cooperation between an independent Puerto Rico and the United States.
I would like to see an independent Puerto Rico, Mr. Chairman, that lives in peace and in harmony and in unity with the United States of America. And we should offer them such an option that they can go to the people of Puerto Rico and raise it among them.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your indulgence. And I submit my complete statement for the record.
[Statement of Hon. Luis Gutierrez may be found at end of hearing.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Luis, very well done. Bill McCollum.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to request unanimous consent that my statement be submitted for the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL McCOLLUM, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Mr. MCCOLLUM. I have to follow a very eloquent statement by a native of—at least a person who has a generation going back to Puerto Rico and has the immediate blood connection that I do not have, but I have a great interest in this bill. As you know, I am an original cosponsor.
I have a very large number of constituents in my district. I have perhaps the second largest, something of that nature, number of Puerto Ricans in my Congressional district. And I have spent a lot of time discussing this issue of statehood, independence, and commonwealth with them. I have heard their views. I have been to Puerto Rico. I am going down there again on April 3 to hold a drug hearing because I am Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, and the drug issue is very important to the people of Puerto Rico, as it is to all of us. So I have some views. And I just want to express them briefly.
First of all, I think the idea of making this decision and doing it now as this bill that you produced describes and sets out is very important. It needs to be done. We need to let the people of Puerto Rico speak. It should be their voice. I for one believe that they will choose statehood when they vote, but they may not. It is their choice to at least give us their advice. If they do choose statehood, I think we should grant them that statehood, and I think it should be swift and there should not be a significant question about it. And there shouldn't be any question in their minds when they vote that that is the sentiment that most all of us have in Congress.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now when I say that I personally favor something, I want to make it very clear that this is not my choice. This is the choice of the Puerto Ricans, not Bill McCollum and not those of us who are from Florida or Minnesota or wherever. But there is an advantage to statehood, in my judgment. And let me describe a couple of the reasons why I think statehood would be an advantage to the Puerto Rican people.
First of all, Puerto Rico is today part of the United States. The Puerto Rican culture is part of what is uniquely American. And I think it is understood innately by most of us, if not specifically. Yet without statehood, something is missing. Every school child in America is taught about the 50 States. Sure there are the territories, but they are never firmly implanted in the mind of a young person as being integral to the whole as when thinking of the United States and each of the States.
I personally want to see the day when every school child learns about 51 States and thinks of Puerto Rico as much a part of the American family as Texas or Minnesota. Puerto Rico, in my judgment, will be stronger for this, and our nation will be stronger.
Again, however, my opinion doesn't matter, and the plebiscite is the opinion of the people of Puerto Rico.
And another area that I think that Puerto Rico would benefit from would be the economic area. I believe there will be an increase in investment and economic growth if Puerto Rico becomes a State.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think that such things as efforts to get support for fighting the war on drugs, which I have been engaged in for a lot of reasons, as well as the governor and the officials of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican people, would be much easier in this Congress and with the Executive Branch of the government.
No longer would some people think Puerto Rico simply is the gateway for drugs to the U.S. mainland. Instead, people would think first, as they should now, of the horrors of the drug scourge on the people of Puerto Rico, equal partners in all we share and all we do as a nation.
So I do have a strong opinion, but it is understood, in my mind, again, this is a judgment that should be made under this bill and would be between commonwealth, independence or statehood by the people of Puerto Rico.
And one thing I want to add in this comment is something I am very strongly opposed to. I am very strongly opposed to any suggestion—and I have heard it made, not by the Chairman, but I have heard it made by other Members of Congress—I am strongly opposed to any suggestions that this bill be amended to include a condition of statehood on Puerto Rico for adopting English as its official language. It is a divisive and a destructive proposal.
English, in my judgment, should be the official language of the United States, but no State, be that New York or California or Florida or Puerto Rico, should be singled out and told it must adopt English as its official language. When and if Puerto Rico become a State, if and when English becomes the official language of the United States, it will apply to all 51 States, to Puerto Rico just as well as everybody else.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe the rights of the Puerto Ricans should be respected, the sovereign rights, just as we respect the sovereign rights of the other States of the Union and our territories.
So those are my thoughts to you today, Mr. Chairman. I support the bill in its present form. I am sure it could be modified and improved in some ways, but let's get on with it. It is time for the people of Puerto Rico to get a chance to voice—one more time. And I believe this is a critical time and I believe that they will voice it in favor of statehood. And when they do, it is time to bring it back here and take that vote in this Congress that will ratify that and make Puerto Rico the 51st State.
[Statement of Hon. Bill McCollum follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL MCCOLLUM, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to give a statement as part of your hearings on H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Chairman Young, I appreciate your efforts on behalf of this legislation and I am proud to be an original cosponsor. It is certainly my hope to see progress made on this legislation in the 105th Congress.
I have a natural interest in Puerto Rico as there is a significant Puerto Rican community in my district. However, I have also had the opportunity to visit Puerto Rico in my capacity as the Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee on drug interdiction matters. I will actually be returning to Puerto Rico in about a month for hearings with the Crime Subcommittee. Meeting people both in my district and in Puerto Rico has given me the opportunity to hear many points of view on the issue of Puerto Rican statehood. Although there is a range of views, it is clear that we should allow the people of Puerto Rico to decide their fate.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we know, H.R. 856 would require a plebiscite in Puerto Rico where the people of Puerto Rico would have the ability to decide the future of their beautiful island. The choices would include Puerto Rican independence, U.S. statehood or maintaining the status quo of commonwealth government under the authority of the U.S. Congress. A clear majority, as opposed to only a plurality, would be needed for definitive action. If statehood or independence were chosen, Congress would then have to affirmatively enact legislation in order to pursue the option. If commonwealth status receives a majority, or if no majority is achieved, then the plebiscite is revisited four years later.
Mr. Chairman, under a plebiscite conducted pursuant to this bill, I am convinced the people of Puerto Rico would choose statehood. Puerto Rico is part of the United States. For years the rich Puerto Rican culture has been part of what is uniquely American. Yet, without statehood, something is missing. Every school child in America is taught about the 50 states. Sure, there are territories, but they are never as firmly implanted in the mind as being integral to the whole when thinking of the United States. I want to see the day when every school child learns about 51 states and thinks Puerto Rico is as much a part of the American family as Texas or Minnesota. Puerto Rico will be stronger for this. Our nation will be stronger. However, my opinion would not matter in the plebiscite and I believe the people of Puerto Rico need the option to choose.
The commonwealth status was never intended to be a permanent status. I realize that some will try to claim otherwise, but I respectfully disagree. Furthermore, we must remain flexible in improving upon the status quo. If a majority of Puerto Ricans want statehood, then we should facilitate that.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Certainly there is the possibility that the voters of Puerto Rico will choose to keep the commonwealth status. That is fine, and there will be chances in the future to change this decision, but the relationship between Puerto Rico and the U.S. has been changing of late. It is time to reassess the wants and needs of the island, even if it is still the desire to remain a commonwealth.
Assuming that statehood is the path chosen, I believe that Puerto Rico would enjoy increased investment and economic growth as investors would be assured of economic and political stability in the region. Under statehood, Puerto Ricans would be guaranteed all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of U.S. citizens. Furthermore, support for such efforts as fighting the war on drugs would be easier to achieve. No longer would some think of Puerto Rico simply as the gateway for drugs to the U.S. mainland. Instead, people would think first (as they should now) of the horrors the drug scourge is bringing to the people of Puerto Rico—equal partners in all we share and all we do as a nation.
Independence would not bring these gains, but there may be advantages that the people of Puerto Rico would rather have. Regardless, we need to work on this situation to bring resolution to the issue. Past plebiscites have not been especially helpful, mainly because the unconstitutional option of an enhanced commonwealth was offered. This time, a clear choice put to the voters in Puerto Rico should provide a clear result.
One thing I strongly oppose, Mr. Chairman, is any amendment to this bill conditioning statehood on Puerto Rico adopting English as its official language. This is a divisive and destructive proposal. English should be the official language of the United States. But no state, be that New York, California, Florida or Puerto Rico, should be singled out and told it must adopt an official language. If and when Puerto Rico becomes a state, and if and when English becomes the official language of the federal government, it would apply in Puerto Rico, just as it is in the other 50 states. The sovereign rights of Puerto Ricans should be respected in the same manner as all states already admitted into the Union.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for the patience you have had with this legislation. I remember that things got a little difficult with it at the end of the 104th Congress when it looked like movement was possible. I strongly urge you to report H.R. 856 favorably to the full House in the very near future. I will give you my full support in getting it scheduled for House floor action. Again, thank you for holding these hearings.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Bill. I thank you—and again, an excellent job. I see we have been joined by Mr. Burton, and I know he has other things on his mind right now. Mr. Burton, if you would like to go forth, you have got five minutes.
Mr. BURTON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to my colleagues for interrupting these hearings. I will have a more complete statement I would like to submit for the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN BURTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM INDIANA
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing me to testify regarding H.R. 856, The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. As a senior member of the International Relations Committee, I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I have worked with Chairman Don Young and the Subcommittee Chairman Elton Gallegly to help them put together a fair and balanced bill. This bill is based on complete and open dialog with all the affected parties, and is the result of approximately 30 changes, 30 changes, from H.R. 3024, which was introduced in the 104th Congress.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The status quo in Puerto Rico cannot be maintained. The people of Puerto Rico have lived for far too long under a colonial status with second-class citizenship.
This is not a statehood bill for Puerto Rico, as some people seem to believe. It is not a pro-independence bill. It is not a pro-commonwealth bill. This is a balanced bill that allows the Puerto Rican people to exercise their right to self-determination. It lets the people of Puerto Rico make an informed choice about their political future.
We have compromised with all parties concerned by changing from a two-ballot format to a three-ballot format, thereby giving the citizens of Puerto Rico three options, namely statehood, separate sovereignty, and commonwealth, and giving the options equal positioning.
I have concerns with this change, given the inherent legal differences among the three options. The purpose of the previous two-ballot format was to make certain the voters understood that two of the options were for a new and permanent status consistent with full self-determination.
Those two options, statehood and separate sovereignty, would complete the decolonization process consistent with the commitments the United States made to the people of Puerto Rico and the United Nations when local constitutional government was established in 1952.
The option to continue the current commonwealth structure of local government was presented separately on the ballot under H.R. 3024 because it is not a constitutionally guaranteed or permanent status. Therefore I am afraid it could be misleading to the voters to present the less than full self-governing commonwealth option as a co-equal status with the full integration or separate nationhood status.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, Mr. Young listened to the concerns of the political leaders of all parties in Puerto Rico, as well as the concerns of his colleagues in the Congress, and granted the change from a two to a three-ballot format. This example of leadership and show of good faith has not been reciprocated by opponents of this legislation. Disingenuousness, deception and in some cases outright falsehoods continue in their rhetoric and in their deeds.
This is unfortunate, because it only adds confusion to the issue. This confusion has disenfranchised voters and has delayed the process of Puerto Rican self-determination.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to end with the following observation. I have intentionally not publicly advocated for a particular outcome with respect to Puerto Rican status. My strong belief in a free people exercising their right to self-determination remains unwavering. The complexities of the history and uniqueness of the island of Puerto Rico do not change that fundamental belief. The citizens of Puerto Rico should have their day at the ballot box without duress and without any impediment to their ability to act out their own collective will.
Puerto Rican people also have a great responsibility in understanding their options and choosing the option they most agree with. They need to understand that there is no free lunch.
If they choose independence, the United States will deal with them as a partner in peace and a strong ally. If they choose statehood, we will add another star to our flag and welcome them officially as an equal partner into the greatest union known in the history of mankind. But keep in mind that with that benefit comes a great responsibility. If the Puerto Rican people choose to maintain commonwealth status, turning away from self-rule, we as a Congress will maintain the supreme administrative control of the island.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These are the options for the citizens of Puerto Rico to choose from. We as a Congress must facilitate the process in a fair manner. That is exactly what H.R. 856 seeks to accomplish and is why I am a strong supporter and cosponsor of the bill.
Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, for affording me the opportunity to testify today before you and the Resources Committee.
[Statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]
???
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dan. And I appreciate your showing up, even if you are late. I know you have got a lot more responsibilities.
José Serrano, New York.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSÉ SERRANO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK
Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. I want to thank you and commend you for your work on this bill. I want to commend my colleague George Miller, the ranking member of the Committee, for his work and for his support.
The reason I support this bill, Mr. Chairman, is because I believe that this bill brings about what needs to be brought about, a legislative confrontation between Puerto Rico and the Congress of the United States, a legislative confrontation that will allow the people of Puerto Rico to fully understand whether in fact the United States is willing to take them in as a State or whether it wishes to begin a process to let them go as an independent nation.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is interesting to know that since 1898 that question has truly never been asked in Puerto Rico. We were not asked, as Mr. Gutierrez said, whether we wanted to be part of this country. We were simply invaded. And that invasion is the longest running invasion in the world at this moment. It has gone on 99 years.
In 1952, the people in Puerto Rico were asked do you want to become a commonwealth, or do you want to stay the way you are. I was seven years old and I could have answered that question. That was an easy one then. The question now is: in today's world, does the United States want to continue to ask that question, or do our Congress and our government want in fact to say to Puerto Rico what they are saying to the world? Do we really have the ability to continue to preach political changes and changes in government and in systems and in approaches in the world if we will not allow the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to talk about their future?
Now, I have been criticized for being very clear, I think, on what I think the future should be. The future should be a change from the present. The present status, to me, is unacceptable. The present status perhaps at one time served a purpose, an economic purpose, a political purpose. At one time it was the only game in town.
The world has changed and this Congress has changed, and that is, perhaps, why you are sponsoring this bill, because this Congress has changed in some ways over times.
I believe that Puerto Rico is a colony. I didn't arrive at the usage of that word lightly. I wasn't raised in a family of ''populares'', people who believed in Luis Muñoz Marín, but then there are people sitting behind me who are ''independentistas'' who come from families of statehooders. And there are people who are ''estadolibristas'' who come from families of ''independentistas''. And so it is our situation in Puerto Rico and throughout this nation.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe Puerto Rico is a colony for a very simple reason that I always attribute to my relationship with my own family. I have cousins in Mayaguez and in Bayamon who cannot vote for a Member of Congress, who cannot vote for a President, who have nothing to say about the way this country treats them. On the other hand, they can't a establish relationship with Columbia or Cuba tomorrow morning or refuse to go to war or trade with Mexico on their own. They can't invite the Japanese in to do anything that they might want to do because we don't allow it.
Therefore, if they are not free to be a sovereign nation and they are not equal as a State, there is only one thing left to be, and that is a colony. We may deny it. It is good politics for us to deny it, but that is the truth. That is the case.
Now if we take the 1993 results, which we will hear a lot about here today, and say there was a vote in '93 that was for commonwealth, well, let me say two things. First of all, no option got a majority, and the options were independence, statehood or a different, enhanced form of the current commonwealth status. Well, on the island I could have voted for either of the three, because it was a change from the present. My point is that everyone who participated in the '93 plebescite in Puerto Rico voted for a change. No one voted for the status quo. So I feel that it would be a problem for us, although we may do it, to present to the people of Puerto Rico the status quo, because I think the status quo is colonial in nature and therefore improper for us to present.
Some may think this is too extreme, but when Lincoln was trying to deal with the issue of emancipation, I don't think slavery was an option on the table. Either doing nothing or emancipating, but not reaffirming the present situation at that time. I don't think this Congress should reaffirm the present status in any way, shape, or form. And I believe that the people who support the present status with changes, should present before this Congress a separate status which would include the changes, but not the present status with changes, because the present status is what it is.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also want to commend the authors of this bill, because if and when this bill passes, you will have accomplished something that many of us have wanted to see for years. You will have stated in legal terms Puerto Rico's relationship to the U.S. And that is a major victory for all of us who have felt that the present status in fact, is colonial in nature.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I come before you today in the hope that we can in fact pass this bill, that we can have this vote on the island, that as we mark 100 years since the invasion we get the results from that vote and Congress speaks.
I realize that the independence people are very courageous. They are only have four percent, five, six percent of the vote. They will bet that statehood will never be an acceptable option for this Congress and they are willing to go to the mat on this one.
The statehooders are very courageous, too, because they will take all the heat, all the accusations about what statehood will mean to the culture and the language on the island.
I hope everybody else becomes courageous and understands that a change is necessary.
Let me end with this point. Many of you, if not all of you, know that I am a very outspoken critic of our policy in Latin America, especially toward Cuba. I believe that our country no longer has any moral grounds to demand elections in any country as long as it won't allow a simple election like a plebiscite in Puerto Rico. We may not have the moral grounds any longer to demand political changes anywhere if we continue to hold a colony in the Caribbean in 1997.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I was born on the island. I came to the U.S. because of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States, which the created economic situation which sent many of us away from home. That is why since 1990 I have said that those who were born on the island and those who are children of people born on the island should be allowed to vote on this. Not for governor, not for mayor, not for sheriff or any other position they may create in the future, but to determine the future of the country. And if not, at the minimum respect that migration by not allowing anyone who was not born on the island of Puerto Rican parents to vote in the plebiscite.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Hon. José Serrano follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSE E. SERRANO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee and fellow Puerto Ricans who will later address this Committee:
I want to commend Chairman Don Young, and Ranking Member George Miller and all the members of this Committee for the bipartisan effort to develop and consider this important legislation. Today is a hopeful day in the history of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. Today we once again begin in this House the formal proceedings to establish a process leading to full self-government for Puerto Rico.
Thank you for considering an issue that is of critical importance. As one of the original cosponsors of this bill, I come before you today to speak in support of legislation that is very important to me both as a Puerto Rican, and as a citizen of this Nation. This Act provides to the Puerto Rican people a right that we as Americans cherish dearly and seek to share with peoples around the word—the fundamental right of self-determination.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ever since Puerto Rico became a part of the United States after the Spanish-American War in 1898, the Puerto Rican people have had a dual identity—they are an island nationality in the Caribbean, and a component of the American nation. Although we have been in this relationship for 99 years, the fact remains that Puerto Ricans did not choose to become part of the United States. For better or worse, the incorporation of Puerto Rico in the United States was unilaterally imposed.
The people of Puerto Rico are citizens of this Nation by birth, and have fought and died in all the American wars of this century, from World War I to Operation Desert Storm. If these brave young men and women are important enough to serve our national interest, they surely are important enough to demand and receive the respect of this Congress in their pursuit of political self-determination.
Out of self-respect, and out of respect for our cherished democratic principles, we must recognize the right of the people of Puerto Rico for self-determination. Otherwise, the basic tenets of our Nation have lost all real meaning.
Today Puerto Rico is a colony. This means that we accord to Puerto Rico a citizenship with fewer attributes than that of other Americans. In addition, a colonial status lacks the ability to deal freely with other nations and to exercise full sovereignty. A quick study of this makes it clear that the Puerto Rican people are second class citizens. If I were to move tomorrow to the island, I would lose my right to vote in the election of the President of the United States, two U.S. senators and a voting Member of Congress. On the other hand, the government of Puerto Rico has no autonomy on international trade and immigration laws, and cannot refuse to go to war in the event the United States declares it. In other words, we are neither a full partner in the American nation, or an independent sovereign state. So, there is no doubt in my mind that Puerto Rico is a colony, even though some confusion exists, internationally and in Puerto Rico, about the official relationship of the United States with Puerto Rico.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since 1898 the Puerto Rican people have had three opportunities to express their opinion as to what sort of relationship should exist between Puerto Rico and the United States.
In 1952 the people of Puerto Rico were invited either to enter into a Commonwealth relationship with the United States or to retain their then current status. In this instance, the Puerto Rican people ''chose'' what was offered to them. Independence and statehood were not options.
In 1967 a plebiscite was held in Puerto Rico on three political status alternatives: independence, statehood and a continuation of commonwealth status. Unfortunately, the plebiscite legislation was considered unfair by a substantial percentage of the electorate. After a contentious plebiscite marred by a substantial boycott on the part of proponents of independence and statehood, the Commonwealth option prevailed.
In 1993, the Government of Puerto Rico conducted a plebiscite initiated under local law on Puerto Rico's political status. In it, none of the three status propositions received a majority of the votes cast. However, results showed that almost everyone wanted to change the existing status.
The final tally of the plebiscite results reveals that out of nearly two million registered voters, 1.7 million, (73.5%) of them participated. The results were 826,326 votes for a commonwealth (48.6%), 788,296 for statehood (46.3%), and 75,620 for independence (4.4%).
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unfortunately and shamefully, up to now we have not abided by the right to self determination for the People of Puerto Rico. Although we have deplored colonialism and paternalism by other nations, we continue to practice it ourselves in our treatment of Puerto Rico. I can only hope that with this legislation we will finally end colonialism in Puerto Rico.
The Puerto Rican people are anxious for this opportunity to freely, fairly and collectively determine the political status of their island. And if I may say so, Mr. Chairman, there could not be a more appropriate time for this vital democratic exercise of self-determination than right now, going into the millennium.
Section 4, paragraph (a) of this bill, the ''United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act,'' provides, and I quote, ''A referendum on Puerto Rico's political status shall be held not later than December31, 1998.''
This commitment is good not only for the people of Puerto Rico, but for the credibility of American democracy in this era of stunning changes. As we in the United States strive to encourage and foster these developments around the world, it is essential that we hold true to our principles at home and provide the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to exercise full self determination and decide, a final political status of our island.
I would like to express my deep satisfaction with the fact that we are holding this hearing today. I believe that there is, in sum, one great Puerto Rican community. It encompasses those who reside on the island, and those who live in the United States. I also believe that there is no question about the effect our status has on those Puerto Ricans who reside on the fifty states, in terms of their own well being, as well as in terms of their future prospects for a return to the island. Moreover, the influence Puerto Ricans in the fifty states can wield, no doubt, will be an important factor in moving the plebiscite process forward in Congress.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Therefore, in due time I will propose an amendment to H.R. 856 that will make any person that was born in Puerto Rico and is not residing on the island of Puerto Rico, eligible to vote in the 1998 referendum.
As you all know, since I was elected to Congress in March of 1990, I have been advocating for this nonresident vote because I am convinced that the right of a people to determine its political status is so fundamental that Congress needs to give all Puerto Ricans the opportunity to voice their opinions on the issue. Just because a Puerto Rican leaves his or her homeland to go to the U.S. mainland for economic or educational reasons should not disqualify them to vote in the referendum. While former Puerto Rican residents, in general, are not allowed to vote in local elections, the issue of self-determination is a unique and important franchise that warrants broader voter eligibility. Unlike general elections which are purely related to local issues, a plebiscite to determine the final political status of a country will undoubtedly affect both Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico and those living on the U.S. mainland.
It is my hope that we can settle this issue as soon as possible because it would be a shame for this country to continue Puerto Rico's colonial status. This bill will afford all Puerto Ricans an effective, viable process of self determination. As a Puerto Rican, I say, ''Let us decide this issue once and for all,'' and as an American Congressman I can say, ''Shame on us that we still have a colony in 1997.'' And, so, let me say that it is in the interest of the United States to settle this issue, settle it clearly and leave no question unanswered as to the self-determination rights of Puerto Rico, with the participation of those of us that reside outside of the island.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This issue is one that touches the heart as well as the mind of every Puerto Rican, whether they are on the island or somewhere in the 50 states. In Spain, Mexico, the Armed Forces, etc. they seek information and they are watching closely the decisions we make. It is clear to me that all of us, regardless of where we live and where we stand in terms of the final outcome, feel that the time has come for true self-determination. We are politically mature. Ninety-nine years as an American colony and 400 years as a Spanish colony are more than enough.
My friends we have no credibility in the world if we fail to practice what we preach, if we continue to bear the shame of denying a people the basic human right of political self determination.
I applaud you all here today because you are taking the issue of the status of Puerto Rico seriously, so the 3.8 million American citizens in Puerto Rico and over 2.7 million Puerto Ricans on the mainland can fulfill their right to self-determination. I earnestly encourage you to forcefully seek passage of this bill so the colonial status of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico can end, and so we may honor their choice of a future, within this Nation or among the nations of the world.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I am in awe. We have had an excellent panel here.
Peter, you are up next.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEUTSCH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also join in praise of you and the ranking member for this legislation. It is, I think, brilliant legislation besides important legislation.
What it does as its premise, I think, is important for everyone both in this country and in Puerto Rico to understand. And the premise is that the present status is not a permanent status. That is the working principle. And I think that is something worth repeating and worth stating, because without this legislation, the illusion of permanent status under commonwealth can continue. I think it is factually not a permanent status. And anyone who holds that position is just wrong. And this legislation by its introduction, hopefully by its passage, has the United States Congress make that statement. And it is no longer a debatable point.
And I will join Congressman Burton's comment that I don't live in Puerto Rico. I wasn't born there. I obviously have a concern over its future for a variety of reasons, including being the Member of Congress on the mainland closest to Puerto Rico. But I think that the acknowledgement that permanent status is only in the options of statehood or independence is significant.
And the way the bill is set up, if commonwealth is voted for, that there will be by definition another plebiscite and another plebiscite and another plebiscite by this legislation until a permanent status solution is determined by the people of Puerto Rico. And, you know, that is, number one, I think, a thing that is significant.
The second thing I think which is significant is really the final—the challenge that you have as a Committee to work out the final language in terms of that plebiscite itself. I think that that issue is clearly a critical issue which I believe this Committee will be able to do. It is not going to be an easy task, but I think it is a task that reasonable people—at the end of the day you are not going to make everyone happy on every part of it.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I think that in watching the election and the plebiscite, the recent plebiscite, I think it is clear that not only was the election, as my colleague Mr. Serrano said, all sides were talking about change, but I think what is clear for someone 1000 miles away looking at commercials or reading some of the print ads is that there was misinformation. There were issues that were presented in terms of definition that just were not accurate. And there are factual premises that need to be stated. Whether people like them or not, they need to be stated.
If Congress is not willing to define independence, for instance, the way Mr. Gutierrez suggested, then that ought to be stated. You know, it is an illusion to present it in a way that it is just not a reality. I mean, it is not—we don't want the debate to be a demagogue debate. We want it to be a factual debate. If Congress is willing to do that, then it ought to be presented as that as an option within the facts presented. But that—forcing ourselves in this process to come up with those languages, I think, is very, very significant as well.
The last thing I would mention, because those of us who have been involved in this legislation know this is what stopped the legislation the last time, which is the issue of language. I think it is an issue that we need to speak about and confront and talk about. Again, for anyone who has followed these issues, it is just not appropriate for the Congress to be dictating to a State what it is—whether that is the capital of the State, whether that is another issue, which in the history of this country has been debated on and off. It is just not appropriate.
And let me also make clear on the language issue, I think that English ought to be taught and in Puerto Rican schools whether or not Puerto Rico is a State, whether Puerto Rico is a State, a commonwealth or independent. I think that the people, the government of Puerto Rico is doing a disservice to the children of Puerto Rico in not making it bilingual. In many ways, the United States government in many parts of this country is doing a disservice to many citizens by not encouraging second languages.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1997 to not acknowledge—and particularly if you have the vantage point of South Florida where South Florida truly is the capital of the Caribbean and South America. I mean, we truly are. It is not a cliche. It is a physical reality in terms of corporate headquarters, in terms of flight paths, in terms of a variety of issues. We see it on a daily basis in our community. And that issue, though, is something that, I think, needs to transcend—I was very happy to hear Mr. McCollum's comments this morning. And I hope that all of his Republican colleagues and all the Chairman's Republican colleagues join him in the efforts to take away that issue as a stumbling block to this legislation.
[Statement of Hon. Peter Deutsch follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEUTSCH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on Resources, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. As a representative from a state with a strong ties to Puerto Rico and a vibrant Puerto Rican community, I am encouraged by the progress you have made on this issue, both in drafting a fair and balanced bill and in educating Members of Congress on the importance of the future status of Puerto Rico.
For too long, Congress has failed to appropriately and acceptably address the future political relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. As a possession of the United States subject to the authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause, Puerto Rico and its future status is our responsibility and should be dealt with promptly. For this reason, it is not sufficient for us to abdicate our federal responsibilities with regards to Puerto Rico, rather we must work to define the options they may pursue.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many of those who are against H.R. 856 argue that the status issue was decided by the plebiscite in 1993. As this Committee is aware, however, the definition of commonwealth appearing on that ballot was both unworkable and unconstitutional. It promised unrealistic benefits for the people of Puerto Rico, nonetheless received just a slim plurality of the vote. Wisely, Congress rejected those results as inconclusive for the purpose of determining future status.
Despite the failures and deficiencies of the 1993 commonwealth definition, there are still individuals who insist that portions of that legislation should be incorporated into the current proposal, H.R. 856. For example, provisions such as the promise of full federal benefits without paying federal taxes and veto power over Congressional decisions would certainly appeal to many of my constituents in South Florida, but we all know that these wishes are impossible to grant. By concocting a ''have it both ways'' hybrid of statehood and separate sovereignty, the individuals opposed to the Young Bill are hoping to expand a status that was never intended to be permanent. Fortunately, the bill before us today distinguishes between the realistic and the unrealistic and provides a real vehicle for finally determining the political status of Puerto Rico.
The appropriate way for the United States to respect the right of self-determination in Puerto Rico is for Congress to clearly and unequivocally define the options for change. To avoid the confusion of 1993, Congress must also confirm the nature of the status quo. The definitions should not include proposals for special benefits or possible agreements which could be reached to enhance any of the basic status options, but rather should prescribe the fundamental legal rights and political elements of each status option. On that basis, the voters will be able to make an informed choice that will be in a format respected on the mainland. I believe H.R. 856 meets these criteria and offers three distinct, realistic paths.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I also want to note that there is propaganda being circulated claiming that Congress is legally constrained from defining the current status in a way that is different from the 1993 ballot definition of commonwealth. The people putting forth these arguments are citing a Federal lower court case they perceive contains some dictum supporting their position. I would refer my colleagues with the opposing viewpoint to page 67 of House Report 104-713, July 26, 1996, which contains commentary from the U.S. Department of Justice repudiating the interpretation of the case being cited by opponents of H.R. 856. As the members here today are aware, the House Report I am referring to was the result of this Committee's exhaustive work on the self-determination issue last year and are positions that hold true today.
Quotations from statements made by U.S. diplomats in the United Nations back in 1953 are being used to support the theory that, as a result of approving the local constitution in 1952, Congress is bound forever by a ''bilateral compact'' that is unalterable without the consent of Puerto Rico. Again, I would refer them to the analysis of U.N. process in 1953 set forth on pages 11 through 23 of House Report 104-713.
The notion that Puerto Rico has somehow been converted from an unincorporated territory to a permanent commonwealth status is erroneous and unconstitutional. In 1953, the U.S. informed the U.N. that the precise nature of the relationship would be subject to ''judicial interpretation'' and that local self-government was limited to ''internal affairs and administration.'' Furthermore, in the case of Harris v. Rosario, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory subject to the plenary authority of Congress under the territorial clause of the Constitution.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by the comprehensive schedule of hearings on this bill both in Washington, D.C. and in Puerto Rico. The importance of listening to all sides in this debate cannot be stressed enough and will serve to produce a far stronger bill in the process.
After nearly 100 years as our colonial possession, it is clear that Puerto Rico must either become a full, responsible and co-equal participant in our Union or become a separate nation. H.R. 856 is the first step in this long process. I urge my colleagues to take the time to consider the impact their attention to this legislation will have on the future of Puerto Rico and to understand their responsibility to resolve this issue now.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other members of the Resources Committee for this opportunity to testify.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Peter. And I can assure that block will be removed. We have our last Member. Nydia, you are up next. Best for last.
STATEMENT OF HON. NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Young, Mr. Miller, distinguished colleagues and distinguished witnesses, thank you for giving me the opportunity to come before this Committee. It is my hope that we will work together in a constructive fashion to finally reach a resolution to Puerto Rico's status question. We should strive to respect the wishes of Puerto Ricans throughout this process. Anything less and we would be dishonoring the memories of so many Puerto Ricans who gave their lives for this country.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Puerto Ricans have put their faith in this government that true self-determination would one day be achieved in a fair and democratic manner. Indeed, my colleagues, almost 100 years after Puerto Rico became part of the United States it is tragic to see the divisiveness this debate has caused. Instead, we should work together to settle our differences and respect the wishes of the people of Puerto Rico.
H.R. 856 was written without fully consulting the Puerto Rican people. Yet, status definitions have historically been written with such participation. The definitions in this legislation were not written in such manner. They are just a few of the many other shortcomings and unanswered questions.
This government has told the people of Puerto Rico and the world that the island enjoys full self-government under the commonwealth. This bill simply does not treat commonwealth status with inherent dignity it deserves and that was duly enacted in 1952. We went to the United Nations and we told the world in 1953 that it was a form of self-government.
One matter that is of utmost concern to all Puerto Ricans is the right, their right, to maintain their language, their language rights. And, yes, I do support the fact that the government of Puerto Rico should have the responsibility of teaching English in the schools and the Federal Government has a responsibility to provide the funding that they need to achieve such a goal. And in light of the deficits that we are facing in this country, I would like to see that there is a commitment from this Congress to provide such funding. Otherwise we are going to say to the people of Puerto Rico, yes, you should learn English, you are part of the United States, and yet we cannot provide the funding you need because we are doing programs that are so vital not only for Puerto Rico but also for the many citizens of this country.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bill mandates a long 10-year process for the people of Puerto Rico to choose their status. Adding to this uncertainty is the fact that there is nothing in this legislation that will actually guarantee statehood if that option prevails. Consider that it took Alaska decades after it voted to become a State to finally be incorporated. The 105th Congress must have a clear proposal on any commitment to resolve Puerto Rico's status issue.
Instead of ensuring that the voices of all Puerto Ricans are heard, this bill is silent on whether stateside Puerto Ricans will participate in any future plebiscite. We must ensure that all those who were born in Puerto Rico and care about the future of their birthplace have the right to vote on such a monumental issue. Anything less would be unfair.
Furthermore, the legislation does not even address the question of the full cost to the United States of Puerto Rico statehood. Nor have we heard an official Administration position on this bill. These fundamental, but essential, issues must be resolved or Congress will be forced to revisit this process again and again.
Not only does this bill lack full consultation, it is also not inclusive. This bill is especially troubling to me because the future of the Puerto Rican people is what is at stake here. Think of the disturbing message we are sending to the world, who look to our country as a bastion of liberty and democracy.
My colleagues, let us make a commitment to provide a dialog that will allow the Puerto Rican people to express themselves. I strongly urge this Committee and the Congress to find solutions that will help resolve the political status issue, but only with the participation of all Puerto Ricans and all political parties from Puerto Rico.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Nydia Velázquez may be found at end of hearing.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Nydia. I will open it up for questions at this time. Anybody? Yes, Mr. Miller.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if I might. Thank you. And I want to thank the panel. I think it was an incredible presentation. I would like—if I might ask you to expand on two points. José, if you would expand on the issue about participation by people residing in the United States in the election. And, Nydia and Luis, you both raised the issue of—actually, Luis, I think, raised it more. Nydia was also on the voting, but on the issue of if independence is chosen, the issue of access, where that would be, how that plays out in the consideration of this legislation. If you might briefly expand on that.
Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Miller. First of all, as I said before, I believe that the bulk of the migration from Puerto Rico, certainly in the '20's, '30's, '40's, '50's and '60's and '70's, was a direct result of the relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. For a long time the United States Government and Congress paid very little attention to Puerto Rico's economic problems.
I don't recall my parents coming to New York in the late '40's and denouncing Puerto Rico or its politicians. On the contrary, the first thing all Puerto Ricans did was to set up a hometown organization to start a parade, to start a festival, to keep those links and those ties going.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since I believe that our migration was a direct result of that relationship, then when that relationship is resolved forever—and I believe that eventually it will be resolved forever—it will be either independence or statehood. That is what I believe, it should either be independence or statehood. But then all the children of the colony, if you will, should be allowed to participate. And to me all the children are those who were born there or those who were born of parents born there.
Let me just say this very quickly. Look at the situation you have. You have people who came to Puerto Rico from other countries and established a relationship with the U.S. Government called citizenship through application for citizenship, not citizenship from the island of Puerto Rico, not an agreement with the people of Puerto Rico but with the United States. Yet under our legislation, because of our election laws, they will be allowed to vote on the future of Puerto Rico while people who were born there and their children would not be allowed to vote.
I repeat, I will never ask to vote for governor of Puerto Rico while I reside in New York. That is improper. I will never ask for any other kind of vote. But this vote is different. This vote belongs to a people and this vote may finally come about after imposition by the United States of a colonial status for a long time.
Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Luis.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, let me just first say that in 1917 we passed the Jones Act, which conferred upon the people of Puerto Rico, to put it in those terms, American citizenship without their consultation. Indeed, José de Diego responded to the Congress of the United States through the only elected mechanism that was on the island by saying thank you. But no thank you, the only other citizenship that I want other than Puerto Rican citizenship is the one I get after I have lived, which is the entrance into heaven, so that is the only other citizenship I ever want. So I think that we need to understand that in terms of how it is we participate in this process.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I would like to echo the sentiments of my friend José from New York to allow a greater expansion of this franchise, to allow those Puerto Ricans in the United States to participate, because, Mr. Miller, I read and I believe that Mr. Young believes that he sais so in his opening statement—that in 1898 when the United States invaded Puerto Rico as part of the Spanish-American War, that somehow Puerto Rico lost its nationality, that somehow Puerto Rico lost its sense of nation because we were adopted by the United States of America.
I would suggest that Puerto Rico is a Latin American country, has continued to be a Spanish-speaking, Latin American country that happens to have American citizenship. So the nationality is Puerto Rican. The citizenship is of the United States, which we all share, so therefore all Puerto Ricans should all be able to participate.
Let me quickly answer your second question. I think, Mr. Miller, that knowing the way this works obviously if you are a statehooder in Puerto Rico, you can say that your status or your position guarantees Social Security and medicare and expansion of the franchises, lots of goodies and lots of good things and a lot of the things that the Puerto Rican people have fought for and worked and sacrificed for.
Can't we just be a little fair in terms of our relationship with Puerto Rico by saying under independence those American citizens that are part of the Nation of Puerto Rico will continue to receive those benefits they have earned? We have to say that clearly and unequivocally so that if an argument is raised in Congress that to continue granting these benefits to Puerto Ricans is too expensive, that we say, look, you know, there's been American bases in Puerto Rico for which we paid nothing for all these years.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Puerto Rico's economy, as José stated earlier, has suffered because we haven't been able to enter into international trade with other countries because our economy is somehow false and fictitious because it is a colonial situation. Here is what we are going to do, but we want to enter into a new partnership so that we can structure it in such a way that it is real, Mr. Miller, not false, that it is real and a partnership so that we can say to the rest of Latin America when Puerto Rico, which I am sure it will, achieves its full independence one day; ''look at the jewel of the democracy and the relationship we have crafted with Puerto Rico after 100 or so years of a colonial situation.'' That would be our jewel and our way of presenting to Latin America our new relationship with Puerto Rico.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A witness who will speak shortly says that one crucial question regarding statehood for Puerto Rico is—comes about—the way he puts it, he says would statehood be a realistic option so long as Puerto Rico's per capita income remains as it has for the past 50 years, one-third of the United States and one-half of that of your poorest State, considering the repercussions of that reality on the Federal treasury. That is a statement from Senator Ruben Berríos-Martinez, President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party.
What—that does raise a question, I think, we should look at that at some point. What would be the impact on the Federal treasury? Can any of you help me in that regard?
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me just—quickly, the GAO released a study, and I am sure we are going to debate it and discuss it quite a bit. It said statehood would cost the Federal treasury $3 billion, but let me just quickly add——
Mr. DUNCAN. $3 billion?
Mr. SERRANO. $3 billion a year.
Mr. DUNCAN. Over?
Mr. SERRANO. A year. Because of increased Medicaid and Medicare. But let me make two quick points. I think that Congress is going to have to consider this as it balances the budget at the same time. It is looking at a new entry, a full participant in the Nation. So we are definitely going to have to do that. That is the situation that we are going to have to fall on statehood, but we should tell the people of Puerto Rico.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. But let me just quickly add that, Congressman, if the Congress of the United States enacts the bill and our plebiscite occurs thereafter and statehood would win that plebiscite under the rules, as a Member of Congress from a Congressional district which is the poorest in the State of Illinois and one of the poorest in the nation, if you are willing to go back to your district and tell the people of your district that we need self-determination, we need to respect that position, I will tell you one thing. I will go back to the poorest people in my district and say the $3 billion is just something that we are going to have to pay as a Nation.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DUNCAN. Nydia.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. I would like to also react to that, because I think it is important when I mention that the cost of statehood has not been clearly stated throughout this legislation because once we are committed as the United States Congress to recognize the rights of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination, and if in fact the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood, I want to see a commitment from this institution that we will respect that will expressed freely by the people of Puerto Rico, so that we don't come back here and then in the debate, during the debate process we are discussing here how much it is going to cost, statehood is going to cost to the United States treasury. And then there might be some of us who supported the process of self-determination for the Puerto Rican people, but when we find out how much it is going to cost and when we have to determine whether or not we will support it—because here we are balancing the budget and dealing with the deficit of this Nation and then you have to say well, in order to achieve this we might have to cut certain vital programs in our own districts.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MCCOLLUM. If I could respond just very quickly that I think that there are two issues. One is I assume you are going to have economists who are going to say the exact opposite, that the economy of Puerto Rico is really—that there is a weight on it right now in commonwealth status. The uncertainty of commonwealth status is really a hindrance to capital formation. I mean, if you have been to Puerto Rico, you can just literally see with your eyes the economic potential that exists in that country, in that island at this point at time, incredible.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I would also point that you can find economists who are going to disagree on the economic impact to the Federal budget, but I think history tells its lessons well. Florida's income was far less, the percentage points, than Puerto Rico when Florida became a State. And there are examples and examples and examples of territories becoming States where what has happened on a historical basis and that those economies have grown and have ultimately become incredible positive impacts to the treasury.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to make one comment. Be very careful about reporting GAO reports. I have one in my possession, in fact, that shows that we—the treasury gains $50 million a year, because there is a lot of money going down there. Regardless of the cost, there is a justice question here, I think, that has to be addressed. I want to suggest one other thing. I am the last person other than my good friend Neil from Hawaii that went through this process. And if you had looked at the income of Alaska and the people that were employed in Alaska at the time of statehood, we were in dire straits. Now I want to suggest we are in much better shape now than most any other State in the union. We could not have been that unless we were an independent nation. I will tell that. And I could be king instead of Chairman.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. I am going to yield to——
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Mr. Duncan, will you yield, sir? Mr. Duncan, can you state what your—just for your information, because of the hearing. When you asked what would be the cost to the Federal Government for Puerto Rico to become a State, the comment that Mr. McCollum made is partly true. It is true that when we become a State the additional programs that will go to Puerto Rico that are not being paid over now would represent, I think, a little bit more than 3 billion, would represent 3–1/2 billion additional funding, but at the same time we are not paying any Federal income tax. If we pay Federal income taxes fully, we would pay about 4 billion to 4–1/2 billion. So they—it would be a—and that is for everything, for the Federal Government, Puerto Rico becoming a State; so we will be paying in taxes and the corporations will be paying in taxes and what Puerto Rico will be receiving.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, let us see, who is next? I would say the gentleman from Guam because he was here early.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. Just a quick clarification. I was very interested in the determination of the franchise for participation in these plebiscites. And, José, you mentioned that you thought that the franchise—you alluded to it, but it wasn't in your written testimony. What are your sentiments about the franchise in Puerto Rico itself? Who should participate in Puerto Rico?
Mr. SERRANO. Well, obviously in all of my comments I have always said that we should—. Let me back up and say a lot of people have said the reason you can't have a vote outside is because you can't carry out that vote. It is hard to carry it out. But it is hard for me to believe that the most democratic nation on earth cannot conduct an election outside Puerto Rico for people who would be eligible to vote. But those people who live in Puerto Rico now who were born in Puerto Rico would be allowed to vote. There are laws that cover that currently. What I want is, this one time, to have Congress state that we would add something to this bill which would allow people over here to vote.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. So if I moved to Puerto Rico before this, you wouldn't anticipate that I should be part of the franchise?
Mr. SERRANO. Well, I am very honest about this. My statement is very simple, and if it contradicts law, so be it. I don't have a problem with it.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. UNDERWOOD. No, actually I like the idea. I am just trying to get you to say yes.
Mr. SERRANO. No, I don't have a problem with you voting if I am allowed to vote, but I have a serious problem with you voting when you weren't born there if I am not allowed to vote.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. But you are a very special person, so of course we would make special considerations——
The CHAIRMAN. All right, I believe, Patrick, you are next if you have any questions.
Mr. KENNEDY. No.
The CHAIRMAN. No questions. Donna, you are up.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to add my commendation to the Chairman and the ranking member for bringing this bill forward and thank my colleagues for coming today and giving that important testimony. I want to say that I support this process. And my concern here is that the people of Puerto Rico be given a process in which they can freely and fairly vote and realize their hopes and aspirations through this process.
[Statement of Hon. Donna Christian-Green follows:]
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, A U.S. DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mr. Chairman, Ranking member, thank you for this opportunity to give brief opening remarks on H.R. 856, a bill to provide a process leading to full self government for Puerto Rico.
This process is an important one, and one which I am committed to see go forward.
My only concern, and what I see as my duty, as we move forward, is to insure that the people of Puerto Rico have a process in which they will be able to choose freely and fairly the status which most realizes their hopes and aspirations.
In order to have this happen, it is important that each option be presented objectively and be given equal treatment in the bill.
It would be a travesty for the people of Puerto Rico to choose an option based on misunderstanding the issues involved, or on limited or lack of knowledge of how the proposed change would impact their lives.
I take special interest in this process, not only on behalf of the People of Puerto Rico, our neighbors and our friends, but because of the importance of this process to all of the off-shore possessions. Each one of us is or will be traveling the path of redefinition of our relationship to the U.S.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What happens here will set the precedent and the tone for us.
I want to take this opportunity to welcome the witnesses, and to express my confidence that we can work together to make this vehicle of Puerto Rican self-expression one that will truly result in the future that its citizens desire.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. I am not sure if the question was that—my questions was along the lines of Guam. I would like to address it to Congressman Gutierrez. You said that people who had resided in Puerto Rico for 70 days should not really be allowed to participate in this process. Do you have——
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me—thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. The way I read the bill, and Congressman Young is here and I am sure he will correct me quickly.
The CHAIRMAN. Especially when I have got the gavel.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. The way I read the bill is that those who would be allowed to participate in the electoral process, that we would use provisions of the local laws of Puerto Rico. We would not establish our own electoral law in this decolonizing process, that we would just adopt the laws of—the local law in Puerto Rico. And I understand, and I could be mistaken, that if 70 days prior to an election I would—thank you.
The Governor has just—OK, you have to establish residency. The point is that this is a very short period of time that I can arrive on the island of Puerto Rico and I can participate. My point is my mom and dad may be in Chicago. Nydia's mom and dad may be in New York. We don't know—I mean, the franchise of the Puerto Rican people. And my point is this, and I think it is a very important point. As you go through a process, you have to figure out who the nationals are of the Nation that are going through the process of decolonization as it is adopting self-government and self-rule.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So let us just figure out what that definition—for example, Mexico has adopted dual nationality. The government of Mexico has stated that if you were born in Mexico or you are the child, first-generation child, of a person born in Mexico, you are a national. Now you can become and adopt American citizenship, as many Mexican nationals have done, and become citizens of this country, yet Mexico still regards you a Mexican who has been naturalized as an American citizen as their national. So I think we can figure out a way of doing this, and I think that it is very, very important.
I met a young man from Eritrea, and he got to vote, even though he was in Washington, D.C., on the ultimate status resolution of Eritrea, because he was a national of Eritrea. Although he had become a citizen of the United States of America, he was still a national of that country. So that is all I want to determine, who the nationals of Puerto Rico are.
We may expand the franchise. I was fortunate enough to read the comments of the senator from Puerto Rico, Ruben Berríos, where he suggests, you know, maybe some people who have lived there for a while—let us just figure out what the rule is so that we can make it more inclusive.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. And one other question. There are several of us territories that also feel that the history as it is written and studies in schools—I believe that was Congressman McCollum's statement, that the history of all of the territories should be included. Some of us are not yet going through this process. Do you believe that the process in this bill is one that can set a precedent for the rest of us such as the Virgin Islands, American Samoa?
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I think if we adopt this bill, regardless of how I believe, it will set the precedent. And let me just quickly add, because you bring up the question of territory, I think one of the greatest points of consternation, especially for me, is this debate and the struggle that I have of being an independentista on one hand and struggling for independence and knowing that that is the rightful place of the people of Puerto Rico to enter into, and then the issue of self-determination and consultation with the people of Puerto Rico. And the problem that I have there is that it seems to me—and there is a big debate.
If indeed in 1952 we enacted legislation and we went to the United Nations and we said to the United Nations and to their Committee on Decolonization, excuse me, the government of the United States of America has entered into an agreement with the people of Puerto Rico for self-rule, please remove us from having to report before the Committee on Decolonization. And that was a process that was adopted by the Congress of the United States and accepted by the people of Puerto Rico. It seems to me that in the early 1950's the people in Puerto Rico made a decision, and it may be a decision that clearly stated we are a separate, distinct people who want a relationship, an autonomous relationship with the United States.
But the other thing that the United Nations—and sometimes we forget, the United Nations said, you know something, that is really not enough, because we don't really think this whole process has been completely decolonized, so we want you to continue to perfect it. The problem has been that the Congress of the United States has rejected many of the perfections proposed for the autonomy status of Puerto Rico. So I think we should consider that as we evaluate the current situation.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SERRANO. If I may, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Just—she is about out of time, and I am going to suggest one thing.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to hear Congressman Serrano's response to that, because this is——
The CHAIRMAN. I was going to do that, but if you would like to be recognized for that purpose, go ahead, because you said you didn't want to be recognized. Go ahead.
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think this is the point that I want to hear, sort of, resolved through talking it out, because it is hanging over us with Nydia's comment that we haven't recognized fully the commonwealth portion of this debate. And what it means to the people of Puerto Rico to have independence, do they maintain their citizenship, as I believe they should if they were—they are citizens of this country. They will remain citizens. And their rights with respect to their benefits that they have earned and the like. I want to understand that within the context of independence as opposed to maintaining commonwealth status where it seems, according to you, José, that you are still in a period of limbo because this Committee and this Congress is still deciding a lot of the issues with respect to Puerto Rico. So, José——
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SERRANO. Sure, and it ties into the answer to your question in that what this bill does is—and the reason I applaud this bill is—by the time this bill passes Congress and the vote is taken in Puerto Rico, every American who pays attention to these issues will know there is a Puerto Rico, there is a territorial situation, there is an issue to be dealt with. The world will be commenting on it. Some pressure will be coming on us. We will have to work on it. Right now that doesn't exist.
Secondly, I believe that after 100 years of a relationship, if Puerto Rico determines that it wants to be an independent nation, it would not be improper. But it would also be fair, out of this relationship, to say, that everyone who was born up till 12:00 noon on the day of independence is an American citizen forever, till death. That at minimum as a payment for what they did in wartime and in other times throughout the history of——
Mr. KENNEDY. I agree with you. Now how would that be reconciled with Nydia's concern about commonwealth, some aspect? Because I have the feeling that independence while maintaining the rights and benefits earned by citizens of this country during this limbo period is what is also being confused with commonwealth. So what I am trying to understand is we probably have a question instead of sort of splitting the hairs between independence and maintaining rights and commonwealth——
Mr. SERRANO. To me, Mr. Kennedy, it is totally different.
Mr. KENNEDY. OK.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SERRANO. And the way I break it down is the way nobody wants to hear it. If they were independent, they could establish relationships with Cuba tomorrow. They can't right now.
Mr. KENNEDY. OK.
Mr. SERRANO. As a commonwealth, they can't do that. Now citizenship if you expand commonwealth as some people would like, you really create an associated republic. Independence is clear. All I am saying is if independence comes out of the process—I hate to use this paternalistic approach, but when my children leave the house after they get married, they never stop being part of the family. There is always room for them. I always look out for them. If they need some cash, I try to help with that too. So after 100 years being used as a colony, the least you should do is keep your citizenship. You paid for it in Korea, Vietnam and everywhere else.
Mr. KENNEDY. Is this—I am interested—Nydia, would you say that what José is talking about would satisfy your concerns——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. No.
Mr. KENNEDY.—about whether commonwealth is properly recognized in this——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. I would say that in 1952 and in 1950 and '52 and '53 when we went to the United Nations, this government, the United States government, went to the United Nations and stated very clearly that the people of Puerto Rico achieved self-government through a bilateral compact. And all of a sudden we come here and we delete history after we went there. We told the people that government was there, and it has been unfair, the fact that people—44 percent of the people of Puerto Rico in 1993 voted in a plebiscite that wasn't polled by the Popular Democratic Party because they didn't—they weren't in power. They didn't control both houses like the NPP, and this is what happened. They went and they said those 44 percent of the population of the voters, they voted for the commonwealth. Are you going to go and tell them that you don't have any say in the definition of the commonwealth? And this is the way that we comply with the aspirations of 44 percent of the people of Puerto Rico, and this is the way that we will achieve decolonization and full self-government? I don't believe so.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KENNEDY. As to——
The CHAIRMAN. We are going to have a vote in ten minutes, and I have got some Members who would like to ask questions. Governor.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Mr. Chairman, thank you. First of all I would like to—for the matter of the record, I would like to mention a couple of things. There is a discrepancy in Puerto Rico as to what happened in 1898, whether we were invaded or troops were asked to come in. And the vast majority of historians seeem to think, and the people who remember seem to think that the troops were actually—the United States was actually asked to come in, because the people of Puerto Rico, the vast majority, were not happy with their relationship with Spain at that time. So that is a matter of history and the record should be put straight, set straight on these issues.
Then regarding who should vote, you have already seen a little bit of discrepancy between what the panel—Congressman Serrano says and what Congressman Gutierrez says and what Congressman Velázquez says. Congressman Gutierrez will extend to the children of those who were born in Puerto Rico, whereas Congressman Serrano says only those who were born in Puerto Rico. I have to——
Mr. SERRANO. No, that——
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. You assent to the children of those who were born?
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SERRANO. Absolutely.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And would deny people who were not born in Puerto Rico?
Mr. SERRANO. Not if I would get it. They should get it.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. OK, that means virtually that my wife could not vote. My wife has been in Puerto Rico now for 30-some years, has children in Puerto Rico and grandchildren.
Mr. SERRANO. And neither should my wife.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Well, your wife doesn't live in Puerto Rico.
Mr. SERRANO. I am saying, Congressman, that, if we come to the conclusion to include us, we will work it out.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Well, let me—what right does somebody that is not going to live the benefits of dire consequences of the decision, because he is going to live up here in the mainland, have to tell—influence the decision of the people of Puerto Rico who are the ones that are going to be affected by that decision? What right do you have to tell me and others in Puerto Rico that you should do this and you actually participate in the decision when you are going to be outside Puerto Rico and you are not going to be living in Puerto Rico? I think—isn't that the position? Isn't that treating us also like a colony? The Puerto Ricans here now are going to treat us as a colony?
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SERRANO. You want an answer to that, Carlos?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Yes.
Mr. SERRANO. This whole process is an imposition. Luis was correct. If this was about fairness and justice, the United States should get out now, tomorrow morning. But that is not going to happen. The whole process is an imposition. But it is a little imposition in a big imposition to include all of us. It is not a problem, really. It is really not a problem. I think we could work it out.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Let me ask another question. You say that the children can go and those that were born. Those who were born in Puerto Rico should vote even though they are living here. Now supposing somebody was in Puerto Rico visiting from the States and they had a child and they were there for a few weeks and then they left and the child left and they came over now and they have been living in Wisconsin. Now that child grew up in Wisconsin. He is not going back to Puerto Rico. He has children here. Then he and his children should be able to vote in Puerto Rico on that decision.
Mr. SERRANO. If I could answer——
The CHAIRMAN. If I can, we are in a voting process. And this is a very interesting discussion and debate. It is not going to be solved right now at this time. I am going to suggest that—I am going to thank the panel, number one. I think it was a very excellent presentation. I am proud of this legislation. I think everybody knows that I want the change, because I will agree with the Governor and Congressman Serrano about the status quo is no longer acceptable. So we are going to go forth in this legislative process. And I am hoping everybody will take the opportunity—I am sure the people of Puerto Rico will participate in this discussion, and so will the members of this Committee. But in due respect to the next panel, I would suggest at this time that this panel be excused and we will go vote and then the next panel will be on when we get back so we can expedite this process. This hearing is recessing till 20 minutes to one o'clock. Thank you.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Recess]
The CHAIRMAN. It gives me a great honor at this time to introduce the Honorable Governor, Governor Pedro Rosselló of Puerto Rico. He will be on the witness stand. And I just want to welcome you, Governor, as one that has dealt with many other governors over a period of time. And being in your great territory, I certainly have enjoyed your hospitality and your willingness to share your views as well as those of the people in Puerto Rico. So welcome, Governor, at this time.
STATEMENT OF PEDRO ROSSELLO, GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. Thank you very much, Chairman Young, and members of the Committee on Resources. For the record, my name is Pedro Rosselló. Since 1993 I have been Governor of Puerto Rico. And in that capacity on two occasions I presented statements to the 104th Congress that may be of interest to each one of you.
On October 17, 1995, here in Washington I addressed a hearing conducted jointly by this Committee, the Committee's Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee, and by the Subcommittee of the Western Hemisphere of the House Committee on International Relations. Then on March 23, 1996, I appeared before the Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee at a hearing conducted in San Juan. My October 1995 statement pertained to a November 1993 political status consultation organized by the government of Puerto Rico with the full support of all three Puerto Rican political parties. My March 1996 statement pertained to H.R. 3024, a bill filed by Chairman Young which bore the same title as the measure before us today.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because of their relevance and because they may be particularly useful to members of this Committee that did not serve on the aforementioned Subcommittees of the last Congress, I shall be grateful if the Chairman will make copies of those statements available to every member of the Committee on Resources of this 105th Congress.
Although I am the president of a political party, and although I do strongly advocate one specific solution to Puerto Rico's status dilemma, I wish to emphasize at the outset that my declarations at this hearing shall be solely in my role as chief executive of the government of Puerto Rico and on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico as a recipient this past November of the largest electorate mandate granted to any gubernatorial candidate in Puerto Rico since 1964.
In addressing you as Governor and as a spokesperson for a strong mandate from the people of Puerto Rico to move toward the final definition and decision on our political status, I see it as my duty to concentrate exclusively on offering my assistance as you commence to the profoundly important process of evaluating H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
For the past eight years all the people of Puerto Rico and the United States Government have manifested a commendable commitment to addressing this issue seriously, responsibly and in an impressively nonpartisan manner. In 1989 a pro-commonwealth governor enlisted the backing of all three Puerto Rico political parties in soliciting action from the Federal Government. That petition produced an earnest and positive response from a Republican President and a Congress that was controlled by Democrats. More than two years of dedicated effort resulted from that initiative.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The effort fell short, but we must say it did not fail. Rather it left behind a valuable foundation upon which we have been building ever since. And so it was that my administration, led by a pro-statehood governor, succeeded four years ago and maintained a united front of Puerto Rico political parties in resuming the quest for a solution to the status dilemma. And so it was, too, that with a Democrat in the White House and Republican majorities on Capitol Hill, Washington has remained equally united since 1995 in pursuit of a mutually satisfactory remedy to the universally acknowledged inadequacy of Puerto Rico's current relationship with the rest of our fellow citizens of the United States of America.
President Bill Clinton reiterated his commitment at the beginning of this year in a letter that was read aloud by his personal representative during my second term inauguration ceremony in January. The President wrote, and I quote, ''I will work with you, the island's other elected leaders, the Congress and all concerned to establish a process that would enable the fundamental issue of Puerto Rico's political status to finally be resolved.''
Here in the House, for their part, Chairman Young and Ranking Member Miller have localized a broad bipartisan coalition with the solid backing of Speaker Newt Gingrich and the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Congressman Carlos Romero-Barceló. On the Senate side, Chairman Frank Murkowski visited Puerto Rico this past weekend, leading a bipartisan delegation from his Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The senators held lengthy meetings with senior officials from the political parties representing Puerto Rico status options.
In light of these developments, I can state for the record that the people of Puerto Rico are looking forward with enthusiasm to the imminent exercise by Congress of its constitutional responsibility to collaborate with us on converting the chronic conundrum of Puerto Rico's status into a shining star of statesmanship. I am convinced that together we can do it, Mr. Chairman. Through a determined, persistent, unflagging effort and an unshakable allegiance to patriotic civility, we can indeed do it. Moreover, I suggest we can do it expeditiously.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for having requested of each Puerto Rico political party that it submit by March 31 a proposed definition which it believe will be most appropriate for the status option it supports. It is my understanding that each of the parties intends to comply with that request. You acted expeditiously, Mr. Chairman, in filing H.R. 856. You acted expeditiously in scheduling this hearing. You acted expeditiously in requesting status definitions. And I urge you that we likewise expedite the entire process contemplated by this bill.
A year ago this week in my testimony regarding H.R. 3024 I proposed that the process be streamlined. Like that earlier bill, H.R. 856 envisions, and I quote, ''a transition plan of ten years minimum, which leads to full self-government for Puerto Rico consistent with the terms of this act.'' Nothing has transpired during the past 12 months to alter my outlook on this aspect of that legislation.
Accordingly, I take this opportunity to urge once again that this bill's three stages, initial decision, transition, and implementation, be consolidated into two stages. I feel certain that the transition and implementation stages can be combined in such a way as to eliminate any need for conducting the interim referendum that is stipulated by the bill under the provisions set forth in its transition stage.
If the people of Puerto Rico do embrace full self-government during the initial decision stage, I see no reason why ten or more additional years must elapse before we are able to cast a definite yes or no vote on a presidentially submitted and a Congressionally approved implementation formula.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A streamlining of this nature would save time, energy and money. It would facilitate the completion of the entire process with the utmost, focused attention to detail during that period that could easily be reduced to a maximum of four to five years. But more than that, by expediting matters, we can help to ensure that the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act achieves its purpose, because by expediting matters we can greatly enhance the likelihood that the momentum of this historic undertaking will not be weakened by unforeseen events that could occur as we go forward. And furthermore, it would send a strong message to all that Congress is ready and committed to act.
When I first offered the suggestion at the San Juan hearing of March 1996, my exact words were these. ''Ten years, I respectfully submit, is an inordinately long time. Ten years ago there were two Germanies and a Berlin wall. South Africa was still under Apartheid. The North American Free Trade Agreement was merely a promising idea, almost nobody had ever heard of the Internet. A ten-year minimum, I believe, is more time than we need.''
Today, in March 1997, I stand by those words. I earnestly propose that a mechanism be designed that will allow the people of Puerto Rico and our fellow citizens throughout the United States to conclude at the sunrise of the 21st Century an extremely significant item of unfinished business that has awaited this nation's undivided attention ever since the twilight hours of the 19th Century.
To that end and in that spirit, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, you can count on me. You can count on me to work with you, with your Congressional colleagues, with the President and with the people of Puerto Rico. You can count on my good faith and my goodwill and my unwavering commitment to the fundamental principles of civil rights and human dignity that this bill so eloquently embodies, the principles of liberty and justice for all.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And may God bless each and every person who participates in this noble endeavor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. I want to compliment you on an excellent statement. Not only that, I was willing to give you a little more time. It is hard for a Governor or a Senator or a Congressman to put anything in five minutes, so I want to congratulate you. Excellently done.
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. We don't need much more time.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, excellently done. I may have some questions, but I will defer to my good friend from Puerto Rico at this time and then go right down the line if you have any questions. You don't have to ask questions.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I don't have any questions for the Governor. I know we have talked a lot about this issue many, many times. I just want to congratulate him on his statement and everything that he has done to make sure that this process continues and we reach an agreement and have a vote by 1998 and then look forward to entering the new millennium with Puerto Rico no longer being a colony. Thank you.
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. Thank you to our Congressman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kildee.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KILDEE. I just want to thank Governor Rosselló. It is good to see you again. I enjoyed my trip down to Puerto Rico last year and look forward to come down there again. And I share your concern about the ten years also. I would like to discuss that more fully with you. Thank you very much.
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Guam.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Governor, for an excellent statement. It is true that it is hard to encapsulate all the emotions of the people within five minutes.
Much has been made of the year 1898 in some of the previous testimony, and you alluded to it in terms of taking care of a problem that has been with us since the end of the 19th Century. I believe earlier it was stated that Puerto Rico is the longest running colony under the U.S. flag. I did some quick research during the break and found out that Guam nosed you out by one month.
So I hope that the—in a way, it is a difficult issue to address, because I fully respect and understand that this is Puerto Rico's day and this is a day to analyze and understand the meaning and the impact of the Puerto Rican experience and how this country will deal with that. And actually in support of that, I have submitted—my earlier testimony was in support of that, and also as part of that I submitted a statement from Governor Gutierrez in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission on Self-Determination that is in support of that.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So it was some surprise, Mr. Chairman, that I note that there were some materials in the packets distributed about Guam. And in a sense I was—I am expressing some of my concern about that, but I just want to make the obvious distinction between Guam and Puerto Rico. The obvious distinction is that Puerto Rico, because of its size and its impact, I think, on the American consciousness, has a fuller range of options, viable political options, available to it than Guam has. But the fervor to deal with the issue is no less on Guam, and I am sure you understand and appreciate that.
And while our—it is an interesting dynamic, because we are really linked in terms of the Spanish-American War. It always—I always found it fascinating that the Spanish-American War was fought allegedly over issues in the Caribbean, yet the first strikes were in the Philippines and Guam, which always leads me to believe that there was something else at stake in the minds of all the people who carried the American flag at that time. So while we nosed you out by a month, I look forward to resolving your issues and I will be courteous and hope that these issues will be resolved and will be patient, but I hope we don't have to wait too long after you. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman from Guam. He has been very persistent in discussing this issue with me, and I believe the literature in your documents—I was going to ask unanimous consent they be submitted for the record as it was requested.
Mr. MILLER. That is granted.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information may be found at end of hearing.]
???
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Good afternoon, Governor. Thank you for your testimony. I am concerned about the issues raised by Congresswoman Velázquez. And I wanted to know from you if you were satisfied that within the bill the Congress gives sufficient commitment to supporting the decision of the people of Puerto Rico.
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. I think the bill addresses in a very positive fashion the valid alternatives that Puerto Rico should and would have. Essentially if we look at this from the perspective of answering one question, whether Puerto Rico wants to remain under U.S. sovereignty or not, then everything becomes very clear. If you want to remain under U.S. sovereignty, the Constitution addresses only two options. You can either be a State or you can be a territory under the plenary powers of Congress under the territorial law. Those are the two options if you answer the question that you want to remain under U.S. sovereignty with U.S. citizenship.
If the answer is no, then you have the other panel. You can go toward a separate sovereignty under which you would have all the powers of any independent nation, or you could modify that by a treaty or a compact between two independent nations. But that would be outside the U.S. sovereignty and outside U.S. citizenship. In that sense, the question is very simple. You answer it yes or no. U.S. sovereignty and U.S. citizenship and then you have these two options, or outside U.S. sovereignty with a separate citizenship and a separate sovereignty.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
From my perspective, if the question is answered that Puerto Rico should remain under U.S. sovereignty with U.S. citizenship, the option of remaining a territory, for me, is not valid, but I think it is pertinent and I suggested it and Chairman Young has accepted including the option of the current status under U.S. sovereignty and under the territorial clause as an option. I don't think it is valid. I don't think it is valid, but that is my personal opinion. But I think it allows everybody in Puerto Rico to have a valid option which they can support.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you.
Ms. CUBIN. Are there any further questions from anyone else? Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I certainly would like to offer my personal welcome to the Governor of Puerto Rico for his fine testimony. And I want to say I believe, Governor, it was by your suggestion of the process as we were reviewing the provisions of the previous bill that was introduced that the option of commonwealth also be included, given the fact that there are some very strong disagreements in the whole process, just as we have heard earlier from some of the Members. I had hoped that Congressman Serrano would be here, because his preference would have been don't even include the commonwealth option, it is either statehood or independence.
And I wanted to ask you, as you know, there are so many—so much a mixture of views in the Congress as far as the issue of Puerto Rico is concerned. I don't need to say that. There are some Members who have very strong feelings who are advocating about the—and I hate to see Puerto Rico being used as a scapegoat concerning the English only or the English first debate that is now going on here in the halls of the Congress.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I wanted to ask you, should the Congress equate statehood with dollars?
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. With what?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. With dollar signs. I am unfortunate to say that there will be some Members who view it strictly for the dollar signs rather than looking at it as a matter of principle. I believe my good friend from Puerto Rico has given indications earlier that if the people of Puerto Rico were to become a State, that your contributions toward the income tax system would be a lot more than what it would cost. And I think that is certainly commendable.
But I—you know, at the time that we held hearings in Puerto Rico, Governor, as you well remember, the former candidate for president, Pat Buchanan, came out with a very strong accusation which I strongly disagreed with that this would create a welfare state for Puerto Rico should statehood become the option.
But I wanted to ask your response. Should the Congress equate statehood with dollar signs?
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. I think that in discussing this issue the main parameter should be the parameter of civil rights. I have not seen anybody in this Congress saying that because a certain population in Alabama or Mississippi or Iowa is deprived of their citizen rights, that they will not move to ensure those citizens' rights on the basis of cost alone. I think it is a valid point to argue about, but I think when we discuss this we should have the cost related to statehood, to commonwealth and to independence. Each one has a cost. Each one has an economic cost and each one has political or other costs.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So if we want to discuss the issue on that scenario, we have to make sure that we project the cost of remaining as we are now. And the costs are considerable. And I would suggest that the costs are higher than if you would go toward statehood, because at some time Puerto Rico will become a contributing partner to the union, to the nation. So if the cost issue is discussed, it has to be discussed on equal terms for all options.
Independence has a cost, and we will hear and we have heard independence proponents suggest that the United States keep some measure of payments to Puerto Rico. So each one has some costs and we should define what those costs are and what the net flows of costing toward Puerto Rico and for Puerto Rico to the United States would be. And I think, again, the main issue here is one of civil rights, whether we can indeed keep 3.8 million U.S. citizens from having their full citizen rights or in the opposite extreme allow them to be independent and exercise their full rights to a separate sovereignty.
That is the basic issue here. The cost issue, I think, is pertinent, but it should not be overriding, and when it is analyzed it should be analyzed for the three options that are presented in this bill.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Governor, I appreciate you elaborating on that question I raised, but, you know, as far as I am concerned you can never equate any dollar sign to the——
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. I agree.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. [continuing]—blood the sons and daughters of Puerto Rico have shed for all these years in the wars that have been fought.
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. I agree with you.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And I really—to me it is an insult to think that any option that Puerto Rican people should choose, that we have to put dollar signs to make that as a measurement. I think that the people of Puerto Rico have made the ultimate sacrifices, as they have already, and I sincerely hope that the Congress will be receptive to whatever option the Puerto Rican people decide for themselves in the future.
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. Thank you for your views. I share them totally, but since I know that we will not be able to curtail the debate, it will come up naturally as long as we are, in a sense, conscious of what the priorities are. And as long as we debate even those other aspects which may be economic or which may be others, that we keep in mind your eloquently stated position the rights of the people over the cost.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. CUBIN. And the gentleman from Illinois, did you have some questions?
Mr. GUTIERREZ. There are no other members of the Committee?
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. CUBIN. Oh, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Governor, for your testimony. I wanted to go back to a question I asked in the last panel and ask you to answer it as well. Put into context the plebiscite that has been the source of much consternation with respect to the confusion that was related to it so that we don't end up repeating past mistakes and further exacerbating the feeling of frustration of the Puerto Rican people about their own self-determination. Would you comment on Ms. Velázquez's points that she made in the last panel with respect to the 1953 agreement between the United States and the United Nations with respect to enhanced commonwealth, the fact that this country did not respect that and did not fully heed its obligations under that or whether it was part of the territorial status that you spoke about just in the past question that was asked. And is it possible to have a bilateral relationship as is promised by advanced commonwealth, or is that not possible? Could you explain whether—more about your opinions about these issues.
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. The 1993 referendum in Puerto Rico did have an effect. These hearings are the result of that referendum or that plebiscite. We have seen that the legislature of Puerto Rico on two occasions has asked the Congress to respond to those results of the 1993 plebiscite in Puerto Rico. It was a plebiscite that was locally authorized, did not have a commitment from Congress, and on the basis of that plebiscite the legislature on two occasions has asked Congress to act.
I think this bill is a response to that 1993 plebiscite. I think this bill embodies the answer of Congress to the 1993 plebiscite. And in doing its—in assuming its responsibilities under the Constitution of authorizing a Congressionally sponsored plebiscite with Congressionally defined, valid options, I think that is the most positive response that we would have expected from Congress. So I think that, yes, the 1993 plebiscite has had its impact and the fact that we are immersed in this process now is ample evidence of that.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secondly, we have to go back to basics. It is not what each one of us wants, because I might be tempted to say in my definition of statehood that I would require the future State of Puerto Rico to have the landing rights to the moon, the lunar landing rights would be a part of the 51st State. Maybe I would want that, but is that valid? And so in the same sense I think we all, those who advocate statehood, those who advocate commonwealth, those who advocate independence or free association, should submit their views so that they be analyzed and finally stated as valid by the Congress, who I believe has the powers under the Constitution to legislate for the territories.
So again, I think this process is one that allows that to happen. The Chairman and Ranking Democrat of this Committee have written to each one of the political parties in Puerto Rico and have allowed them to submit a proposed definition. Obviously, it may be different from 1993 where no limitation was placed on the definition that appeared on the ballot. This time there will be a so-called reality check. I am sure if I convinced my colleagues to submit a statehood definition that has the lunar landing rights for the 51st State, that would be taken out by Congress because it is not a valid option.
So in essence I think we are seeing a process where there is input and there is, to a certain extent, an analysis and a validity check under the Constitution and under international law to make sure that the options that appear in the ballot are valid options.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Will the gentleman yield?
Ms. CUBIN. The gentleman's time is up. Are there any other Committee members who would have a question? I will finish with the Committee, and then I would love to recognize you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Governor, again, another—I think one of the most difficult issues that was derived as a result of the 1993 plebiscite was the fact that there was a plurality and not a clear majority.
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. Yes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Now we are going through the process again. And let us say that the statehood obtains a 46 percent, commonwealth gets 42 and independentistas get 12. Do you have any suggestions how we resolve the continuous situation over plurality rather than the clear majority if it comes to that point in the future plebiscite?
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. Well, I think that there is almost—I wouldn't call it unanimous, but there is a consensus that the current status is one that is transitory. If we cannot make up our minds, then we remain in the current status, but this bill addresses that reality by saying that periodically the people of Puerto Rico would be consulted until they finally choose a stable and final status. So again, I hope that doesn't happen. If it happens, it is, you know, our own choosing. But if we cannot, so to speak, get our act together and by majority vote choose one of the paths to full self-government, then unfortunately we will remain in this transitory status until we make up our minds.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Governor, I thank you, because one of the problems, as I have seen over the years, I think one other major plebiscite that took place in Puerto Rico was since 1967. And then that was just kind of put on it, in fact, on the part of the Congress. We just didn't do anything despite, I am sure, there being a lot of proposals or a lot of offers from several administrations on behalf of the government of Puerto Rico. Still Congress did not act. Am I correct in that observation?
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. That is correct.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So this is where we are at now?
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. Yes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And it is very easy to put the blame, the finger, on it and say who it is that was at fault. And I have to say, Madam Chairman, that we are not exactly angels ourselves in terms of what we should have done. We never did anything. Thank you, Governor. Thank you, Madam.
Ms. CUBIN. Are there other Members who have questions? I came in late, so I don't know who was here first. The gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much. Number one, let me welcome you here to the Congress of the United States and congratulate you on your resounding reelection victory last November as Governor of Puerto Rico and to share with you that outside of this I look forward to working with you on those issues. I wish you Godspeed in your mission during this next four years as Governor of Puerto Rico and look forward specifically to discussing and working with you on making economic viability of jobs in Puerto Rico and other kinds of social/economic issues viable in working with you in that spirit, Governor. Welcome once again.
Two quick questions, Governor. I agree with the gentleman from American Samoa that we should not equate self-determination with dollars. But as you rightfully interpreted, this Congress will do that in terms of the admission of Puerto Rico as a State into the union should we arrive at that point.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me just ask you, how do you see the process? Have you envisioned the process of Puerto Rico as a State, and what kinds of things do you see will happen differently than under the current status having the power of statehood that will allow you to grow and expand the franchise, the economic franchise in terms of contributions to what you will then be, part of the Nation as a whole.
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. Well, very basic in that respect is the power of participation. The same way you advocate for your district in Chicago, the same way you promote the development of business and business opportunities very forcefully for the people that elected you, I would see that a major component of allowing Puerto Rico to really compete on a equal basis would be the representation that Puerto Rico would have in this body. We would have certainly two Senators. We would have six to seven Congress persons here in this body that makes decisions about economic matters and about social matters.
So essentially if you look at the history, if you look at the fact that was mentioned here before, some territories before like Alaska and the differences when they were territory to the rest of the economic parameters of the States and you look at Puerto Rico, 50 years ago Puerto Rico had 50 percent of the income per capita that Mississippi had. Fifty years later, Puerto Rico still has 50 percent.
So if you are concerned about the development of Puerto Rico in reaching more equitable levels of economic development, then you should think of the current status as one that limits the possibilities of Puerto Rico and which by history you have seen many of the previous territories that have inferior economic parameters when they were territories move up toward more equitable levels of economic development.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I think the—it is intrinsic in being a part of the system if you are a part of the system and you are participating in decisions, the system will allow you to come up to the level of other jurisdictions.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Governor, for that answer. One other question. As we look at—earlier I suggested, Governor, that sometimes I am a little perplexed at just how we deal with 1952 and the adoption of the free association and subsequently going to the United Nations and independentistas going before the United Nations and saying, you know, that is really not enough, adding an extra paragraph or saying that mutually the United States and the people of Puerto Rico are going to have to develop this free association so that it can reach full self-determination. But that really did happen, that historical linkage did exist.
Now as we go into the future, given the fact that in 1952 it was established by Congress to the United Nations that you could have an autonomous version of free association between Puerto Rico and the United States, which would decolonize it because they accepted it as decolonizing at the United Nations, that allowed there to continue to be American citizenship of the nationals in Puerto Rico in that relationship, what is changed today that will not allow, in your opinion, for there to be such a status, or proposal maybe, for the people of Puerto Rico that would continue to allow American citizenship as a guarantee under that status?
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. Congressman Gutierrez, if you look at the records of Congress, it amply supported and was very clear that Congress never intended changing the basic relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico, that what Congress did—and this is in all Congressional records. What Congress did was to statutorily allow the people of Puerto Rico to adopt a constitution for internal affairs and internal government. External relation between Puerto Rico and the United States was not changed. In no—it is stated in a positive way in every area of the Congressional record, and in no place can you see where Congress said that it would be renouncing its power under the territorial clause.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
An interesting thing happened on the way. Both at the United Nations and to the people of Puerto Rico a different story was taken. And I think it is time that we look at that, and it is time to reconcile what was actually done with what was projected.
Having said that, I must say that I do not wish to enter into a war of recriminations, who was right, who was wrong. But let us start from here and let us solve the problem. Let us say what are the alternatives that are valid internationally under the United Nations. And I have been to the United Nations with many of my colleagues here. And let us forget about the interpretation, because for me it is very clear. However, if we are really committed to solving this, let us go forward and not so much look backwards.
In looking forward, the United Nations is very clear as to what options can be offered territorial jurisdictions. One is integration, full integration, which is statehood. The other is full independence. And the third is a form of free association, which has to be, again, under two separate sovereignties that reach an agreement. So again, I go back to my initial position that the basic question we have to answer is whether we want to be within U.S. sovereignty with U.S. citizenship or without U.S. sovereignty and U.S. citizenship. Very simple. And that is totally consistent with what the international community accepts today as ending colonialism.
If you go to the United Nations and you say that you have a jurisdiction which does not participate and does not elect representatives that have a major decisional power over the inhabitants of that jurisdiction, they will tell you that that is a colony. And that is the real situation in Puerto Rico today.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Governor, thank you for your answers. And I will, after this meeting, evaluate them very carefully so that I can continue to work with the members of this Committee to see if we can't foster a relationship that will end the colonial situation in Puerto Rico. And I look forward to working with you once again. Thank you so much.
Ms. CUBIN. The gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velázquez.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Thank you Chairlady. Mr. Governor, thank you being here and welcome. You know, it is really very troubling for me to listen to interpretation of what happened in 1952. And in some ways when you state that the United States government has been misrepresenting and that what occurred in 1952.
And what took place in 1953 was the bilateral compact was ratified by Resolution 748 at the United Nations and that the United States went—the government went to the United Nations and stated very clear that there was a self-government established in Puerto Rico by nature of a bilateral compact. So that happened and now you are telling us your interpretation.
We could clearly state that what this government has been doing has been a political sham and a charade that didn't respect the people of Puerto Rico and that this government has a responsibility to repair the damage and the pain that it has caused to the people of Puerto Rico.
When my colleague Patrick Kennedy asked you the question in reference to what I stated earlier, I think you didn't answer that because specifically he was referring to the fact that there was a bilateral compact that was agreed upon by the people of Puerto Rico and this government.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. If you are asking me, I am still looking for that bilateral compact. I haven't found it anyplace.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Well——
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. All I found is a statute by the U.S. Congress allowing Puerto Rico to establish a constitution for internal affairs. Nowhere—you are here in Congress. You can look at the records. Nowhere in Congressional Records—and this is where the decision was taken. It was not taken at the United Nations. It was taken here. And in this body nowhere does it say that Congress abdicates or renounces its Constitutional prerogatives over any of the territories, including Puerto Rico. So if that wasn't changed, then the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States was not changed.
Now, I cannot answer for what other people, including the government of Puerto Rico at that time, represented to the people of Puerto Rico. I think that was a misrepresentation, yes.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. And I think later on, Mr. Chairman, we are going to have the Administration testify presenting their position.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Yes, and——
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The CHAIRMAN. You better read their testimony. It is quite interesting.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Yes, well——
The CHAIRMAN. I——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. My concern is, Mr. Chairman, that I would like with your permission to request that a copy of the transcript that took place in 1953 be included as part of this hearing—at the United Nations.
The CHAIRMAN. I don't——
Mr. MILLER. I would support that.
The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest in all due respect—ever time we hear the word United Nations, I get a little antsy, so——
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Well——
The CHAIRMAN. I understand. I understand.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. It works when it is a way for the United States to go and to deal with public opinion about something that went wrong. And this government is responsible for that.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Would the Congresswoman yield?
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Sure.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I wanted to add that it was not only the national government, the U.S. Government that went to the United Nations and misrepresented what happened, but also the government of Puerto Rico corroborated with that misrepresentation. And they collaborated in the United Nations and they misrepresented it also to the people of Puerto Rico and have been misrepresenting it to the people of Puerto Rico for all these years.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman, my minutes are still——
The CHAIRMAN. I am not arguing that. Go right ahead.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. I just would like to say that is why in my statement before I made it very clear that it is important that we offer and we provide to the people of Puerto Rico every information and the facts about each formula that will be presented to the people of Puerto Rico, because then maybe two years later or four years later we are going to come back and say well, I wasn't part of that, you know. So it is really troubling. We need to provide the people of Puerto Rico with every information and every fact so that we do not come back and say, oh, I am sorry, that wasn't part of the record, that wasn't part of what we intended.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The CHAIRMAN. I agree. I will say this in defense of the people of Puerto Rico. If I had as many people in my great State and other States as interested in the process, participate in the process as much as it does in Puerto Rico, I would be quite proud. When I see 47 percent of the people voting nationwide in a Presidential election, it is very discouraging. Puerto Rico is quite high when they have participation.
The gentleman from New York.
Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first preface my comments, Governor, by also welcoming you. You visit us on a regular basis, so it is a re-welcome. And, as you know, I grew up in New York. I am one of those New Yorkers who grew up, like so many other Americans, during the Vietnam era, in a love/distrust relationship with my government, loving my government, loving my country that I was being raised in, but distrusting a lot of what they told me about Vietnam and about a lot of other things.
So it doesn't surprise me that my government didn't tell the truth in 1950, '51 and '52. In fact, I know that they didn't tell the truth. I know they don't tell the truth now when they say Puerto Rico is equal. It is not. Ask my cousins. They are not equal and they are not independent.
Now I notice, Governor, that—you might have answered my question already, but I want you to elaborate somewhat on it. There must have been a process for you and your party, and those who have been in your party before you, to reach a point where you can comfortably use the word ''colony'' and the phrase ''colonial status''. Was that done through a difficult situation within the party, or did the party reach that from the kind of comments that you brought up here today?
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In other words, how does your party agree with the independence party on the point that it is a colonial status?
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. I think we agree because we are looking at the facts. And if history shows us the different steps that were taken and if at the end of that route we apply a litmus test as to whether a jurisdiction is represented democratically, whether it is enfranchised or not, then you have to reach the conclusion no matter what happened here that this is a colonial status. That is why I again urge this Committee and Congress to put aside the historical contradictions.
If we are really committed to solving this problem, and I think if you look around the room you see that this is almost 100-year-old problem. We should be able to solve that. And again, as Governor of Puerto Rico, whatever the people decide, that is what it will be. I have my own choice, but whatever the people of Puerto Rico decide. They should know the valid options. If we spend so much time arguing about what somebody said in the United Nations, I gather we will reach conflicting opinions, because in the United Nations everybody said whatever they wanted.
I have been to the United Nations. I have been at hearings. Many of my colleagues here have also. And we can argue about this forever, but again I urge you let us not get bogged down. If we feel like I think everybody here feels, that this continuous debate over status is holding us back, then let us solve it. If we, as I think all of us agree here, if we feel that we cannot get together on education and on health and on job creation because we have different views which do not allow us to come together on those basic issues, let us solve the problem now. Let us not look backwards. Let us look forward.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I suggest again that this is a historic opportunity. We will be having 100 years when this problem was first presented, almost 100 years. We are also nearing a new millennium, a new century, which also should allow us to be open in our minds and allow us to look at change as something natural. And when we look at all these things, I think everything is coming together so that we can finally solve this problem for the good of the people of Puerto Rico and also for all U.S. citizens in our nation. And if we take this opportunity to just squabble a little bit more as to what happened in 1952, I think we will be degrading from what I think is a very noble objective of this bill presented by Chairman Young.
Mr. SERRANO. Let me see, Governor, if I have some time left here—I just wonder if you personally have taken a look—my red light just went on.
The CHAIRMAN. I will give you 30 seconds.
Mr. SERRANO. OK, on the issue of the stateside vote, and what feelings you have personally on whether, first of all, it could be carried out and if it has any merit.
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. I have problems on two areas, two levels. One is what Carlos Romero-Barceló mentioned. It is very difficult for me to think of people that will not suffer or benefit from the consequences of a decision to be involved in that decision. If you would tell me that the people that voted that were outside of Puerto Rico, not residents of Puerto Rico, would live by the consequences, if the people that voted here and voted for independence would be willing to give up their citizenship and go back to Puerto Rico and live under a separate nation, then I think that would be valid. But if you are telling me that people will be voting and then not really living the consequences of that decision, that is very hard for me to accept.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other part is what you mentioned, and I think it is lesser of an objection, that we have established in Puerto Rico, I think, a very credible electoral process and structure which allows everybody that wants to participate to have participation. How will you extend that same privilege to the Puerto Ricans either born in Puerto Rico or children of people born in Puerto Rico throughout the 50 States? And I think it might be easy to do it in New York and it might be easy to do it, maybe, in Illinois, but some of the other States might be a little bit more difficult. So that is a practical question that I have. It doesn't mean that if you come up with a practical solution to that practical question I will——
Mr. SERRANO. I think the greatest country on earth can pull it off if they wish to pull the vote outside.
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. If that——
Mr. SERRANO. And, just in closing, Governor, we have been living the consequences. My parents are buried in the Bronx because we lived the consequences of forced migration. So in many ways we have already lived the consequences of the status. We are willing to roll some dice on what the future consequences will be.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the Governor. You have been on the stand now for an hour and 20 minutes and you also sat here all day, and I want to congratulate you on that and your excellent testimony. And you are excused.
Mr. ROSSELLÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The CHAIRMAN. Next we have the Honorable Ruben Martinez, President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Mr. President, you can sit down anytime you would like to, and as soon as it quiets down we will proceed.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question for a second?
The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely.
Mr. SERRANO. I noticed you referred to Senator Berrios as President. Is that an opening for future——
The CHAIRMAN. Very frankly, I think it would be an excellent improvement. He is better looking, and he doesn't fall down as often. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF RUBEN BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ, PRESIDENT OF THE PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for almost a century Puerto Ricans of all political persuasions have struggled unsuccessfully for the recognition of our full political rights as a people before a Congress that has for the most part been hostile or insensitive to our demands. Today on the verge of the 21st Century, it is a source of optimism that Congress finally begins to recognize its centennial obligation to decolonize Puerto Rico.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But before H.R. 856 becomes an effective and acceptable instrument for the solution of Puerto Rico's status problem, certain conditions should be met and certain pitfalls avoided, some of which require major changes in the bill. One of them is the essential objective and nature of the bill must be maintained at all costs. This bill unambiguously faces and proposes a solution to the fundamental issue of sovereignty by promoting a decision within two paths, one under U.S. sovereignty leading to statehood and the other under Puerto Rico sovereignty leading either to independence or free association. Territorial commonwealth, on the other hand, is viewed as a problem to be outgrown and superseded.
Two, so long as this fundamental objective is preserved, the legitimate interest and demands of all the participants in the status debate must be provided reasonable accommodation. In this context, while independence and free association, as modalities of Puerto Rican sovereignty, must continue to be grouped under the same heading on the proposed plebiscite ballot, their distinctiveness should nevertheless be clarified. Free association and independence are members of the same family, but they are first cousins, not identical twins.
I propose, therefore, that the bill be amended to flesh out the free association and independent modalities within the separate sovereignty alternative, or as I prefer to call it the Puerto Rican sovereignty alternative. Once free association has been reformulated to address the legitimate concerns of its proponents, it will be totally unnecessary to include the territorial status quo as an option. Even the Popular Democratic Party rejects that option of an unincorporated territory subject to the powers of Congress under the territorial clause. It would be a perversion of the concept of inclusiveness to include a colonial or territorial option that nobody favors.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Three, this bill at least should reflect a sense of Congress regarding the truly critical questions which you will have to face and answer in case of a statehood petition. Congress should not convey the impression that a mere majority vote in the plebiscite is the only condition for statehood. I am convinced that if this bill is perceived in Congress as implicit commitment to grant statehood after a majority vote by the Puerto Rican electorate, it may never become law.
In this context, crucial questions regarding statehood for Puerto Rico arise which should be addressed in this bill, even though Congress cannot answer these questions in a way that will bind the future Congress. Is it the sense of Congress that statehood for Puerto Rico would be possible unless English becomes the primary or common language of Puerto Ricans? Would statehood be a realistic option so long as Puerto Rico's per capita income remains one-third that of the United States and one-half that of your poorest State considering the repercussions of that reality on the Federal treasury? Is statehood conceivable without an overwhelming political consensus in its favor in Puerto Rico? Is Congress willing to face a Caribbean Quebec if a minority for separate sovereignty should become a majority in the next generation?
At a minimum, Congress should make clear that if statehood achieves a sufficient majority, but does not then act favorably on the petition within a reasonable period of time, then statehood should be deemed to have been rejected. In such an eventuality, the bill should provide that in order to achieve its primary decolonizing objectives, the people of Puerto Rico should then choose between the remaining alternatives, that is between independence and free association.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Four, fairness and objectivity should be maintained regarding the status definitions as they refer to the potential economic effects of the different alternatives. Congress has constitutional and international obligations with Puerto Rico's decolonization, in addition to moral and legal commitments after 100 years of U.S. occupation. In this context, Congress should be explicit in its willingness to obtain a smooth and fair transition toward independence as well as regarding the creation of a reparations or development fund.
Free trade and economic cooperation are not the exclusive prerogative of statehood and are clearly available for independence in this age of globalization and regional economic arrangements.
Five, it is of the utmost importance that Congress face the matter of U.S. citizenship under Puerto Rican sovereignty in a clear and realistic manner. Let us begin by separating myth from fact. I am firmly convinced that the principal value that the immense majority of Puerto Ricans attach to their U.S. citizenship is their right to travel freely to and from the United States. One should remember that free transit and free trade have been part of the U.S.-Puerto Rico relations since 1900, 17 years before Puerto Ricans became U.S. citizens.
As in the matter of trade and economic cooperation, if Congress expresses or implies that free transit is only possible under statehood, it would be promoting an artificial pro-statehood majority that has nothing to do with the spirit of patriotic commitment to the United States, which should be the real basis of a serious pro-statehood sentiment. Loyalty to one's nation and freedom to travel to other nations are, as Americans well know, two different things.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As far as we independentistas are concerned, we aspire exclusively to our own Puerto Rican citizenship in an independent Puerto Rico. But as regards those Puerto Rican born before independence who want to retain their U.S. citizenship after independence, they should be allowed to retain it.
As regard Puerto Ricans born after independence, Congress would be wise to allow for free transit arrangements within both countries. The European community stands as an example of this type of free transit agreement. Moreover, I remind you that a very large percentage of the Puerto Rican nationals reside in the United States. And it was the U.S. who, after the invasion of our nation, created and promoted free transit.
Six, the bill should be amended to substantially reduce the timeframe provided for the full implementation of the different alternatives.
Seven, to guarantee that all the options have adequate and equal access to public funding in the plebiscite campaign.
And eight, the bill should be amended as to who will have the right to vote in the plebiscite. It should be obvious that if the plebiscite is not a general election to select public officials but a special election to advance the cause of self-determination of the Puerto Rican people, only Puerto Ricans and not merely residents of Puerto Rico should have the right to vote. By Puerto Ricans I mean those born in Puerto Rico or of Puerto Rican parents who reside in Puerto Rico or though residing outside have the intention to return to live in Puerto Rico. As an exception, those non-Puerto Ricans who have lived in Puerto Rico for a substantial period of time and who intend to remain should have the right to participate also.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I wish to set the historical record straight concerning the participation of my party, the Puerto Rican Independence Party, in this process. The Puerto Rican Independence Party is convinced that statehood or integration into the United States as a State of the Union is not a valid solution to the colonial problem of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a distinct, mature, Spanish-speaking, Latin American Caribbean nation. To argue that Puerto Rico is not a nation is as absurd as to argue that blacks in the U.S. were not human beings before the abolition of slavery.
For a nation such as Puerto Rico, statehood would be a dilution, if not an abdication, of our right to govern ourselves as Puerto Ricans, no matter how intensely we exercise our voting franchise. The problem of Puerto Rico, contrary to what the Governor of Puerto Rico thinks and has expressed here, is not a problem of disenfranchisement of a minority or an issue of civil rights, as some people believe. It is not a problem of individual rights. It is a problem of national rights, of the inalienable rights of a nation, of a people, to govern themselves.
Even Puerto Rican statehooders postulate our right as a people to our distinct identity, ''Jibaro'' statehood they call it. Puerto Ricans of all persuasions proudly and forcefully proclaim that Puerto Rico's language and culture are not negotiable under any status. You should be aware, therefore, that the primary loyalty of Puerto Ricans is to Puerto Rico, not to the United States or to any other nation. Quebec and Ireland are but contemporary reminders of the dangers that ensue when nations attempt to absorb other nations. Nations by definition cannot give up their inalienable right to self-determination and independence, that is, their right to secede.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Independence, on the other hand, members of this Committee, is the ultimate empowerment necessary to break the cycle of impotence and dependence which has become endemic to our colonial relationship, which would only become more acute under statehood and which inhibits our development and undermines our dignity and our self esteem. Moreover, it would be the beginning of an end of ever-increasing dependence on the Federal budget and a source of goodwill toward Latin America.
We are thus convinced, Mr. Chairman, that when the process comes to an end here in Congress, the United States Government will come to the conclusion that the only true option for both our countries is independence, but we are not there yet. We are not there yet, and it is thus necessary that the process work its way.
The relationship between colonizer and colonized denies the essential equality of nations in the same way that the relation between master and slave denies the essential equality of human beings. It denigrates the colonized and it demeans the colonizer. For the honor and respect of both our nations, let us bring it to an end. Thank you very much.
[Statement of Ruben Berríos-Martinez may be found at end of hearing.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. President. I always enjoy your presentations. You do it with enthusiasm and belief, and I admire that. As I was sitting here listening to you, we have a party in my State that you probably could run for and win and do quite well, just to give you an idea. Unfortunately we lost our leader up there two years ago. And I will also compliment you on the suggested revisions of the bill. Although I may not agree with all of them, definitely they were very constructive suggestions. And I often think if more witnesses would do that, I think we could probably work a lot more of our problems out. Those that just say no sometimes give me great concern. So I do thank you.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And at this time I am going to turn the chair over to Carlos for a few moments. I have another appointment I have to meet with some of my constituents. I will be right back, so if he—watch him. Make sure he runs this fairly. Watch this bipartisan relationship here. I want you to know that I didn't go to Hershey. I don't need to go to Hershey, you see.
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. Before you leave, Mr. Chairman——
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. I would like to tell you in all honesty that it is a real pity that Alaskans were Americanized before they could become a U.S. State and therefore their right to self-determination is a quivering subject.
The CHAIRMAN. It is not dead yet, because we have now a new era in Alaska where there is approximately 110,000 American natives that have decided that they may want to be sovereign within a State. This is a very interesting discussion, by the way.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. [presiding] We will proceed with the questions. We will start with the Congressman from Samoa.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want certainly to commend Senator Martinez, President of the Independentista Party for not only his eloquence but certainly his firm commitment to the cause that hopefully the people of Puerto Rico will be granted independence to become a sovereign nation. I did note in your comments that in the recommendations about some of these issues that the Congress will have to clarify, but it is becoming very controversial in and of itself. You had indicated earlier that—in your statement that commonwealth and independence are not identical twins but they are brother and sister relationship? Oh, they are cousins? First cousins or third cousins?
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. I said first cousins, but not identical twins. Not commonwealth and independence, free association and independence.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? I mean, I think and I am sure that we will hear from those who are supportive of commonwealth. You have indicated also about territorial commonwealth. Is there a distinction with that of free association?
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. Of course. The bill recognizes it. It describes commonwealth in its first part and then goes into free association as a different alternative. But I must add here that once the free association modality is fleshed out and it is clearly distinguished from the independence modality within the separate sovereignty portion, then obviously the territorial commonwealth as it is described in the bill becomes totally irrelevant, because nobody wants that, not even the populares.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Ruben, do you think that—when you say that not even that populares, it is obviously that the leadership doesn't want it, but do you really believe that some of the popularity people don't want it either?
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. Well, we will have to see about that in the next months, but obviously I am talking about what the leadership has publicly said, at least before today.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. When you think about free association, do you think about free association with citizenship, U.S. citizenship, or——
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. No, that is up to the defenders of free association to say. I propose my ideas regarding independence and free transit, not with citizenship, but the issue of citizenship is something the free association defenders will have to address.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you. The gentlelady from Virgin Islands.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of voting in this plebiscite came up with the prior panel, and on that issue, the issue of non-Puerto Ricans, as you referred to who have lived in Puerto Rico for a substantial period of time was left——
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. Vague.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Vague. Do you have some specific recommendations?
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. It was purposely left vague so we can talk about it here and in the Senate. But I have no—for example, what the now-present Chairman asked before—I have no doubt that people like his wife who has become an integral part of the Puerto Rican community, of course she would have the right to vote without any doubt whatsoever. What number of years, I am not sure about that. We have talked about 20, 15, 25. We should talk about it, but we can reach an agreement on that.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Just one other technical question on the issue of separate sovereignty. In the interest of fairness and making each option equitable, would you suggest that it be left as separate sovereignty? That suggests a bit of negativity. You didn't specifically make a recommendation, but would you recommend that it be changed to Puerto Rican——
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. Of course. That is what I said when—I am sorry. I would prefer to separate sovereignty, Puerto Rican sovereignty. What I meant is; it should be corrected. Let me say that regarding the issue of separate sovereignty it should be clearly stated that I refer to the legitimate demands of the defenders of free association. What is legitimate or not legitimate is for this Congress to decide and for us to decide to propose to this Congress. I didn't want to dwell on that issue, either. I just wanted to make this as all-encompassing as possible.
And I must add here that I don't know why commonwealth should be described as nothing else or nothing more than what it is, an unincorporated territory. Why dedicate eight or ten paragraphs to it. If you just say it is an unincorporated territory of the United States, we would avoid some of the discussions we have had in Puerto Rico. I mean, we would go into the historical discussion regarding 1950, you know.
If we agree that this is no good anymore or doesn't serve a good purpose anymore, let us talk about the future. If you want to describe commonwealth, describe it as an unincorporated territory and period. Don't put any more adjectives on it, because then it would look unbalanced. And if it looks unbalanced, it won't be approved. It will be approved in the House but not in the Senate, because many Senators and Congressmen have legitimate questions regarding statehood. And obviously they will push for a balanced bill to be presented, because if not they will interpret it as a statehood bill.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If this is interpreted as a statehood bill, I repeat, it won't go through Congress. And we want this bill to go through Congress. So we should do everything in our power to be flexible enough in order to accommodate all participants and to have a just and balanced and equitable bill. And I think that can be reached.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I just want to add that as far as we are concerned, from my experience of talking to other Members of Congress, I feel very, very, very assured that this bill will go through at least the House. And it is gaining momentum in the Senate. But I can assure you that it is—there is support in the House for this bill.
Regarding the right of the persons to vote that live outside Puerto Rico, I just want to ask a couple of questions for the record. We have had two plebiscites in Puerto Rico, one in 1967 and one in 1993. Who was allowed to vote in 1967?
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. The voters—the franchise was determined by the Puerto Rican electoral law, which is the same way as it would be now under the bill. That is why we propose an amendment.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. In other words, the 1967 plebiscite when commonwealth was established, the people who voted were the resident—U.S. citizens who were residents of Puerto Rico?
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. That is correct.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And that was the same in 1993?
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. That is correct.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Now there is a request that the rules be changed for this plebiscite?
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. That is our request. That is correct.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Do you really feel that the Congress and the people in the Senate and House would feel that well about saying that your citizens who reside in Puerto Rico just because they were not born there do not vote? Do you think that would be——
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. I don't think—I don't know how they will feel, but I do know in justice only Puerto Ricans should vote, notwithstanding the fact of how some U.S. citizens or some U.S. Congressmen might think. We have been feeling very much for what other people believe or think or feel, and it is about time we push for what we think should be just and equitable and let other people worry about their own feelings.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Do you think there will be court proceedings if people are left out of the vote if they have lived—were you a citizen that resided in Puerto Rico when——
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. Maybe there would be, but I remind the Chairman that under the territorial clause there is very, very large latitude for the U.S. Congress to act contrary to other types of——
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I think——
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. If it were not under the territorial clause, we couldn't be doing what we are doing now here. So the same thing happens as regarding voting requirements. You can be lax, flexible, have latitude, refer to international law. I think we can manage that.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. There will still be a lot of——
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. Yes, there will be. I imagine there will be people who will go to—but there will be people who might go also to court for the other reason, arguing that somebody who has lived in Puerto Rico for seven years and who is not a Puerto Rican either by birth or by virtue by being born to a Puerto Rican father and mother has a right to defend the future of Puerto Ricans. I think that can be taken to court also.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you. Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. KENNEDY. No questions at this time.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. First of all, I would like to say thank you very much for the statement that you prepared. I read it last night and it helped me immensely as your statements and your positions have always helped me in the past to prepare for today's hearing and to have some clarity about just how we should proceed on the questions of the decolonization of Puerto Rico. So, Senator, I would like to thank you for that, and thank you for the long history of dedication and commitment that you have brought to the struggle for Puerto Rican independence and for justice in Puerto Rico. I think your contributions have been enormous and I thank you for them, not only in my own capacity, but I am sure in the name of all of the Members of Congress who are here today.
Senator and President of the Independence Party, I spoke about and I know you spoke about independence and the issue of fairness. So if you could describe to this Committee how you see the definition of independence as proposed before the people of Puerto Rico that would be fair, that would give you equity and fairness.
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. Well, to start with, I think that can be accomplished here and over in the Senate because it is to the convenience of both parties. If it were only convenient to Puerto Rico, what I propose, I venture to say we wouldn't get too far. But since it is convenient for both parties to have a prosperous, exemplary democratic republic in Puerto Rico, then we can be sure that we can work out a way.
Free trade, for example, is now a reality not only in Europe, but in NAFTA as to Mexico and Canada. So to ask for free trade, it is nothing new. Besides, what is the alternative, free trade forever under statehood? It is not going to be worse under independence.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, free transit; the same way. Free transit is now an arrangement between many countries in the world. What is the alternative in statehood? It is free transit forever and for future generations also.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Excuse me just to advise the Members of Congress that was two bells. The vote on the Goodling amendment to H.R. 1 is now on the Floor.
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. A reparations or development fund is the only way to cut dependence in a sensible manner and still guarantee that we are going to be full trading partners to the United States and a good place for investment, because what we propose is a reparations fund that goes across or cuts across ten years—or a different figure—or 12 years or 8 or 15. We can talk about that. And then at the end of that period, that ceases; but that means that we would be able to develop our economy through these reparations funds for a period of ten years.
Besides this issue, I should for the record clarify in order to answer your question that if Puerto Ricans saved in purchases to the outside world under independence one percent of what they today import during ten years, and if at the same time they substitute by Puerto Rican production (in many areas, particularly food stuffs), one percent of what we import, that two percent over a ten-year period will be equivalent to more than the amount of the full Federal aid today in Puerto Rico.
So once we have the powers of sovereignty to trade with other nations and to bring in Japanese, European, besides American capital, to develop our economy and with these new tools we can really make a prosperous economy in Puerto Rico. What is the alternative? To become a permanently underdeveloped region of the United States with six representatives or seven and two senators asking for whatever is left from the people of the United States? Another Appalachia; because on what basis would Puerto Rico be able to attract U.S. capital, not to speak about Japanese and not to speak about German capital in Puerto Rico. In the republic of Puerto Rico we would have the tools to fully build our economy.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The only alternative under statehood is U.S. citizenship or free transit in order to have more Luis Gutierrez and more José Serrano, which are very good people, in the United States instead of in Puerto Rico where we would like to have you. So it would be the depopulation of Puerto Rico and the conversion of Puerto Rico into a permanent underdeveloped region of the United States because statehood provides no alternatives for the economic development of Puerto Rico save more food coupons or more welfare. There is no way people in Maricao, you understand me, can attract capital to Maricao if the factory can establish itself in Bayamon. They will always go to Bayamon and they will never go to Maricao.
For that same reason they will go somewhere else in the continental United States and not to Puerto Rico. That is why Hawaii is a tourist and military bases economy. That is why it is not an industrial economy. So the real reasons economically for Puerto Rican empowerment under independence, is to fully develop our economy. And that will in exchange be beneficial for export to the United States and for better trading relations.
So that is our idea of a fully developed economy. There are 15 or 20 smaller nations than Puerto Rico who in the last 25 years have passed Puerto Rico in economic development, with higher per capita growth annually than Puerto Rico. And that is what we have to look for, for the powers of a republic; to add flexibility; to break this dependence with the United States; not to break our friendship but our dependence, and to become interdependent with the whole world. That is what independence is for.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would just like to end by saying, Mr. President, I noticed how well prepared—as he always is, but he seemed exemplary prepared this morning, Congressman José Serrano. And I would attribute it to the fact that you visited with him the last time you came. And without getting jealous or anything about the situation, since I did vote for you twice and I believe he has never lived in Puerto Rico and participated, I would hope that the next time you come you would——
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. Well, I am sure——
Mr. GUTIERREZ. [continuing]—also visit me so that we can continue to engage in——
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. I hope Mr. Serrano will vote for me next time and that you will keep your vote as you have always.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. SERRANO. I asked, in fact, before, when Representative Young called you Mr. President, if that was a message for the future. I have no problems. And thank you for reminding me I never lived in Puerto Rico; just a couple of years. But I will remind you I was born there.
Senator, throughout history, at least in my lifetime of understanding or trying to understand Puerto Rican issues, it was the Independence Party and the independentistas who were most often persecuted, not only outside the island but inside the island. And yet it is interesting that today, and throughout this debate, we are going to hear how the people who were empowered all those years by the status, not the people but the status, feel persecuted at this juncture of the situation.
So my question to you, which is related somewhat to Luis' question, with the changes you propose, is: is this bill a fair bill for the independence option? I am not asking if independence is fair. You already answered that. Is this bill, with the changes proposed, a fair bill? Would you walk away from this process and go back to the island and say we can vote, on what is up there in Washington because it is a fair deal?
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. It is not fair, because we have this historical prejudice against us. We would need many years in order to be able to preach in a free way which would compensate for what people have been led to believe through persecution, through public instruction in the schools, through denigrating everything that is Puerto Rican; through telling us that we cannot stand on our own two feet. You know, that takes generations. But we cannot wait a generation, because we might not have Puerto Rico left in a couple of generations. We need to act fast. So within the context of these limitations, we would see it as a fair bill if many of our conditions or amendments are introduced.
It is a very interesting thing, and I cannot resist the temptation—I cannot resist it. Excuse me, but those who were accomplices in the U.N. in 1952 now want to appear as victims. To me that is an incredible proposition. You know, of course the United States lied in 1952 before the U.N., but the vote in the U.N. doesn't count in order to institute the parameters of the Constitutional role in the United States. It is a vote in the House and in the Senate. So what happened in Puerto Rico was that a number of people came here, sat in Congress and said nothing was going to change and then went to the U.N. and it was such an absurd proposition that they had to buy everybody off there. It was a buy and sell proposition.
My thesis for master of law was regarding the decision of the U.N. It was 22/18 with 16 abstentions when the United States was the owner of the world. What happened there? Arms were twisted, you know, all sorts of objectionable procedures were taken there for the United States to force a 22 to 18 vote in the U.N. That is what happened there, and the United States is guilty and the Puerto Rican government at that time is guilty also. They are accomplices in this enormous hoax upon the world.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
After that happened, in 1960 came declaration of independence which legally superseded whatever happened in '52/'53. But besides those legal issues, the fact is the United States lied in 1952 in the U.N., in 1953, and the Puerto Rican government fooled the whole world and lied also in the U.N. And then they have been lying for 40-some odd years in Puerto Rico. They have been telling the Puerto Rican people that we have a compact here. If we had a compact, what are we doing here? What is the part of the compact that you people are supposed to keep? You know, if this is a compact, it is the worst compact I ever saw.
You know, so we should—I don't want to—that is why I couldn't resist the temptation, you know, but that is what I said, let us put that aside. I am willing not to speak about that. I urged Congressman Young, you know, be lenient in this matter, don't rub it in in the findings of the bill, everybody knows what commonwealth is. Even they know what it is. But let us leave that outside. Let us describe the two paths. One towards sovereignty of Puerto Rico and one towards the sovereignty of the United States, but let us not try to fool anybody anymore. We are grown up in Puerto Rico. We are grown up here.
The United States in Puerto Rico did things in 1952 because the U.S. Government was so stingy that they wouldn't grant the Puerto Rican autonomists even what they asked for, but instead of accepting that fact and coming to Puerto Rico and telling the people, ''this is what we got,'' they tried to make out of what they could get from the United States something new, a development of federalism. It is a real pity that we have wasted 40-some odd years with these big hoax in Puerto Rico. But let us not speak about the hoax. Let us speak about the future.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SERRANO. Let me end. I have to go vote. I thank you for your support of the non-resident vote and for clarifying that I left it open for negotiation, because I know what I want, but there are other people who may want to tailor that to the needs of the moment.
Mr. BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ. I wanted to say that. The fact that I favor the non-resident vote doesn't mean that I am going to let those people who want this to continue under colonialism to use that as an excuse not to participate in the process. That should be made very clear. I am not saying it as an excuse but as a matter of justice. We are past the stage of excuses. We have to face the issue. Either we want to be Americans or we want to be Puerto Ricans. That is the real issue.
The CHAIRMAN. We have got to go vote. When we come back—thank you, sir. The Honorable Acevedo Vilá, President of the Popular Democratic Party will be up.
You know, you don't have to vote. You can go ahead if you want to. I will be right back.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The President of the Popular Party, Mr. Acevedo-Vilá.
STATEMENT OF ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILÁ, PRESIDENT OF THE POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Anibal Acevedo-Vilá. I am President of the Popular Democratic Party. I commend the sponsor of this bill for his interest in establishing the procedure for the people of Puerto Rico to choose their final political status. I pledge the full cooperation of our party to that end.
We have made every effort to evaluate, study and analyze H.R. 856 and conclude that we cannot and will not support it as it stands right now.
For the majority of the people of Puerto Rico that believe in autonomy and self-government with American citizenship as a bond with the United States, this bill offers no alternative. It will require that the more than 900,000 persons I represent that are against annexation as a State, choose between the colonial denigrating status or loosing our American citizenship. To vote in this plebiscite would force us to act against our political beliefs. It would trample us upon our conscience.
When Congress decided back in 1917 to offer American citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico, it was made completely disassociated from any thought of statehood and specifically contemplated that it be an element of future autonomous self-government development for the island. To unilaterally change these assumptions now would confront Puerto Ricans with a conscience dilemma of no precedent in American history.
With this bill as it stands, statehood becomes the only available alternative. The people of Puerto Rico would have to make a choice for statehood for their own reasons, not based on patriotism and a real commitment to the union, but because they have been left with no other real alternative. On the other hand, the U.S. Congress will have before it a petition for statehood, and a request for action without having considered properly the cultural, national, linguistic, economic consequences of statehood. As you can see, this bill as it stands would not solve any problem, but rather create a bigger one.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let there be no doubt that we want to participate in a fair and democratic process. As Chairman Young stated in September 17, 1990, with regard to another referendum bill for Puerto Rico, and I am quoting, ''a referendum should only be authorized by the Congress if it is to be fair to all parties and the statuses they advocate.'' With all due respect, the bill under your consideration does not comply with the fairness standard Chairman Young previously established.
History shows that full autonomy and American citizenship are not mutually exclusive concepts. This principle was clearly outlined by President Taft in his 1912 State of the Union address advocating in favor of granting American citizenship to Puerto Ricans. And I quote from President Taft. ''But it must be remembered that the demand must be, and in the minds of most Puerto Ricans is, entirely disassociated from any thought of statehood. I believe that no substantial approved public opinion in the United States or in Puerto Rico contemplates statehood for the island as the ultimate form of relations between us. I believe that the aim to be striven for is the fullest possible allowance of legal and fiscal self-government with American citizenship as the bond between us; in other words, a relation analogous to the present relation between Great Britain and such self-governing colonies as Canada and Australia.''
The basic principles regarding commonwealth that this bill pretends to deny, the existence of a bilateral relationship based on mutual consent with American citizenship as one of its components, have been recognized by the court, by the U.S. Government, by the United Nations, and in all the bills that the Congress has seriously considered with regard to the status of Puerto Rico in the last 25 years.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For example, H.R. 11200–1st Session, 94th Congress, introduced in Congress in 1975 approved in a subcommittee, recognized that we—that the commonwealth was a compact between Puerto Rico and the United States. S. 712, approved by the Senate Energy Committee in August, 1989, recognizing the bilaterality of the relationship and the permanence of American citizenship. S. 244 was also considered by the Senate Energy Committee in 1991. It recognized Puerto Rico's autonomy, bilateral compact, mutual consent, and the U.S. citizenship as a bond of permanent union. Final Committee vote was 10 to 10, although major concerns to the commonwealth definition were not reported. Finally, H.R. 4765 approved by Interior and Insular Affairs, by the Interior Committee and unanimously by the House of Representative in August 10, 1990, allowing the people of Puerto Rico to vote for a new commonwealth.
So far, I have been talking about the historic precedents that clearly show that the assumptions under which this bill has been drafted are wrong. Now it is time to talk about the future.
The definition I am about to present is made recognizing the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico to enter into a new relationship with the United States consistent with the principles of dignity, political autonomy and permanent union that gave birth to the present commonwealth status. With minor changes in order to adjust it to the implementation process required by H.R. 856, the Popular Democratic Party believes that it will be adequate to work with the definition of a new commonwealth adopted by this Committee in 1990, which was included in the report to H.R. 4765 of the 101st Congress and approved unanimously by the full House on October 10, 1990.
Eleven members of this Committee, including Chairman Young and Congressman Miller, were members of that Committee and voted in favor of that definition that I will now present. The new commonwealth shall be defined as follows.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A, the new Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will be joined in a union with the United States that will be permanent and the relationship could only be altered by mutual consent. Under a compact, the commonwealth would be an autonomous body politic with its own character and culture, not incorporated into the United States and sovereign over matters covered by the Constitution of Puerto Rico, consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
B, the United States citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico would be guaranteed and secure as provided by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and equal to that of citizens born in the several States. The individual rights, privileges and immunities provided for by the Constitution of the United States would apply to residents of Puerto Rico. Residents of Puerto Rico would be entitled to receive benefits under Federal social program equally with residents of the several States, contingent on equitable contributions from Puerto Rico as provided by law.
C, to enable Puerto Rico to arrive at full self-government over matters necessary to its economic, social and cultural development under its constitution, a special constitutional convention will submit proposals for the entry of Puerto Rico into international agreements and the exemption of Puerto Rico from specific Federal laws or provisions thereof. The President and the Congress, as appropriate, will consider whether such proposals will be consistent with the vital national interests of the United States in the transition plan provided for in Section 4 of this act. The commonwealth would assume any expenses related to increased responsibilities resulting from these proposals.
And that is the end of the definition we are presenting. The definition describes the minimum content of our aspirations. By offering a definition which was the subject of serious study, was actively supported by Chairman Young and Congressman Miller among others, and met with the approval of this Committee and of the whole House a few years ago, we mean to show our desire to facilitate the work of this Committee and bring about a plebiscite in which commonwealth supporters may participate with a clear conscience.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By using the mechanism of a constitutional convention to implement the mandate in favor of the new commonwealth, which is already included in Section 4(b)(1)(B) of H.R. 856, that recognized the calling of a special constitutional convention, to implement a vote in favor of the new commonwealth, we would adapt it to the implementation mechanism conceived by this bill.
The Popular Democratic Party is looking with enthusiasm at the future. It is in the process of reorganizing its leadership and currently involved in a healthy generational transition that will guarantee a strong and rejuvenated party for years to come. The definition I have presented today fully complies with the principles contained in a document adopted last week by the Youth Organization of the Popular Democratic Party.
Commonwealth as an autonomic idea for the future is the only status alternative in Puerto Rico that harmonizes those aspirations and goals of the modern world by protecting our identity and simultaneously guaranteeing our relationship with the United States, with a common market, common citizenship, common defense and common currency.
We believe that the modern tendencies show that the ideas that will prevail in the new century will be those similar to the basic principles of commonwealth of national reaffirmation and political integration among the people of the world.
Thank you.
[Statement of Anibal Acevedo-Vilá may be found at end of hearing.]
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Acevedo. I want to thank you for your testimony, statement and also thank you for staying within the time limits allowed. Now I would like to ask a couple of questions about your proposal. But before that, I would like to ask a question about the plebiscite, how the plebiscite is held in Puerto Rico. Do you believe that the plebiscite bill in 1967 was a fair bill for all parties?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. It was a completely different process. That one was basically a local plebiscite. Now we are talking about federally authorized plebiscite and I think that if we want to really have action from Congress, this is the kind of plebiscite we need. We had two plebiscites, one called by the Popular Democratic Party in 1967, the other one by the Statehood Party in 1993. And we haven't seen any action from Congress. So I don't—perhaps that one should have been done in a different way to guarantee that the resolve of the people of Puerto Rico would have been respected by Congress. I think that is one of the major limitations we have had till now.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. My question is precisely whether you think that the 1967 plebiscite was a fair plebiscite to the other parties, the parties that represented statehood and independence? Would you say that that was a fair plebiscite as far as they were concerned? Having nothing to do with the Federal Government, just with the other parties.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Well, at that time the statehood party did not accept the plebiscite and a new faction was created. And as a result, perhaps, of what happened in '67, they won the elections in 1968. So the statehood was adequately represented in that plebiscite.
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. But we all considered it a very unfair plebiscite. We participated as an independent group. The party boycotted and so did the independence party boycott it. Both parties boycotted it, and they voted against the bill in the legislature of Puerto Rico.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. I don't think that for some of that the 1993 plebiscite was either too fair. We participated and we won.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And the 1991 referendum, do you consider that—was that a fair bill for the other side?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. In a way it is also—you could say it was unfair, but you won.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. That is right. So sometimes what is unpleasant, is not fair, might be to the advantage of the other party.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. I think that what we get out of this is that the next time we should do it the right way.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The other—when I read your definition of a new commonwealth, and so much emphasis is made on the sovereignty and the separateness of Puerto Rico, vis a vis the United States, my mind wonders why do you really, then, insist on U.S. citizenship? You don't really want to be like other U.S. citizens. Why do you insist on that?
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. As I showed you with the President Taft quote, when U.S. citizenship was granted to the people of Puerto Rico, it was clearly established it had nothing to do with statehood, and moreover that it could be the bond of a new relationship based on an autonomous self-government. And that is what we are asking. This bill—one of the problems with this bill is now, 60 years later, 70 years later, Congress wants to unilaterally give a new interpretation, but it is too late. U.S. citizenship was granted in 1917 under those rules, and to change that now is really unfair to the people of Puerto Rico.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I am not talking so much about the unfairness that might be or might not be in Congress. My question is why do you want to be a U.S. citizen if you don't really like being part of the United States as the rest of the citizens? What would you want to be?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Congressman, we haven't said that. I haven't said that. We have a special relationship, and to enter into a new relationship, yes, you have—the fact that we have here in our self-determination process, even if we vote for statehood, that is basically an exercise of our sovereignty. This Congress will decide if the people of Puerto Rico have the right to vote for their future. And whatever relationship we will have in the future with the United States has to be based on the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico, which means that the ultimate source of power is the people. So I don't see why you want to give some different computation to my expression when even for statehood this Congress has to decide that we have the power to decide. And to have the power to decide means to have—to be sovereign in terms of the decision we are going to make.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
After the decision is made and a new commonwealth is established, we have provided for a mechanism so the powers that Congress will still exercise over Puerto Rico will be clearly established through this process of a special constitutional convention, which is the only change we are making to the definition that in 1990 was approved by the full House, by this Committee and unanimously by the full House.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The issue here is not only what we want, but also what Congress would approve and what the citizens for which the Congress people and the Senators respond would accept. Now the reason I asked that question is how do you think the U.S. citizens here feel when they hear or they read that the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico don't really want to have the same things that they have or have equality in a democratic system which prides itself on equality politically, equality economically, and that they don't really want that, they want something else and they want to be separated and they want their own authority for certain other things and they don't want to get into the ball game?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Precisely because we know that it a two-way relationship. We are offering an alternative that was approved by the full House in 1990. So we are not here with a new wish list or whatever. We are working on what was done between 1989 and 1991, and in this case what was approved on this Committee.
With regard to Puerto Rico, the United States and the people of the United States know they have a special relationship with Puerto Rico. They know we have different culture and different language and they have advantage of that relationship. It is not only one way. It is two ways. Common defense is also in the interests of the United States, and we agree with that. Puerto Rico is one of the best markets for U.S. produce, and that is good for the American economy. So it is a relationship healthier for both sides. And what we want to do now is to get new tools for economic development for Puerto Rico within this special arrangement that has been working since 1952, but that now if we are going to address this issue seriously we should clarify any doubts about a relationship and give the opportunity for it to develop into further, more self-government, full self-government.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. My time is up. I just want to make a statement. The problem with the whole thing is the citizenship. If you ask for the same things without U.S. citizenship, I would think that the Congress wouldn't even, you know, think twice about it if that is what the people wanted. It is the citizenship that creates the real problem.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. That is not negotiable. Citizenship is not negotiable.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The Congressman from Samoa.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Acevedo-Vilá, am I to understand that your statement on page 9 in the proposed definitions that you have alluded to earlier, this has been submitted to Chairman Young and the members of the Committee? This is what you would like——
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Yes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. [continuing]—have incorporated in the proposed bill?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. We were given until the 31st of March, but I decided that this was the moment to present, so this Committee clearly understands that we are not against a plebiscite.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So you are——
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. All of the party have been committed since 1952, even after commonwealth was enacted, we have been committed to giving the opportunity of the people of Puerto Rico to be consulted again and also to develop commonwealth. But the problem with this bill is that it is unfair and basically if you approve this bill as it stands, you don't have to count the votes. You will have a petition for statehood here, but for the wrong reasons.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me ask you just—is it your position that you will not have any objections to this bill if the proposed definition of commonwealth as you alluded to earlier is incorporated?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. If this definition is adopted by this Committee, that means that we have changed the assumptions under which this Committee has been acting. You could have some choice or change of course then you have to make some other changes on the bill, for example the findings of fact, which even the independentistas said they are not necessary to be there. And of course these definitions should be part of the permanent solution of this issue. It is not something to—this one or the one that said that if commonwealth wins we have to have a vote every four years, it would be part of the permanent solution.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You know, as a matter of observation, Mr. Vila, it is interesting to note that you have stated that the people of Puerto Rico were not granted their American citizenship until 1917. The American Indians were not granted citizenship until 1924. My good friend here from Guam was not granted U.S. citizenship until 1950. To this day, we are still not U.S. citizens as part of the American family, as I say. So as a matter of observation I wanted to ask you it is your opinion that since granting citizenship in 1917 to the people of Puerto Rico, your feeling is that Congress never intended Puerto Rico to become a State?
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. That is clearly on the record. That has been decided by the courts. And also on page——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No, I am not——
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. No, I want to——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I want to make an addition, an observation of the fact that I recall that in 1929 there was a U.S. Supreme Court case that emanated from Puerto Rico, which was Downs v. Bidwell, which by judicial legislation the U.S. Supreme Court then created what was called the incorporation doctrine, meaning that if a territory was to be described as an unincorporated territory, they will never see the day of becoming a State, but if you were an incorporated territory——
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. In that case——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. [continuing]—like Alaska and Hawaii, there was some sense of future that one day those territories would eventually become States.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. In that case it was after we had become U.S. citizens.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. And the court decided that we were not an incorporated territory because of the fact that we were given U.S. citizenship. It had nothing to do with statehood. And these men tried to change all that law.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Was there any reason when the U.S. finally decided to grant independence to the Philippines, was there any discussion in the Philippine—I mean in Puerto Rico, as well, as your understanding of history? Was there any movement by the people of Puerto Rico that a likely grant should also be given to the people of Puerto Rico when the Philippines became independent?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. All the evidence is that Puerto Ricans never, never have really been interested in independence. And after the creation of commonwealth back in 1952, the Independence Party was the second party in the island, and I don't remember the percentage, but they got perhaps maybe 30 percent of the vote. Now they have been down to five percent for the last 20, 25 years.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is it your basic position that—let us say that this legislation goes forward smoothly, that as proponents of a commonwealth status, whatever the will of the people of Puerto Rico will decide, in fairness, if it wants statehood tomorrow, the commonwealth proponents will accept statehood? Is that basically your position?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. We don't have any problem with that, and we will respect the will of the people, and we also believe that if it is a fair process and commonwealth is defined in a way that recognizes the kind of relationship we want, we will win that plebiscite. The people of Puerto Rico want to be—to keep being Puerto Ricans and also they want to keep their close relationship with the United States. The only way you can amortize that in the reality of Puerto Rico is through commonwealth. Independence, then you will afford—your nationalistic ideas and principles will be guaranteed, but then you won't have the close ties to the United States. With statehood, you are risking, definitely, your cultural identity and language.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But your point is that whatever the will expressed by the people will be, whether it be independence, commonwealth or statehood, your proponents of commonwealth will accept that?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. I go a step further. On the resolution that was approved by my party, which is included as an appendix to my written statement, we say that we want any plebiscite—a federally approved plebiscite should be self-executing.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Believing that, recognizing 1989 to 1991 process, we were the ones requiring that any bill approved by Congress would be self-executing.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. Now, who is next?
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a point.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Congressman Kennedy.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KENNEDY. It is interesting that I have to ask a question now, because I get to go over and vote on the Fair Labors and Standards Act because I am a—I have got all the rights and privileges as a Member of Congress here, and yet you can let me go because you can't have that same right that I enjoy on the Floor of the House to go leave now. And yet when we adopt one way or another whether we can replace comp time for overtime in this country, it is going to affect the residents of—people of Puerto Rico such that at the end of the year they are not going to have accrued as much social security time. At the end of the year, they are not going to have accrued the overtime dollars. They are going to be at a loss of nearly $1600 per family of income because of this bill if it is to pass, and yet your representative cannot go on the Floor and say that is wrong for Puerto Rico because he doesn't have that voting privilege.
And from my point of view, if you want to have citizenship and you want to have a bilateral relationship, it seems to me it has to include your ability to have voting power or else to have full determination for your people is rendered moot because you don't have the governmental authority to advocate on some very basic issues of economic concern. And that is all I——
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. As to your concerns, I have adequately taken care on the definition I am presenting. The solution to that dilemma is to allow the people of Puerto Rico an established mechanism so we can be exempted from Federal laws which has nothing to do with vital national interest. We don't have any problem with the laws regarding to defense and all that, but any other law we should would have the mechanism to decide whether it should apply to Puerto Rico or not. There is no problem with that, and that will take care of your concern.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you very much.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. The gentleman from Guam.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for a very interesting presentation. I have always—obviously I have the bill that I have introduced to make Guam a commonwealth, and sometimes people ask what is the distinction between this bill and the current status of Puerto Rico, but that will come for another day. And that issue, I think we deal with a little bit differently, because as part of the legislation that I have for Guam includes a mechanism for ultimately making a case for full self-determination. So that is not a process that is oblivious to that, but is actually incorporated in the context of the legislation which we have developed from Guam.
The question that I have for you is that in the process of making a case for commonwealth and assuming that this legislation moves forward and it has a definition that fits your—is to your satisfaction, and commonwealth prevails in this process, is it your assumption that commonwealth will then be a permanent status and that there will be no further determination, no further electoral process involved?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. It will be a permanent solution, of course. If 25, 30, 35 years from now the people of Puerto Rico express the will to become a State or even independence, we might reconsider the whole thing, but it is like when Texas was independent, Alaska was a republic and it was not the end of the discussion, but on this—from our point of view, it is a permanent solution, especially until—for all the time that Puerto Rico wants to still be part of that kind of arrangement. That is the concept of mutual consent.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Going back to the question of sovereignty, when Congress talks about mutual consent, it is recognizing the sovereignty of the other side to decide in terms of any change to the relationship. So that is taken care of also within the concept of mutual consent.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK, so as I understand you, and as I understand the advocates of your position, then, obviously things can always change. It could be that what is now an independent republic could become admitted as a State in the Union. It is even conceivable that a State in the Union may no longer be a State in the Union, but I think we take it on relatively safe political assumption that once you are a State in the Union, that is pretty much it and that once you are an independent country, that that is pretty much the situation. But the relative permanence of what you have described for commonwealth is not quite as permanent as the other two options.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. It is as permanent as we want it to be permanent.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. It is as permanent until you change your mind.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. As we want it to be permanent. There is no problem with that.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. OK, all right, well, I am glad you say that, because that clarifies for me——
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. I have to be—if you consider statehood for Puerto Rico, given the fact that we are a nation, you are going to have people telling you that the right of self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico haven't been extinguished under statehood.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I hear that. I hear that loud and clear, but, you know, that is not a determination for me to make. I think it is a determination that will be made by the Puerto Rican people according to an orderly process, and so that is what I am most interested in. But what I am trying to understand is the relative permanence of what is being characterized as a permanent solution. And I want to state for the record that certainly in the process of—you know, you admit here or you submit as part of your testimony a quote from Justice Frankfurter.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. I was going to—yes.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, who said that this is really unincorporated territory. It is a problem of statesmanship.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Yes, that is a quote from 1912 when he was working at the War Department and Puerto Rico was under the jurisdiction with regard to Puerto Rican interests was in the War Department. And that quote, I think, is very, very important, because it basically tells you here in Congress that there are no real Constitutional constraints on establishing a new relationship with Puerto Rico.
The quote is the following. ''The form of the relationship between the United States and unincorporated territory''—which we were at that time—''is solely a problem of statesmanship. History suggests a great diversity of relationships between a central government and dependent territory. The present day demands upon inventive statesmanship is to help evolve new kinds of relationships so as to combine the advantages of local self-government with those of a confederated union. Luckily, our Constitution has left this field of invention open.''
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What you have is an opportunity of statesmanship invention. That is it.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Inventiveness is one thing. Invention is another, and permanent status yet is still another. And I would submit that there is—I understand the dynamics of where we are today and I have no doubt that saying that this dynamic may serve us well for the next 25 to 30 years, but there is in your characterization of this permanent status an indicator that there is still something unresolved in that. There is still something unresolved, and that is a final issue of self determination. And until that is fully resolved in one way or another, it seems to me that inevitably we will come back and indeed the current status may serve the purposes of the relationship well now. But indeed at 25 years from now, 30 years from now, 50 years from now, we will be back addressing the same issues.
That is why, you know, the way we have crafted it is a little bit different. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Joint letter to the President may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. The gentlelady from Virgin Islands.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Acevedo-Vilá. Commonwealth and free association are status options in this bill, and I would ask you to clarify for me what is the difference.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Well, I mean, this bill—commonwealth is defined—in this bill, the one we have—OK.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Well, have you seen the definition that is proposed for free association?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. The one in the bill, yes.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Go ahead and answer. Go ahead.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. In this bill, in H.R. 856, commonwealth is defined as a colonial denigrating status and free association is defined as independence with no American citizenship. And that is one of the problems with this bill. It wants to force my people to vote to go back to a colonial status or to deprive the unborn Puerto Ricans, my grandchildren, of American citizenship. And that has no precedent in American history.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. I can't find it right now, but I thought that—I think that in what is proposed for free association they propose to negotiate American citizenship. So what would be the difference—if that was proposed, what would be the difference between free association and commonwealth as you define it?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. The definition of new commonwealth is the one that I am proposing. How you label it, to me, is not important. It is the essence. And the essence is that we have and we want a bilateral relationship based on a mutual consent with the American citizenship as one of its elements. That is not negotiable.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. I understand. Thank you.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Before we go to the next member, I would like to say something for the record. One of the things that you mentioned, that the definition of the commonwealth in the bill before that was granted by the House back in 1991, that was '91 or '92. I don't remember exactly.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. It was 1990, October 10.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. That bill did not include a definition of commonwealth. The definition of commonwealth was only in the Committee report, but it was not included in the bill.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. I clearly say in my statement that it was included on the report, but I can explain to you the whole process——
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Well, I was in the process. I was in the process.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Because the law—the bill, as you know——
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. There was no consensus either in those days for those bills.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. But it was approved. You were here. It was approved unanimously——
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. With no consensus of the parties in Puerto Rico.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Excuse me?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. With no consensus of the parties in Puerto Rico as to what the bill said. The bill was approved the way the Congress wanted to approve it, not the way we wanted it.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. OK, but of that bill——
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I think the way——
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. That bill clearly says that the people of Puerto Rico have the option of voting for statehood, independence or new commonwealth and that whoever wins under that bill would come here and negotiate it. They said on the principles of the definitions that were included on the report—that was stated on the bill.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. That was not stated on the bill. We can—we have the bill in our records, so we will look at that. The other—I have copies of it, of the bill. We have copies of it. Are you aware——
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Can I read Section 4 of that bill?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Let me ask you a question. Are you aware that Congress cannot deny another Congress its Constitutional authority? In other words, if a Congress says today I am not going to exercise this Constitutional authority, this Constitutional power that I have, it cannot tell the next Congress that it cannot exercise it. Are you aware of that Constitutional doctrine?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. That Constitutional doctrine has exceptions. And on my testimony, written testimony, you can look into Appendix A where we have a note on the power of Congress to enter into a compact with the people of Puerto Rico and in many cases where this Congress has entered into the same kind of compact relationship and the court has validated that exercise. I have said that further Congress would have to comply with that.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. There is no single case that determines that Congress can address itself or its authority unless they do it by the Constitution, and to obligate a future Congress. A future Congress might abide by it throughout entirety, but the future Congress always had the right to do away and change the law. If you adopt something by law, if Congress adopts something by law, then the next Congress can repeal and can amend that law. There is no such thing as a law that is unrepealable or unamendable. So any law by Congress giving Puerto Rico certain powers can be taken away by the next Congress, because Congress cannot deny the next Congress that authority, that power that it has under the territorial clause.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. We can discuss this for hours if you want to. It is basically a legal discussion. For me, this is basically a problem of Puerto Rico will. It is not a legal discussion. If this Congress wants to recognize and validate what it told the people of Puerto Rico back in 1952 and construe over it for the future—and at that time Law 600 was not a single law. Law 600 was approved by this Congress and then it said clearly that in order to enter into effect it had to be approved by the people of Puerto Rico. There is the compact that the Governor couldn't find.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. This is merely a rectification. The Congress says this is a law, if you want it, accept it. That is all it says, all the law says.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. That is not——
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. If you accept it, we will go on.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. That is not what the cases say, but we don't want to——
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the Chairman yield?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Yes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think what we are trying to determine here, Mr. Vila, is the fact that there is definitely a permanency on statehood status as well as independent status. But when we discuss the issue of commonwealth, it seems to be an evolving process. It is not really permanent. Whatever was the status of commonwealth in 1917 or even in 1920, I think the latest now, as I understand from those who are advocating commonwealth, it is a continuous process in between independence on one extreme and statehood on the other extreme, so I think what we are trying to establish here is that there definitely is a permanency on statehood and independence, but commonwealth seems to be an evolving process. There is no finality of determining what exactly is the—what direction is Puerto Rico headed for. Am I correct?
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. If it is good for the United States and if it is good for the people of Puerto Rico, why do we have to be then discussing this issue about the permanence? It is good for the people of Puerto Rico and it is good for the United States just continuing it. I don't—as I told you, even if Puerto Rico becomes a State, you will still have the self-determination issue, because given the fact that we are a nation, people will say that we haven't extinguished our self-determination right. So what you are asking me is that we by law say that it is legally important after this plebiscite we will say by law that it is illegal to be an independentista or statehooder, even—or if we become a State that it will be illegal to be an independentista or autonomous under statehood. No, the discussion might go on, but with this finished and if Congress finally clarifies many of the assumptions made on this bill, I can guarantee you that we will win that plebiscite and that this thing would be settled at least for one generation.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you view that with the current definitions of the proposed bill that there definitely would be some very serious problems with those advocating commonwealth if you were to proceed with the plebiscite, or will you participate in the plebiscite without the form of definition that you now have outlined in your statement?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. I have to be honest with you. I can't make the U.S. Government, Congress and the President, approve a law which gives no option to 46, 48, 49 percent of the people down there in Puerto Rico who believe in self government with an autonomy with American citizenship. So I come here because we see the invitation, especially the letter that was sent by Chairman Young and Congressman Miller, as an openness, as an opportunity, as a willingness to revise the assumptions under that bill. So I really—I believe in principles. I believe in democracy, and I think that if a plebiscite is finally approved by Congress, we will be allowed to vote.
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I am sorry.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you. The gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Well, I guess we are coming back to probably the crux of the dilemma that we have here today, I believe. As I stated earlier, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I have the perplexing dilemma also, and that is that I see what happened in '52, OK, we got Law 600. Subsequently, we go to the United Nations. We say to the committee on decolonization ''tell you what, Puerto Rico has achieved self-determination, we have a bilateral agreement.'' That is our government interpreting what the Congress of the United States has done. Now we can argue and quibble into the night, but that was the interpretation before the world. Now, see, I don't mind looking backward from that position.
I say that if the people of Puerto Rico and the Government of the United States, through its representatives, went to the United Nations and said '' we don't have to report anymore to the committee on decolonization,'' why are we moving backward to a territorial clause which is weaker, which is weaker and less respectful of the people of Puerto Rico to then reengage in a conversation where we should say ''move forward.'' And so it is like we have let you come this far, we told the world we would let you come this far, but now we are taking it all back and starting back at square one going back to the territorial clause.
It would seem to me that even if you believe that it was a lie, a fantasy, and something that we misled the people of the world about, that it still has validity in terms of its impact, where it has taken the people of Puerto Rico. And we shouldn't really take that away. So I have a great dilemma of saying to myself I understand the question of sovereignty and separate sovereignty.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I understand those questions, but you see, in Puerto Rico if you look at the history, there have been three traditions. There has been the annexation tradition, those who wish for Puerto Rico to become a State. Very well established in history. There has been the independence tradition, very well established in the history of Puerto Rico. And there has been the autonomous position, very well established in the history of Puerto Rico. Ramon Baldorioty de Castro y Luis Muñoz Rivera. And you can keep adding names. And, I mean, maybe Muñoz Rivera, others probably didn't speak to José de Diego. And they were together at one time and then they separated over these questions.
But, you see, it is—the problem that I have, and I am going to have to grapple with it seriously and that I think the members of the Committee should seriously look at, do you now say given that history in Puerto Rico that we are going to lump two of them together? Two historically independent interpretations of what the will of the people of Puerto Rico should be historically speaking. I didn't make them up yesterday. So to kind of suggest that somebody is coming up and inventing a new formula, I think is a little disingenuous given the rich history of the option of autonomy and the proposal of autonomy which exists in Puerto Rico.
Now the question that I think this Committee should ask itself—if we can see—if we can concede that Puerto Rico under free association, which I think was from commonwealth—because let me just state for the record I do not believe that under the current status which exists between Puerto Rico and the United States we have achieved self-determination. I don't believe that, and therefore I believe it is a colony. But I also believe that because the Congress of the United States did not—our country, our government, did not fulfill its obligations as it should have back in 1953 to allow the growth of the sovereign powers of Commonwealth—allow the island to develop and to give birth to new kinds of rights under that interpretation.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I say to myself OK, now, let us think about this a minute. If I said there would be common currency, everybody on the Committee might say free association, common currency, sounds OK to me under free association. Common defense, sounds OK to me, probably could do that. If I could just—since the green light is still on——
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I have been trying to say that, Luis, this is a time for questions.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I understand that.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And I have been very——
Mr. GUTIERREZ. And I am working up to——
The CHAIRMAN. I know why it took 98 years now. Go ahead.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. And if we could have all of these other commonalities, I guess the question I have to ask myself very seriously, Mr. Resident Commissioner and Mr. Chairman, all of you, can there be common citizenship under that relationship between the two parties. And then if indeed we cannot do it under the interpretation of this Congress under the plenary powers under the territorial clause, can we allow the people of Puerto Rico under free association to have a convention in Puerto Rico, a constitutional convention in Puerto Rico, and come back and sign a treaty with the Senate thereby allowing this free determination and the freedom of the people of Puerto Rico—we can't have a treaty which is not removable unilaterally by one side. Maybe laws are changeable—and then resolve this issue.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I don't know—those are questions that I have and I would like Mr. Acevedo to please respond to that inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. And may I suggest one thing, that you have a very short time to do it, because he took all the time in asking the question. Do the best you can, OK.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. As Frankfurter said back in 1914, our Constitution has left this field of invention open. And what we can't accept is the assumption on this bill that you can't have autonomy and full self-government based on bilateral relationship that can be changed only by mutual consent and also have American citizenship.
So on the definition I am presenting, which I repeat was approved by the Committee and by the full—the definition was in the report and the report was approved here. And then the bill was approved in the House unanimously, and included this definition of the new commonwealth I am presenting with some minor changes. Recognizing all the principles we have been discussing, this doesn't have to be a trial on what happened in 1950 and '52. We believe what happened in 1952, but if somebody has doubts, let us clarify them now. This is the time to clarify them.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Acevedo, this is not a very easy moment for me, because, as I have stated before, I have taken some heat in the last couple of years for using the words colony and territory. And I know that some people feel offended by that, and some people feel somehow betrayed that anyone who was born on the island would charaterize the situation later in such a way. Please understand that my belief is that whatever agreement or lack of agreement was reached in '52, '53, was not a permanent agreement, because it was supposed to lead to something. Now what it would have led to is where I think we differ. Many of you feel somewhat comfortable with the current arrangement, but at the same time want changes in it.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So my quick question to you, and I need you to give me a quick answer so I can give you another question, is: am I correct that, in the '93 plebiscite, the option presented as commonwealth was in fact a a different, enhanced, commonwealth, or was it a reaffirmation of everything that was in the agreement as you saw it and that the people voted 48 percent for?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ The definition I am presenting today verifies the principle in which we believe and that Congress told the people of Puerto Rico we were getting back in 1950, '52, but if you have some doubts inside yourself, then this is your opportunity to do it the right way, then. But within those principles, within those principles.
Mr. SERRANO. Let me ask you the hard question. It might be easy for you. You do not believe—are you a lawyer?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Yes.
Mr. SERRANO. I am not.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Good for you.
Mr. SERRANO. My safety in this whole process, you know. You believe that Puerto Rico is not a colony of the United States?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Yes, I do believe we are not a colony. I believe that in 1950 and '52 the people of Puerto Rico entered into this special arrangement with the United States. I don't say it is perfect, and we have always said that commonwealth needed further development. And that is the reason I am here today.
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SERRANO. Do you believe that it is unfair for us to say in a bill, that commonwealth is based on what the Congress says it is, and that is what it is? It is whatever Congress says it is? And that commonwealth with your suggestions or the suggestions of people who believe in what you believe should be a separate option available to the people of Puerto Rico?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. If nobody is going to vote for that definition, the first one, why do you have to put it on the ballot? Nobody wants the definition of commonwealth that is on this bill. So if we want to——
Mr. SERRANO. No, no, my question is: is it that nobody wants the definition of commonwealth or is it that the definition that Congress is presenting is shameful to a lot of people who supported it for so many years and they are running away from it now? Which one is it?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. In my—from my point of view, that definition is not accurate.
Mr. SERRANO. OK, now let me tell you something.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. But I am not asking from this Congress now to make a judgment on the plebiscite from 1950, '52.
Mr. SERRANO. Right. The problem is, Mr. Acevedo, that that is what is holding us back. If there is a problem here, it is the fact that there is a segment of the leadership in Puerto Rico that is saying this is not what we are. Now let me tell you the strange and painful position that I find myself in. I was born in Mayaguez. My father was born in Anasco, my mother in Maricao. I came here to this country when I was seven years old. I am 53. I probably should not say that in public, but I am 53. When I think with my Puerto Rican hat, which is X amount of time during the day, I also don't want to believe Puerto Rice is a colony. It hurts me to admit that. But when I am a United States Congressman, which is a lot of the day, and I see how I treat Mississippi, New York, and Puerto Rico, I know that my cousins live in a colony.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now at what point do we say—maybe ''colony'' is not the word to use. Maybe the concept is a totally unfair relationship and we don't want it as an option. And let me ask you the last question. Do you think it would be proper for me as an American Congressman, forget the Puerto Rican part, to offer to people on the island an option that I believe to be unjust and unfair?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Well, I repeat again, I am not asking you to offer the commonwealth as defined on the bill as it stands right now. I am asking you to offer commonwealth as I have defined on my presentation and which you voted back in 1990 in favor of it. You voted. You were speaker pro tempore of that session.
Mr. SERRANO. In a great moment.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. So what we are asking is something that already has been approved by Congress, by the House.
Mr. SERRANO. So, one last question. If an amendment was to come to this Committee proposing what you propose in this bill, and this Committee turned it down because it wasn't willing to give Puerto Rico that arrangement, would you then propose that your party participate in the plebiscite or not participate?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. We will fight in other forums, including the Senate, the White House, everywhere else. As I said before, perhaps the same question was made in a different way, I believe that the U.S. Government, Congress and the President, would leave 48 percent of the people in Puerto Rico without option and that power.
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SERRANO. Well, but let us clarify that. I believe that that really is an unfair statement to me as a Member of Congress. The notion that the 48 percent voted for—and I know that Puerto Ricans are beautiful for analyzing numbers when it comes to this issue. The 48 percent voted for an option that this Congress feels you haven't reached yet. And so when you say Congress is leaving out 48 percent, yes, Congress may be leaving out the wishes of 48 percent, but not the actual living conditions and political arrangements of 48 percent.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. That is why I am talking now about the future here. And we said—we are talking about a new commonwealth consistent with the principle we have believed. And that new commonwealth was on the bill in October 1990.
Mr. SERRANO. All right, let me close by saying this. I don't have a problem with a new commonwealth. I have a problem with a new commonwealth being presented in the ballot as the old commonwealth, because the old commonwealth is not the new commonwealth.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. I invite you to read carefully the definition I am proposing today. And as I said, that was approved back in 1990.
Mr. SERRANO. All right. Then again, Mr. Chairman, one last point, any time a system of relationships allows me to run for Congress but doesn't allow my American citizen cousins in Mayaguez to run for Congress, that is not a fair relationship. I shouldn't see that on the ballot. Any time a system allows me to institute agreements with foreign countries but doesn't allow you the sovereignty to institute agreements with foreign countries, meaning you are not a State, and you are also not independent, then I can't see that as a fair relationship.
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. The solution to your concern is on paragraph C of the definition.
Mr. SERRANO. Which is not the actual status, is what I am trying to get at.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Yes.
Mr. SERRANO. What you——
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. I am going to——
Mr. SERRANO.—doesn't exist right now.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. I am going to repeat my statement. So far I have been talking about the historic precedent that clearly showed that the assumptions under which this bill has been drafted are wrong. Now is the time to talk about the future.
Mr. SERRANO. OK.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. And I am proposing a new commonwealth which is the definition that was approved by this Committee and the House back in 1990.
Mr. SERRANO. I respect that, and I won't badger you anymore. I do respect you. I respect what you stand for. I respect what your party stands for. I think the tragedy here is that Congress may be ready to stop lying and some people can't accept that Congress will finally stop lying. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. One last question before we finish. If the Congress were to, both the House and the Senate, and the White House were to take a look at this suggestion that you have for the new commonwealth and accept everything but including the citizenship and the bill were adopted, passed as a law into law as to the new commonwealth as you define it, but without the U.S. citizenship, what would your party do?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. It would be unacceptable for us, you know.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. So what would your party do? Would you vote, wouldn't vote?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. We would have to decide at the time, but that definition wouldn't be acceptable for us.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. So you wouldn't participate?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. That would be another way to tilt the process in favor of statehood.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. So you would not vote?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. You know that statehooders and commonwealth in Puerto Rico, we are proud of our U.S. citizenship, so by defining commonwealth without a U.S. citizenship, basically you are preordaining the result. And I know this Congress doesn't want that.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I have my doubts about that pride in the U.S. citizenship of some of the commonwealth leaders because of the way they talk about——
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. I am talking on behalf of the PDP and the President of the PDP.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And when you—my question is if that were eliminated from your definition, would you participate in the process or not?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. I don't see where we can vote under those circumstances.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. All right, thank you very much. For the New Progressive Party, Governor Luis Ferré, former governor. Luis, welcome to the Congress, the Committee. A couple of the members of the Committee have indicated to me that they have to go to vote, so they are trying to get back as soon as possible, including Chairman Young. The problem is that the bill that is now being taken care of in the House has certain votes that are pass votes one right after the other. They don't even have time for debate in between. That is why they have to stay there till those votes are taken.
If you would like to wait for them, we can accommodate and we can wait for them. Would you like to start now? Whatever you wish.
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FERRÉ. I understand that, Mr. Chairman. I know that they are voting now, but do you think I should start now? Your suggestion is that we should wait?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Well, if you want to wait for them to come—a couple of them to come back or we can start and then they will be coming.
Mr. FERRÉ. Is Mr. Farrow going to make a statement?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. No, go ahead, sure.
Mr. FERRÉ. Mr. Farrow.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Oh, Mr. Farrow. I am sorry. Mr. Farrow is here also. I think we better proceed. I think we better proceed then.
STATEMENT OF LUIS FERRÉ, PRESIDENT OF THE NEW PROGRESSIVE PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. FERRÉ. Mr. Chairman and members of the Natural Resources Committee, good afternoon. It is a pretty light day this afternoon, but also it's early to do things that is right.
My name is Luis A. Ferré. I have advocated statehood for Puerto Rico during my adult life, which extends to more than 93 years.
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I served as Governor of Puerto Rico from 1969 to '73, and I appear before you as Founding President of the New Progressive Party, committed to achieve statehood for Puerto Rico, which won in 1996 election with a majority vote of 1,006,331 or 51.4 percent for Governor of Puerto Rico, a majority of the Senate with 19 seats out of 28, a majority of the House with 37 out of 54 seats, 54 mayors of a total of 78 municipalities and a vote of 973,654, or majority for our Resident Commissioner who is presiding today at this meeting.
I am—the New Progressive Party, of course, stands firmly behind the Young bill, H.R. 856. And of course today when I sit here before you and I see Congressman Serrano, who presided this House three years ago when we voted in favor of another bill for statehood, when I see all these Members of—the Puerto Rican Members of the Congress of the United States here today, I say I am very happy that I have stood for statehood all the time, because all of them who have testified here say that they are proud to be Puerto Ricans, but they also are very proud and happy to have U.S. citizenship.
And that is the feeling that we have respect today. We have 2 million Puerto Ricans in the United States who are U.S. citizens and we have 3,600,000 in Puerto Rico. The 2 million in the United States are all enfranchised. They can vote for the President and for the Members of Congress. The 3 million in Puerto Rico are not enfranchised, the 3,600,000.
And those are the ones that want this thing to be defined finally. We cannot wait any longer. The ones who live up here can wait, but we cannot wait. And that is why it is very important to have the Young bill finally approved. A decision must be made, and we cannot permit that this bill be delayed unnecessarily.
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are all happy in this, that you have subscribed H.R. 856, which finally opens the road for Puerto Rico to make a decision on its ultimate political status in the dignified manner that becomes the United States Congress and the people of the United States, including statehood as an alternative, which was the implicit understanding under which the people of Puerto Rico welcomed the American forces of General Nelson Miles in 1898.
Unless we—I would like to note the American forces did not invade Puerto Rico. They landed in Puerto Rico, because there was no Puerto Rican fighting the American forces in Puerto Rico. In Cuba it was a different story. In Cuba they had to fight with the Spaniards, a big fight. In Puerto Rico, the Puerto Ricans immediately welcomed them and there was no fighting in Puerto Rico because the Spanish had to admit that—surrender and leave.
And then the Puerto Ricans said we want to keep—to be part of the United States. We want to be U.S. citizens, because we want in the long run to be a State of the Union. In Cuba, they said no, we want independence. Well, Cuba got its independence. We got our U.S. citizenship. A hundred years later, here we are. Cuba is a Latin American country. Puerto Rico is part of the United States. That is the big difference. And you can see how different it is. That is why the people of Puerto Rico want to maintain their U.S. citizenship and consolidate that citizenship with the Nation on an equal basis and with equal dignity.
I will not go into the historic elements, details of the landing of General Miles. It has been covered already here, but I would like to say the following thing. In 1950 Congress authorized the people of Puerto Rico to vote in referendum to accept or reject Law 600, which provided for the adoption of the local constitution, as well as to other amendments to the Jones Act of 1917. The Federal Relations Act remained unchanged, maintaining Puerto Rico as a non-incorporated territory under the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution and the full sovereignty of Congress.
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to state that because it has been discussed here today and I want to maintain that there was no amendment to the territorial clause. And I am talking now from experience. I was a member of that constitutional assembly. And at that constitutional assembly, which considered Law 600, we looked into the matter of the way Law 600 was approved by Congress. And in all the years in this Congress where the law was discussed, it was always clearly stated that Puerto Rico was not being removed from the territorial clause of the United States.
And the Former Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Muñoz Marin, said many times at these Committee hearings if Puerto Rico goes crazy and does something that is not quite in accordance with what we have agreed, you can—Congress can immediately repeal every thought of power it has given Puerto Rico. And that is why there was nothing passed.
In order to get the law approved in Congress, the lawyers of the Department of Interior had to work out a solution that was acceptable to Congress. Congress would not accept the compact, but they did accept something in the nature of a compact. And in the nature of a compact is not a compact. It is something similar to a compact, but not—doesn't have the binding quality of a compact. And that is why after that Governor Muñoz Marin and the Popular Party, and I have been fighting them since 1940, because do you know why I say so trying to make people of Puerto Rico believe that there has been a compact, that things have changed, that we were a different thing. But that was not true.
Now finally Congress has said let us go, let us look into this matter now. There was no compact. You are still under the clause of territory because that was the way the Congress approved Law 600. So therefore, it is today necessary to decide the question of Puerto Rico by this Congress.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1949, and many of you were not born then, I testified before a Committee of Congress, a subcommittee in Congress, on the subject of statehood for Puerto Rico. And at that time I said we are behind in our economic development because we are not a State of the Union. You have to give us our full—all the instruments that the States have to be able to bring Puerto Rico up to the same level as the rest of the nation. We don't want gifts, but we want the tools so that we can do it.
And at that time, I pointed out that a State of the Union, Mississippi, in 1940 had a personal income of $268 and Puerto Rico had $122, 45.5 percent. In '49, Puerto Rico had $250 and Mississippi $555, 45 percent, the same ratio. Since then, the United States has worked with the Former Governor of Puerto Rico in bringing new ideas of how to solve the problem of Puerto Rico, but they haven't worked. The only idea that would work is statehood.
If we would have two senators and six or seven Members of Congress, we would be able to work in Congress the solutions to our problem and we would have an economic position today where we would be similar to your States, but too much has happened since 1949. In 1956, Puerto Rico had $468 per capita and Mississippi $964, 48.5 percent. In 1996, now, this last year, Puerto Rico had $7882 and Mississippi $16,966, 45.8 percent of Mississippi. That is why we need so much help from Congress, because we have not been able to pull up our economy to the level of Mississippi at least, and not even to the average of the United States.
So why? Because we are not a State of the Union. So all this discussion is really impractical. We have to solve the problem with the only way it can be done, which is by becoming a State of the Union.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now the admission of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union would directly enhance the position of the United States in foreign affairs. It would be the logical conclusion of a process which started in 1898 when Puerto Rico came under the American flag. Puerto Rico before the year 1900 had the old European authoritarian social structure. This structure has gradually evolved into a democratic society under the American influence, which began by teaching our youth the American principles of individual liberty, equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity, through the school system and the political institutions, which were established after the year 1900.
That is the way Puerto Rico has grown. That is why I can see today Mr. Gutierrez sitting here, Congressman of his people, Mr. Serrano sitting here in the Congress of the United States. Mr. Serrano, who as I said, chaired the U.S. House three years ago for awhile brought forth the bill on Puerto Rico. And that is why I think it is important to understand that change in Puerto Rico. We are not a Latin American country anymore. Cuba is, because we changed, we took a different route. We became part of the United States. And we have wanted to be—we want to work up to the same level of dignity and equal rights as the rest of the country.
This, therefore, has been, to my mind, the most significant change that Puerto Rico has undergone under the American flag. The successful achievement of our economic well being is, therefore, a challenge to the American citizens of Puerto Rico and to our fellow citizens of the mainland, a challenge to show the world that the American way is the way to both economic success, social improvement and political freedom, which can usefully serve as a pattern to solve the vaster problems of other underprivileged countries of the world. A challenge of great political and human potentialities, which may be of great world significance.
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With respect to the relations of the United States and Latin America, statehood for Puerto Rico would have still greater significance. It would serve to improve and solidify the position of America as a friend and partner, for it would be the best proof that our good-neighbor policy is not a mere diplomatic posture, but that it is an honest and sincere expression of respect of North America for Latin America. It would make Latin America feel that through Puerto Rico and through its representation in Congress, their problems and aspirations would be better understood because of our common cultural origin and tradition.
As Americans identified with the political and social philosophy of America and its institutions of law, we would be able to better interpret our foreign policy to them and help the United States to succeed in bringing better understanding and cooperation in the common problems of our hemisphere.
And at the present moment, the need to maintain and further develop the commercial interchange with Latin America, which is our natural market, when we are loosing the European market to United Europe and the Pacific markets to Japan and China, is essential to our success and prosperity.
The growth of statehood forces in Puerto Rico have been overwhelming since 1968. In 1964, the Pro-commonwealth Party had 487,000 votes or 59.4 percent of the vote, and the Pro-statehood Party had 284,000 or 34.6. In the last election of 1996, there was a complete reversal. The Statehood Party obtained 963,000 votes or 51.3 percent, and the Pro-commonwealth Party 855,000 or 45.5 percent, which shows that statehood is the growing movement in Puerto Rico.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And remember that the Commonwealth Party also wants to keep U.S. citizenship. They are not thinking of giving it up. They want to hold onto it, so really when you come to think about it, 90 percent of the people of Puerto Rico want to continue to be U.S. citizens.
Now can they be U.S. citizens without statehood? That is the issue. That is the issue. And all this playing around isn't going to solve the problem, because United States is determined and understand that constitutionally the only way you can be a U.S. citizen is by being born in a State of the union. And therefore, that is the only solution that we can find.
We feel, therefore, that Puerto Rico is ripe to become a State after almost 100 years of successful democratic apprenticeship and to assume its full political rights and responsibilities. During all this century, more than 200,000 Puerto Ricans have served with distinction in all the wars that United States has been involved with more than 6000 casualties and in several cases with higher casualties than some States. More than 2000 Puerto Rican soldiers served in the Gulf War, amongst whom was a grandson of mine in the First Armored Division. Four, such as Fernando Luis Garcia, who gave their lives, heroically, in the line of duty, have been decorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Other distinguished leaders who have also served the Nation are Admiral Horacio Rivero, in 1968, Commander in Chief of NATO Forces in Southern Europe and later Ambassador to Spain; Vice Admiral Diego Hernandez, who was in command of the Mediterranean Fleet; Major General Pedro del Valle commanded the U.S. Marine Corps, First Division, in the Pacific; General William A. Navas, Jr., who is Deputy in Command of the National Guard; Dr. Antonia Novello served as U.S. Surgeon General, and Dr. Enrique Mendez, Jr., as Deputy Surgeon General of the U.S. Army, amongst many.
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The real test for Puerto Rican statehood should be how much we share common values with fellow citizens of the 50 States and how much Puerto Ricans believe in, honor, and defend the Constitution of the United States. A look at the myriad ways Puerto Ricans have served the United States over the last 99 years is enough to pass the test.
President Clinton has just appointed Mrs. Aida Alvarez, another Puerto Rican, to his Cabinet as head of Small Business Administration.
Puerto Rico is participating, successfully and with distinction, in Mainstream America to enrich its economy and its culture. There are about 2 million Puerto Ricans, as I said already, living throughout the nation, doing constructive and creative work as factory workers and professionals, in all fields of activity, thousands of physicians and engineers, thousands of teachers and professors in schools and universities.
In the arts and humanities, our rhythms and melodies have contributed to enrich American music. Justino Diaz and Pablo Elvira have been great voices at the Metropolitan Opera. Our great actors, like José Ferré and Raul Julia, have been American favorites.
We are contributing to enrich our cultural patrimony through museum collections. Today you can see on loan by the Fountain Museum at the National Gallery here in Washington the painting ''Flaming June'' by Lord Leighton, which is the key painting and masterpiece of the Victorian Exhibition.
We are also contributing to the richness of America in the area of civil government, amongst many others, Judge Juan Torruella, Chief Justice of the U.S. First Circuit of Appeals. Judge José Cabranes is a member of the U.S. Second Circuit of Appeals. And we have here all these members of this Congress, who are our pride to have them here.
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the area of sports, we have contributed with many baseball players, among whom Roberto Clemente has been included in the hall of fame. Charles Pasarell in 1969 was the first number one tennis player in the U.S., and now Gigi Fernandez is a tennis champion. Chi Chi Rodriquez is a golf professional
And last, but not least, and I repeat this in the last meeting of the past Congress, but not least, to show how much Puerto Rico is embedded in the American life, it was the Puerto Rican judge of the Southern District of New York, Sonia Sotomayor, who was a fearless jurist a couple of years ago, decided to issue an injunction that could break the deadlock in the baseball strike, and by doing so, sent the baseball players back to Americans, after more than a year, the enjoyment of one of their favorite sports. Nobody could be part of America more than this competent jurist of 40 years of age. She was the true image of the freedom and respect of law America stands for.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the time has come for Congress to live up to the commitment of equality under which we were brought into its fold. It is time to do justice to more than 3.6 million disenfranchised American citizens of Puerto Rico. We congratulate you for taking the proper step with H.R. 856 to comply with your moral duty, as it becomes the United States Congress and our fellow citizens of the United States.
Thank you very much.
[Statement of Luis Ferré may be found at end of hearing.]
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. And you are always an inspiration for me. As you get more mature, I see there is hope for me yet. And I want to thank you for your testimony. At this time, I understand, with the agreement of the other members—Mr. Kennedy, do you have to go somewhere?
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Yes, I have a caucus I have to go to.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, being that you are one of the members, so is my good friend from American Samoa——
Mr. KENNEDY. Right.
The CHAIRMAN. Would you let him have your time ahead of time?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Absolutely.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. I appreciate the consideration. At the conclusion of the last witness, Mr. Acevedo, I was asking the question about whether—it was interesting that I got to go to the Floor of the House and vote on a very important bill on the fair labor—that affects the Fair Labor and Relations Act. And I made the point that it affects the people of Puerto Rico, and yet they can't have a representative on the Floor, like our good friend Carlos Romero-Barceló go to the Floor and vote on that.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And his answer to me as I was walking out was well, we wouldn't have to adhere to the Federal laws. And yet that begs the question well, what kind of citizen would you be. And I don't know if we could in good conscience allow our fellow citizens not to have to live with the same laws that we live with. And, you know, I think this—the definition of citizenship is the guarantee of the same rights and responsibilities of every other citizen. And so that is where I think his argument fell down.
I wanted to state that for the record, because I was on my way out to vote when he made that rebuttal. And I think it is important, given the very proud record of citizenship and contribution to this country that Governor Ferré has just enunciated in his wonderful statement to this Committee about how proud Puerto Ricans have been in serving this country and being good American citizens. The notion that they would want to take anything less than all the responsibilities of that citizenship would contradict everything that Governor Ferré has talked about.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for that.
Mr. FERRÉ. I think I answered to some extent your question, because when you mentioned that we were not going to suffer because we had no way to prevent that bill from being passed, it is exactly what I have been saying. We don't have that power that can stop the things that harm Puerto Rico and that can give Puerto Rico the help that we need to solve our economic problems.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman from American Samoa.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. And I do want to thank Governor Ferré for an excellent presentation and certainly to remind the members of the Committee and certainly the Members of the Congress the tremendous contributions that our good fellow Americans from Puerto Rico have contributed greatly to this Nation. So I thank the Governor for his statement.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Virgin Islands.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you, Governor, for your presentation. I have no questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, may I remind the gentleman he has the time to ask questions.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You have been very good with me today. I thank you so much. I wish to welcome to Congress Mr. Luis Ferré. I wish to convey to you and to my colleagues a sense of respect and admiration that I feel for you. Mr. Luis Ferré, you are one of Puerto Rico's most respected and important statesmen of the 20th Century, and I can only wish and hope that at the end of my public service career I have achieved but a small fraction of your record and your stature. And I feel that it is a great honor to be able to share this room with you here today.
I noticed as I read your testimony that you talked about Muñoz Rivera.
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FERRÉ. Yes.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. That Muñoz Rivera, back in 1900 said we should include it in the platform and that statehood, who subsequently became renowned as a great autonomista in the history of Puerto Rico, and in 1900 said that statehood was indeed a dignified alternative and accepted that. But I raise that in the sense that today, as autonomistas and estadistas have to work to resolve the issues, maybe you can share with me and expand a little bit more on that?
Mr. FERRÉ. May I clarify? You know, autonomista in Spanish times was not what we think today, commonwealth. Autonomista meant that they were trying to be a province on equal basis with the rest of the provinces of Spain. And we fought in the sense in the context of Spain. And that was a thing that was strong, which is exactly what we are asking. The alternative under statehood you are asking for, but those leaders of 1898, none of them wanted to be a colony, neither of Spain nor of the United States. They said we are willing to welcome the United States, and they did welcome them with flowers. There was not a shot fired by a single Puerto Rican, and I am talking from experience of my parents who welcomed all the American forces in a very friendly manner. And that is why Puerto Rico welcomed and gave landing of the American forces. Nothing ventured.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. And I guess my point is that as we reach 1997 and go into the 21st Century, and because things tend to change and evolve, the independence of the Nationalist Party is not the independence that is being articulated today before the Congress of the United States or that I articulate, for example, before the Congress of the United States.
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We heard earlier from the Governor of Puerto Rico, Rosselló, that he talked about the United Nations and following the laws of the United Nations and making sure that this is a decolonizing process and that estado libre asociado is not a decolonizing process, alternative. Something that I agree with, but I don't think that you can't have a road that is similar to it that you cannot develop. I guess that is where we digress. But at the same time, then, statehood, if we were to follow international law, then the people of Puerto Rico would have the inalienable right to independence, something that we discussed earlier at the—when I testified, I think, in '93—hearing.
I just simply said to Chairman Young, and I think Don Carlos remembers when I suggested that if Puerto Rico became a State, that it never would give up that inalienable right to its independence. So I would like to just ask you one other question. You as the founder of the New Progressive Party and a distinguished statesman independent of your position on statehood, as a distinguished statesman, in 1966 you participated, it says here, in a status commission report. In that status commission report, Don Luis, that you were a signatory.
Mr. FERRÉ. Yes.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. How did it describe el estado libre asociado or the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and did it describe it as it has been described today?
Mr. FERRÉ. Well, if you read my testimony before this Committee on the Young bill, that was 724, you will see what I said. At that time what was understood was something that was supposed to have the compact, but the compact was not true. That is where the people were misled. There has been no compact with Congress. It was simply just giving us some initial local freedom to elect our governor and so on, but not to remove us from the clause of the—territorial clause of the Constitution. The Federal Relations Act was not amended. And by the way, the best—the man who was the great consultant of the Minot, who then became the President of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. In his book, which was mentioned here this afternoon by Congressman Barceló, Romero-Barceló, said that he was convinced that Puerto Rico was still a colony in 1990. And that is his opinion—now he was the——
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GUTIERREZ. In fact, we just asked him, but that status commission report, did it describe el Estado Libre Asociado as a dignified option?
Mr. FERRÉ. It is a question of statesmanship.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. OK.
Mr. FERRÉ. In this illustration were two very important words.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. And again, thank you for taking the time and presenting the views and the history behind it. We deeply appreciate your participation.
Mr. FERRÉ. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. You are excused. The next person will be Jeff Farrow, Co-Chairman, Administration Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C. Jeff, I have great sympathy, but also this is what you get paid for. You waited all day long.
Mr. FARROW. Mr. Chairman, this is why I took this job.
The CHAIRMAN. Besides that, they have got great golf courses in Puerto Rico, don't they? Go ahead.
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members.
The CHAIRMAN. We have the last witness of the day. It has been a long hearing. If we can have Luis and Patrick take it outside. Thank you. Go ahead, Jeff.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY L. FARROW, CO-CHAIR, THE PRESIDENT'S ADMINISTRATION WORKING GROUP ON PUERTO RICO, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. FARROW. Thank you for inviting the Clinton Administration to testify on authorizing the people of Puerto Rico to express their preference regarding their islands' relationship to the United States before the end of 1998 and the bill that you and other Members sponsored to provide a process leading to full self-government for the Commonwealth, H.R. 856.
Let me begin by expressing appreciation for the interest and initiative of yourself and the other primary sponsors of the bill in Puerto Rico's political status dilemma. It is a matter of transcendent importance, concerning the political rights of millions of U.S. citizens and a major factor in determining the approach to many of the serious social and economic challenges faced in the islands.
It is also, however, extremely complex and sensitive, involving much of the range of Federal policy, central questions of identity, a century of history, the interests of political parties that are based on conflicting visions of what the best status for the islands would be and differences so intense that they hinder action on the issue itself and other issues as well.
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
President Clinton is dedicated to supporting the people of Puerto Rico's decision of what status their island should have. He has pledged to back statehood or independence if Puerto Ricans vote for either one and to do his best to make the Commonwealth arrangement work better for them if they want to continue it.
He has also, though, recognized that the frustrating debate is likely to persist until the Federal Government clarifies what the options really are and how they can be implemented. The differing status aspirations that Puerto Ricans have long discussed largely hinge on fundamental Federal decisions that have not been made.
The President has therefore favored Puerto Ricans making a choice in concert with Congressional action in a process that is developed together with the people's representatives.
Establishing a process that would enable this matter to finally be resolved is his highest priority regarding Puerto Rico, and he is fully committed to working with you and others in the Congress, with Puerto Rico's leaders, and others to establish it as soon as possible.
The President believes that the Federal Government should number one, provide the people of Puerto Rico with options that are serious and fair responses to their diverse, expressed aspirations and, number two, commit to act on implementing an option that is authorized by a majority vote in Puerto Rico. He very much hopes that such a process will be underway next year, the centennial of the United States acquisition of Puerto Rico. He looks forward to our entering the new millennium having concluded the debate and implementing the will of the Puerto Rican people.
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To facilitate the enactment of the law that is needed, the Administration offers the following comments on H.R. 856.
Democratic principles require that the expressed aspirations of Puerto Ricans be central to the development of the options (which also must be viable from the Federal perspective). The President regards this as an integral part of the sound process.
We, therefore, view Chairman Young's agreement with Senior Democrat Miller to give Puerto Rico's major political parties until March 31 to submit alternatives to the options in the bill and to seriously consider their proposals as a very constructive step. We appreciate the role that Governor Rosselló and Resident Commissioner Romero-Barceló also played in it being taken.
Consequently, the Administration would like to work with the Committee in fashioning the options, considering the proposals of the parties and others, as well as considering United States necessities, after the parties have had this opportunity to advance their ideas to you.
The bill would ostensibly require a referendum before 1999 and further referendum at least every four years thereafter in the event of no option of obtaining a majority, a majority for the Commonwealth option, or Puerto Rican rejection of Federal status implementation legislation. Rather than suggest a mandate for votes, it would be more appropriate to simply provide a process for and facilitate the status choice.
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also suggest giving the government of Puerto Rico flexibility on calling votes. Further votes might not be desired by Puerto Ricans so often, and in such a case the call for revoting at least every four years would be a burden. Additionally, if Puerto Ricans were to reject statehood or nationhood implementation legislation, it probably would not make sense for them to vote again absent further Federal action.
The bill would call for a plan for a transition of at least ten years in the event of a majority for either nationhood or statehood.
Since the measures that would need to be taken have not been specified and would change as time goes on, we recommend that the length of the transition be set in the transition plan. Congress would still have its say over the duration, since the plan would require Congressional approval.
A more fundamental problem is that H.R. 856 would require that a law be enacted at the end of the transition to nationhood or statehood, in addition to beforehand, in order to actually implement a status change.
The Administration favors prompt, final action on implementing a status change if chosen by a majority of Puerto Ricans. The purpose of a transition should be to permit significantly different policies to be implemented on an orderly basis. A further decision and possibly further requirements at the end of the transition could make the period only a partial transition, or even overturn the original status choice. That could be very problematic. The Federal Government and Puerto Ricans should have greater assurance of actually implementing a status before heading down the path toward it.
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bill includes several provisions regarding the use of English that should be mentioned. One would establish a policy of English being the ''common language of mutual understanding'' in the United States.
Such a policy is unnecessary and could create divisiveness. We are also concerned that it could be used to question statehood as an option for Puerto Rico. The language that most of Puerto Rico's United States citizens have always used should not be a barrier to full participation in the Federal system if they want it.
Another provision would call for measures to enhance English education in public schools in a transition to statehood. We understand it to mean measures that would supplement educational practice in Puerto Rico, consistent with local control of schools.
Finally, there are provisions that suggest an intent to make English the official language of the Federal Government and the need to use English. As you may be aware, the President indicated his intent to veto a bill last year, H.R. 123, that would have required the Federal Government to conduct most of its official business in English only. Legislative statements on a need to use English could be used by others to promote goals which are disharmonizing and diversionary. They could also unduly influence the Puerto Rico status decision.
The bill would make some other statements or suggestions which would not be part of the procedure for resolving the status issue that are problematic. These provisions address the current situation and have contributed to controversy about the bill in Puerto Rico.
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
History has given us the conflicting facts and ambiguities that have fueled Puerto Rico's divisive and distracting status debate for decades. Rather than litigate them now when there is a general consensus on what needs to be done to resolve the dilemma, we think it would be more advisable to simply concentrate on resolving it, establishing a process that includes providing the people of Puerto Rico with options that can end the debate and providing for Federal action on implementing their choice.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for the Federal Government to meet its responsibilities regarding the status question and provide such a process. Puerto Ricans have been asking for the United States to act for years. H.R. 856 provides a basis from which to act. Working together and with others, we can ensure that our great country lives up to its ideals in the case of our 3.7 million fellow citizens in Puerto Rico. It is of vital importance to their future that we do.
The Administration's priority is to get a law enacted that will make it possible to finally and fairly resolve the situation. We will be flexible within the principles that the President has espoused so that agreement can be reached. All of us who are committed to settling the issue should not let this opportunity pass.
Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Farrow may be found at end of hearing.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Jeff. That was very good. I will assure that this is what hearings are all about. We will take your comments very seriously and hope you will still be working with Manase and seeing if some of these things can't be added and subtracted from the bill. My goal is to keep you aboard and the President aboard, because I would like to see this done very quickly. There is some comments about the length of time of implementing the act, et cetera. I would like to see it done as rapidly as possible. And we will work along the lines of achieving that. You have a responsibility to the Administration, but that Administration has a responsibility to this Committee to try to achieve those goals together. We can't do it separately. And I think we owe that to the people of Puerto Rico.
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate and congratulate the President on this statement. I think it is a very, very significant statement. It is going to be definitely an historical statement. The questions in the statement about the language clears a lot of the air. I am sure it will have a great impact in Puerto Rico. Anything that makes such a statement from the White House on Puerto Rico has a lot of meaning. And the people understand that clearly and it helps in the debate so the people learn to understand where everyone is coming from. The fact that there are some people in this country that would like to impose a will and would like to carry us in a different path doesn't mean that the majority of the people of the United States or the majority of the Congressmen or Senators or the White House take those positions.
And some of the other statements in your statement also are very, very positive and I think that now we have the proposal by the commonwealth supporters and we will soon have the other proposals, then we can discuss the alternatives. And I am sure that we can have something that will be fair, if not to everyone at least to the majority and to the objective observers.
Thank you very much for your testimony. I have no questions.
Mr. FARROW. Thank you, Congressman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from American Samoa.
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly thank Mr. Farrow for his presentation this afternoon. Just one question. You know, we have—the people of Puerto Rico have had this experience in the plebiscite of 1993 where there was no clear majority. And you have expressed in your statement about the fact that whatever is to come about, whether it be from this plebiscite process, that there should be a majority. You know, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the President has to be elected by a majority vote. What happens, and as you well know, Mr. Farrow, whenever you have three options it is a very, very difficult proposition to get a majority. What happens in the plebiscite if there is no majority?
Mr. FARROW. Well, the legislation provides, and we think it is proper, that there be a majority requirement. In the event of no majority, that there be a reconsideration somewhere down the line. Our only question is when that reconsideration ought to occur, whether it ought to occur every four years or in a time determined by the government of Puerto Rico.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You have also raised a question about that this four-year period might be too long. Do you have a better suggestion as to the time period? I felt four years is a fair statement for considering the referendums. If it triggers that process to take place, do you feel that four years is not sufficient time or is it too much time?
Mr. FARROW. I think it will depend on the situation. It is very difficult to project right now what the results of referendum would be. And depending on how close those results are, the government of Puerto Rico might want to hold a referendum earlier or sometime later than that rather than set a specified time period. We think that is a matter the government of Puerto Rico ought to determine.
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So as much as you can say that the Administration definitely is fully committed to the proposition and the plebiscite should be held by next year, hopefully? Is that a fair statement? You are committed to that?
Mr. FARROW. It is a fair statement. And further, the President looks forward, as I said, to implementing a majority decision during his term.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Jeff. I appreciate it.
Mr. FARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I would just like to compliment all the witnesses today and the audience that conducted themselves admirably today. I apologize for the interruptions. I believe this has been a very beneficial hearing, and I deeply appreciate the Governor chairing this meeting in a bipartisan way. And hopefully we can continue this. The next hearings will take place in Puerto Rico. It is my intent to move this legislation. It is my intent to see it pass the House and be signed into law, but it also takes a lot of work, a lot of communication with everybody involved. And try to avoid the pitfalls of delay and impasse, because this is the period of time I want to get this done.
I do thank you. Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and the following was submitted for the record:]
STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE PEDRO ROSSELLÓ, GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO
Chairman Don Young; Ranking Democrat, Congressman George Miller; members of the Committee on Resources:
My name is Pedro Rossello. Since 1993, I have been Governor of Puerto Rico. In that capacity, on two occasions, I presented statements to the 104th Congress that may be of interest to each of you.
On October 17, 1995, here in Washington, I addressed a hearing conducted jointly by this Committee's Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee and by the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the House Committee on International Relations.
Then, on March 23, 1996, I appeared before the Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee at a hearing conducted in San Juan.
My October 1995 statement pertained to a November 1993 political status consultation, organized by the Government of Puerto Rico with the full support of all three Puerto Rico political parties.
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My March 1996 statement pertained to H.R. 3024: a bill filed by Chairman Young, which bore the same title as the measure before us today.
Because of their relevance, and because they may be particularly useful to members of this Committee who did not serve on the aforementioned Subcommittees of the last Congress, I shall be grateful if the Chairman will make copies of those statements available to every member of the Committee on Resources of this 105th Congress.
Although I am the president of a political party, and although I do strongly advocate one specific solution to Puerto Rico's status dilemma, I wish to emphasize at the outset that my declarations at this hearing shall be made solely in my role as chief executive of the Government of Puerto Rico and on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico, as the recipient this past November of the largest electoral mandate granted to any gubernatorial candidate in Puerto Rico since 1964.
In addressing you as Governor, and as the spokesperson for a strong mandate from the people to move toward the final definition and decision on our political status, I see it as my duty to concentrate exclusively on offering my assistance as you commence the profoundly important process of evaluating H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.
For the past eight years, both the people of Puerto Rico and the United States Government have manifested a commendable commitment to addressing this issue seriously, responsibly and in an impressively non-partisan manner.
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1989, a pro-''commonwealth'' Governor enlisted the backing of all three Puerto Rico political parties in soliciting action from the Federal Government. That petition produced an earnest, positive response from a Republican President and a Congress controlled by Democrats. More than two years of dedicated effort resulted from that initiative. The effort fell short. But it did not fail. Rather, it left behind a valuable foundation upon which we have been building ever since.
And so it was that my administration—led by a pro-statehood Governor—succeeded four years ago in maintaining a united front of Puerto Rico political parties in resuming the quest for a solution to the status dilemma. And so it was too that—with a Democrat in the White House and Republican majorities on Capitol Hill—Washington has remained equally united, since 1995, in pursuit of a mutually satisfactory remedy to the universally acknowledged inadequacy of Puerto Rico's current relationship with the rest of our fellow citizens of the United States of America.
President Bill Clinton reiterated his commitment at the beginning of this year. In a letter that was read aloud by his personal representative, during my second-term inauguration ceremony in January, the President wrote: ''I will work with you, the islands' other elected leaders, the Congress, and all concerned to establish a process that would enable the fundamental issue of Puerto Rico's political status to finally be resolved.''
Here in the House, for their part, Chairman Young and Ranking Member Miller have mobilized a broad bipartisan coalition—with the solid backing of Speaker Newt Gingrich and the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Congressman Carlos Romero-Barceló.
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On the Senate side, Chairman Frank Murkowski visited Puerto Rico this past weekend, leading a bipartisan delegation from his Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Senators held lengthy meetings with senior officials from the political parties representing Puerto Rico status options.
In light of these developments, I can state for the record that the people of Puerto Rico are looking forward with enthusiasm to the imminent exercise by Congress of its constitutional responsibility to collaborate with us on converting the chronic conundrum of Puerto Rico's status into a shining star of statesmanship.
I am convinced that together we can do it
Through determination, persistence, unflagging effort and an unshakable allegiance to patriotic civility, we can do it.
Moreover, we can do it expeditiously.
I commend you, Mister Chairman, for having requested of each Puerto Rico political party that it submit by March 31 a proposed definition which it believes will be most appropriate for the status option it supports. It is my understanding that each of the parties intends to comply with that request.
You acted expeditiously, Mr. Chairman, in filing H.R. 856.
You acted expeditiously in scheduling this hearing.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You acted expeditiously in requesting status definitions.
And I would urge that we likewise expedite the entire process contemplated by this bill.
A year ago this week, in my testimony regarding H.R. 3024, I proposed that the process be streamlined. Like that earlier bill, H.R. 856 envisions ''a transition plan of 10 years minimum which leads to full self-government for Puerto Rico consistent with the terms of this Act...''
Nothing has transpired during the past 12 months to alter my outlook on this aspect of the legislation. Accordingly, I take this opportunity to urge once again that this bill's three stages—initial decision, transition and implementation—be consolidated into two stages.
I feel certain that the transition and implementation stages can be combined in such a way as to eliminate any need for conducting the interim referendum that is stipulated by the bill under the provisions set forth in its transition stage.
If the people of Puerto Rico do embrace full self-government during the initial decision stage, then I see no reason why ten-or-more additional years must elapse before we are able to cast definitive ''yes-or-no'' votes on a Presidentially-submitted and Congressionally-approved implementation formula.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A ''streamlining'' of this nature would save time, energy and money; it would facilitate completion of the entire process, with the utmost, focused attention to detail, during a time period that could easily be reduced to a maximum of four-to-five years.
But more than that, by expediting matters we can help to ensure that the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act achieves its purpose because—by expediting matters—we can greatly enhance the likelihood that the momentum of this historic undertaking will not be weakened by unforeseen events that could occur as we go forward.
And furthermore, it would send a strong message to all that Congress is ready and committed to act.
When I first offered this suggestion at the San Juan hearing of March 1996, my exact words were these: ''Ten years, I respectfully submit, is an inordinately long time. Ten years ago, there were two Germanys and a Berlin Wall; South Africa was still under apartheid; the North American Free Trade Agreement was merely a promising idea; and almost nobody had ever heard of the Internet. A ten-year minimum, I believe, is more time than we need.''
Today, in March 1997, I stand by those words. I earnestly propose that a mechanism be designed that will allow the people of Puerto Rico and our fellow citizens throughout the United States to conclude, at the sunrise of the 21st century, an extremely significant item of unfinished business that has awaited this nation's undivided attention ever since the twilight hours of the 19th century.
To that end and in that spirit, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, you can count on me. You can count on me to work with you; with your Congressional colleagues; with the President; and with the people of Puerto Rico. You can count on my good faith, my good will, and my unwavering commitment to the fundamental principle of civil rights and human dignity that this bill so eloquently embodies: the principle of liberty and justice for all.
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
May God bless each and every person who participates in this noble endeavor.
Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RUBEN BERRÍOS-MARTINEZ, PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY
For almost a century Puerto Ricans of all political persuasions have struggled—unsuccessfully—for the recognition of our full political rights as a people before a Congress that has, for the most part, been hostile or insensitive to our demands. Today—on the verge of the 21st century—it is a source of optimism that Congress finally begins to recognize its centennial obligation to decolonize Puerto Rico.
But before H.R. 856 becomes an effective and acceptable instrument for the solution of Puerto Rico's status problem, certain conditions should be met and certain pitfalls avoided, some of which require major changes in the bill.
1. The essential objective and nature of the bill must be maintained at all costs. This bill unambiguously faces and proposes a solution to the fundamental issue of sovereignty—the issue of where will ultimate power reside—which is the crux of the Puerto Rican status problem. In other words, it proposes a process for the definitive solution of the status problem by promoting a decision between two paths; one, under US sovereignty, leading to statehood, and the other under Puerto Rican sovereignty, leading either to independence or free association. Territorial Commonwealth on the other hand is viewed as the problem to be outgrown and superseded.
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2. So long as the fundamental objective of the bill is preserved, the legitimate interests and demands of the participants in the status debate must be provided reasonable accommodation. This, of course, includes not only ''independentistas'' and statehooders but, also thousands of Puerto Ricans who do not support either independence or statehood.
In this context, while independence and free association, as modalities of Puerto Rican sovereignty, must continue to be grouped under the same heading on the proposed plebiscite ballot, their distinctiveness should nevertheless be clarified. Free association and independence are members of the same family; but they are first cousins, not identical twins.
I propose therefore that the bill be amended to ''flesh out'' the free association and independence modalities within the ''separate sovereignty'' alternative, or as I prefer, the ''Puerto Rican sovereignty'' alternative.
If this proposal is accepted then it will not be necessary to include the territorial status quo as an option. Even the Popular Democratic Party rejects the option of an unincorporated territory subject to the power of Congress under the Territorial clause of the US Constitution. While we should all favor ''inclusiveness'', it would indeed be a perversion of that concept to include a colonial or territorial option that nobody favors.
Territorial Commonwealth was included because the bill was attacked for excluding a substantial segment of Puerto Rican public opinion. But once the free association modality has been reformulated in such a way as to address the legitimate concerns of its proponents, there would be no need for its inclusion, and the bill would once more guarantee a majority vote for one of the two paths leading to full self government.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. This bill should at least reflect a sense of Congress regarding the truly critical questions which it would have to face and answer in the event of a statehood petition.
Congress should not convey the impression that a mere majority vote in the plebiscite is the only condition it would require in order to grant statehood. I am convinced that if this bill is perceived in Congress—rightly or wrongly—as an implicit commitment to grant statehood after a majority vote by the Puerto Rican electorate, it may never become law. The reason is simple. Such commitment would run contrary to legitimate political and economic concerns of those members of Congress who, in the House or in the Senate, are uninclined to accept Puerto Rico as a state or who question the wisdom of such an implicit offer.
Crucial questions regarding statehood for Puerto Rico arise, which should be addressed in this bill:
*Is it the sense of Congress that statehood for Puerto Rico would be possible unless English becomes the primary or common language of Puerto Ricans?
*Would statehood be a realistic option so long as Puerto Rico's per capita income remains—as it has for the past 50 years—one third that of the United States and one half that of your poorest state, considering the repercussions of that reality on the federal treasury?
*Is statehood conceivable without a solid and overwhelming political consensus in its favor in Puerto Rico far beyond a mere majority?
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
*Is Congress willing to face a Caribbean Québec if a minority for separate sovereignty should become a majority in the next generation?
Needless to say, this Congress cannot anticipate the answers to these questions in a way that would bind a future Congress. The critical question, however, is a political one which only this Congress can answer: should Congress authorize a plebiscite with a statehood option, without first providing the people of Puerto Rico a clear sense as to what criteria it would use to evaluate a statehood petition?
At a minimum. Congress should make clear that if the statehood alternative achieves a sufficient majority but Congress does not then act favorably on the petition within a reasonably short period of time then the statehood alternative should be deemed to have been rejected. Accordingly in order to achieve its primary objective, the bill should mandate that in such an eventuality the People of Puerto Rico should then choose between the remaining decolonizing alternatives, that is between independence and free association.
4. Fairness and objectivity should be maintained regarding the status definitions as they might refer to the potential economic effects of the different alternatives. As regards this issue, the bill is unbalanced and unjust and should be amended.
Congress has constitutional and international law obligations with Puerto Rico's decolonization, in addition to moral and political commitments after almost one hundred years of U.S. occupation. In this context, Congress should be explicit in its willingness to approve a smooth and fair transition towards independence, as well as regarding the creation of a reparations or development fund. Such a fund would indeed be a small price to pay in order to end the overgrowing dependence on the federal budget promoted by the status quo and which would certainly multiply with the two senators and seven representatives which statehood would entail. On previous occasions, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have demonstrated that such objectives can be attained.
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Free trade and economic cooperation are not the exclusive prerogative of statehood. On the contrary, mutually beneficial and common sense solutions are clearly available for independence in this age of globalization and regional economic arrangements. The bill should reflect these concepts in order to be fair and balanced.
There are hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans who are now inclined towards statehood only because they have been led to think that a choice for independence would lead to economic penalties imposed by the United States through a regime of tariffs and trade restrictions. On the other hand they have been led to contemplate a statehood panorama of an eternal cornucopia of federal welfare funds guaranteed by two senators and seven representatives. It is up to Congress to dispel these myths by stating its sense as to what its trade and assistance policies would be towards an independent Puerto Rico.
5. It is of the utmost importance that Congress face the matter of US citizenship under the Puerto Rican sovereignty alternative in a clear and realistic manner. It should begin its analysis by separating myth from fact.
I am firmly convinced that the principal value that the immense majority of Puerto Ricans attach to their US citizenship is the right to travel freely to and from the United States. This should come as no surprise.
The importance of Puerto Ricans' free transit into the United States, however, cannot be underestimated. For almost one hundred years—even before Puerto Ricans became US citizens in 1917—free transit and free trade have been part of the US-PR relationship by virtue of US law and policy since 1900. More than two million Puerto Ricans live in the United States either permanently or temporarily and there is hardly anyone in Puerto Rico who does not have a close relative who lives in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia or other cities.
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is within this historical context of free transit—existing before and after the imposition of US citizenship—that the majority of Puerto Ricans react with apprehension at the threat of losing that freedom to travel which they equate to US citizenship.
As in the matter of trade and economic cooperation if this Congress expresses or implies that free transit is only possible under statehood it will be promoting an artificial pro statehood majority that has nothing to do with the spirit of patriotic commitment to the United States which should be the real basis of a serious pro statehood sentiment. As recently as this month the governor of Puerto Rico, in promoting this myth, insisted that regarding the plebiscite ''the decision that must be made is whether we want to be American citizens or not. That is the basic decision.''
Loyalty to one's nation and freedom to travel to other nations are, as Americans well know, two different things. By separating the issue of free transit from the issue of citizenship you will have defused the artificial growth of the statehood movement.
As far as we independentistas are concerned we aspire exclusively to our own Puerto Rican citizenship in an independent Puerto Rico. But as regards those Puerto Ricans born before independence who want to retain their US citizenship after independence, they should be allowed to retain it. In any case, if they were not allowed to do so, the US courts would have the final word on the matter.
As regards Puerto Ricans born after independence, Congress would be wise to allow for free transit arrangements between both countries. I remind you that a very large percentage of the Puerto Rican nationality resides in the United States and that it was the US who, after the invasion of our nation, created and promoted free transit, and that at present there is free transit between Puerto Rico and the US; so surely the United States would not be worse off under independence than at present. If the European Community countries have successfully entered into such free transit arrangements without a similar 99 years precedent, there is no reason why the United States should have any problem in reaching a similar arrangement with an independent Puerto Rico.
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
6. The bill should be amended to substantially reduce the time frame provided for the full implementation of the different alternatives.
In this respect, since the status alternatives require, by their very nature different procedures and conditions for their implementation, the temptation of false symmetry should be avoided. Independence, for example, being an unalienable right of the Puerto Rican people, should and could come into effect in a very reduced period of time. Once independence has been proclaimed, a transition period involving economic and other matters would be implemented over an extended period of time.
On the other hand, statehood not being a right but a privilege to be granted at the will of Congress, it would necessarily require a different time frame which should be as short as practically possible. We believe that the more than 10 years proposed in the bill should be drastically reduced. It would otherwise become a way of avoiding the difficult decisions that sooner or later Congress will have to face regarding statehood.
7. The bill should guarantee that all the options have adequate and equal access to public funds in the plebiscite campaign; that a reasonable limit on spending for advertising beyond that provided for by public funds be imposed so as not to create an unfair advantage for any option; and that government funds and agencies are not improperly utilized to favor any option.
8. H.R. 856 should be amended as to who will have the right to vote in the plebiscite.
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It should be obvious that if the plebiscite is not a general election to select public officials but a special election to advance the cause of self determination of the Puerto Rican People, only Puerto Ricans—and not merely residents of Puerto Rico—should have the right to vote. By Puerto Ricans I mean those born in Puerto Rico or of Puerto Rican parentage who reside in Puerto Rico or who, though residing outside have the intention to return to live in Puerto Rico. As an exception those non Puerto Ricans who have lived in Puerto Rico for a substantial period of time and who intend to remain should also have the right to participate.
To allow non Puerto Rican residents of Puerto Rico to vote, or to exclude non resident Puerto Ricans, will undoubtedly have distorting effects on the election results and call into question the legitimacy of the outcome. No objective observer would seriously dispute, for example, that the overwhelming majority of the non-Puerto Rican residents would vote for statehood, either because they are Americans residing in Puerto Rico or because, though originally from other countries, they became US citizens by choice.
The anomalies of our colonial condition are such, however, that one may clearly anticipate constitutional arguments as to the exclusion of non-Puerto Rican residents, and practical arguments as to the inclusion of Puerto Rican non-residents can also be anticipated. But these constitutional and practical obstacles are certainly not insurmountable to a Congress acting pursuant to its plenary powers under the territorial clause.
Even if this committee were unwilling, for whatever reason, to agree that the plebiscite franchise be designed in accordance with our proposal, this does not mean that the bill should not recognize the distorting effect that the electoral franchise proposed in the bill implies.
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Needless to say, an imperfect plebiscite is a better option than no plebiscite at all, but this committee is by now advised that a revision of the bill's franchise provisions is both necessary and possible and that not to do so will weaken the reliability and legitimacy of the plebiscite results.
From my long experience with previous processes relating to Puerto Rico's status, I have no doubt that as the legislative process evolves, the issues I have raised today before this Committee will emerge as crucial issues, either in the House or the Senate.
If Congress addresses these issues we are convinced that fair and equitable legislation will finally emerge. We are willing to work with this Committee to draft the necessary specific amendments to meet the objectives we have referred to.
Before concluding, I wish to set the record straight concerning the participation of the Puerto Rican Independence Party in this plebiscite process.
We fully understand why the sponsors of the bill start from the premise that statehood would be a legitimate form of self government for Puerto Rico. After all, thirty six former territories have become states of the Union. In addition a large percentage of Puerto Ricans favor statehood and even international law admits integration, in certain circumstances, as a way out of colonialism.
But the Puerto Rican Independence Party is convinced that integration to the United States as a state of the Union is not a valid solution to Puerto Rico's colonial problem.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Puerto Rico is a distinct, mature, Spanish Speaking, Latin American, Caribbean nation. To argue that Puerto Rico is not a nation is as absurd as to argue that blacks in the US were not human beings before the abolition of slavery.
For a nation such as Puerto Rico, statehood would be a dilution, if not an abdication, of our right to govern ourselves as Puerto Ricans, no matter how intensely we exercise our voting franchise. The problem of Puerto Rico is not a problem of the disenfranchisement of a minority or an issue of civil rights, as some people seem to believe. It is not a problem of individual rights it is a problem of national rights of the inalienable right of a nation, of a people, to govern themselves.
Even Puerto Rican statehooders postulate our right as a people to our distinct identity —''Jíbaro'' statehood, they call it—which in part accounts for their success at the polls. Puerto Ricans of all political persuasions proudly and forcefully proclaim and have even submitted for the Congressional Record that Puerto Rico's language and culture are not negotiable under any status. As Gandhi once said, we do not ''want [our] house to be walled in on all sides and [our] windows to be stifled. [We] want all the cultures of all lands to be blown about [our] house as freely as possible. But [we] refuse to be blown off our feet by any.''
You should be aware, therefore, that the primary loyalty of Puerto Ricans is to Puerto Rico, not to any other nation, and that regardless of what this Congress may resolve or believe, we Puerto Ricans are determined to preserve and develop our distinct national identity as a people.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For the US to accept as a state of the Union a distinct Spanish Speaking, Latin American nationality with half the per capita income of the poorest state, would run counter to its national interests, particularly when a substantial consensus regarding statehood is a practical impossibility in the foreseeable future. Québec and Ireland are but contemporary reminders of the dangers that inevitably ensue when nations have attempted to absorb other nations. Nations by definition cannot give up their inalienable right to self determination and independence that is, their right to secede.
Independence, on the other hand, which is the ultimate empowerment, would endow Puerto Rico with the political, fiscal and commercial flexibility indispensable in this day and age to insert ourselves into the globalized economy, attract foreign capital, strengthen our own, and thus fully develop our economic potential.
For Puerto Rico, independence would be the tool necessary to break the cycle of impotence and dependence which has become endemic in our colonial relationship and which would only turn more acute under statehood. This condition of dependency has constrained our economic development and undermined our dignity and self esteem. Independence, in contrast with commonwealth or statehood, would mean the beginning of the end of the ever increasing drain on the federal budget. Moreover, it would be a source of incalculable good will for Latin America and the Caribbean; an indispensable condition for the development of a forward-looking US policy towards the region for the next century based on equality and cooperation.
We are thus convinced that when Congress finally works its will, when this process comes to its end, the United States government will come to the conclusion that the only true option for both of our countries is independence.
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But we are not there yet and it is thus necessary that the process work its way. Let us, therefore, move ahead with the process.
The relationship between colonizer and colonized denies the essential equality of nations in the same way that the relation between master and slave denies the essential equality of human beings. It denigrates the colonized and it demeans the colonizer. For the honor and respect of both our nations let us bring it to an end.
STATEMENT OF ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILÁ, PRESIDENT, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Good Morning.
I come before you today at the invitation of Chairman Young to attend these hearings with regard to H.R. 856, ''The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act''. Ever since the creation of the unique status of Puerto Rico—Commonwealth, which was crafted by the leadership of the Congress and Puerto Rico in a constructive process, and was overwhelmingly approved as a compact by the people of Puerto Rico and the United States in 1952—the Popular Democratic Party has actively participated in every status deliberation process.
We represent the preferred status formula of the people of Puerto Rico, having won every status consultation ever undertaken. Our position has been supported by a majority of the people in all three status plebiscites, in 1952, in 1967 and most recently in 1993.
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe in principles. We believe in democracy. We believe in constitutional governments and the everlasting premise that the rule of law requires respect from the government to commitments made by previous administrations, and a serious recognition by all of judicial precedents. We believe in the most fundamental of democratic principles: that all governments of the free world legitimize their condition as a government only with the consent of the governed.
I commend the sponsors of this bill for their interest in establishing a procedure for the people of Puerto Rico to choose their final political status. I pledge the full cooperation of our party to that end. As in every process before, the basic principles of democracy, fairness and inclusiveness must always be present.
We have made every effort to evaluate, study and analyze H.R. 856 and conclude that we cannot and will not support it as its stands. (Our position with regard to this bill and a future process of self-determination for Puerto Rico is fully spelled out in the two resolutions unanimously adopted by the General Council of our party, which I am enclosing as appendices to this statement and which should be made a part of the record.) Appendices C & D.
The objective of this bill is right, but the means devised to accomplish it are wrong. This is not a balanced bill. This bill has a severe tilt. It is actually a statehood bill and as such is unacceptable.
The bias which mars this bill is glaring and offensive. Commonwealth status, the preferred choice of the Puerto Rican people since its establishment in 1952, reaffirmed as recently as in the 1993 plebiscite called by the Statehood party itself, is pictured in dark colors and dismissed as a colonial status, unworthy of consideration. Should the people of Puerto Rico churlishly decide to continue backing it, further plebiscites must be held, until statehood, independence or free association, involving the loss of United States citizenship, is chosen. It being well known that the people of Puerto Rico want no pact on independence and take proper pride in their American citizenship, the result is, of course, pre-ordained for statehood.
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For the majority of the people of Puerto Rico that believe in autonomy and self-government with American citizenship as a bond with the United States, this bill offers no alternative. It will require that the more of 900,000 persons I represent that are against annexation as a state, choose between a colonial denigrating status or loosing our American citizenship. To vote in this plebiscite will force us to act against our political beliefs and our freedom of speech. It will violate the principle of equal protection and trample us upon our conscience.
When Congress decided back in 1917 to offer American citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico, it was made completely disassociated from any thought of statehood and specifically contemplating that it be an element of future autonomous self-government developments for the island. To unilaterally change these assumptions now would confront Puerto Ricans with a conscience dilemma of no precedent in American History.
With this bill as it stands, Statehood becomes the only available alternative. This anticipated result will be unfair both to Puerto Rico and the United States. The people of Puerto Rico would have to make a choice for statehood for the wrong reasons. Not based on patriotism and a real commitment to the Union, but because they have been left with no other real alternative. On the other hand, the U.S. Congress will have before it a petition for Statehood, and a request for action, without having considered properly the cultural, national, ethnic, linguistic, economic and social consequences of statehood. As you can see, this bill will not solve any problem, but rather create a bigger one.
Let there be no doubt that we want to participate in a fair and democratic process. As Chairman Young stated in September 17, 1990 with regard to another referendum bill for Puerto Rico: ''a referendum should only be authorized by the Congress if it is to be fair to all parties and the statuses they advocate.'' This should be the guiding principle in this process of enacting legislation. With all do respect, the bill under your consideration does not comply with the fairness standard you, Mr. Chairman, previously established.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The assumptions of this bill, that it is not possible to have a non-colonial bilateral relationship, based a mutual consent with American citizenship as a bond between Puerto Rico and the United States, is against history, legal precedents and clearly unacceptable for us.
We see the joint letter from Congressmen Young and Miller of March 3, 1997, giving the Popular Democratic Party the opportunity to present a new definition of Commonwealth before March 31, as a new approach and openness, to have a referendum ''fair to all parties and the statuses they advocate'' and to revise the dispositions and assumptions of this bill which have until now made impossible any meaningful participation for us.
A starting point in this process should be the express recognition of what the present relationship is. The creation of Commonwealth status was a great joint achievement of the government of the United States and the people of Puerto Rico. Public Law 600 was enacted on July 3, 1950 by Congress authorizing the people of Puerto Rico to draft and adopt a Constitution. Recognizing the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico to establish its own Constitution, Congress clearly stated in Public Law 600 that: ''fully recognizing the principle of government by consent, this act is now adopted in the nature of a compact'', conditioning its effectiveness and the perfectioning of the compact on it first being approved by the people of Puerto Rico in a referendum.
Public Law 600 was overwhelmingly approved by the people. A Constitution was adopted on a second referendum and approved by the Congress on July 3, 1952. In Public Law 447, by which Congress accepted the Commonwealth Constitution, it is clearly stated that Public Law 600 had been adopted as a compact between Congress and Puerto Rico. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, adopted by the People and approved by Congress clearly recognizes the sovereignty of the people and the compact between Puerto Rico and the United States states:
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''Section 1. 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.
''Section 2. The government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall be republican in form and its legislative, judicial and executive branches as established by this Constitution shall be equally subordinate to the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico.''
Based on these actions, the United States Government made a solemn representation to the United Nations, on the basis of which Puerto Rico was struck out from the list of non self-governing peoples in 1953. At that time, the United States government made clear statements before the United Nations with regard to the new status of Puerto Rico of a bilateral compact that can only be changed by mutual consent:
''The previous status of Puerto Rico was that of a territory subject to the full authority of the Congress of the United States in all governmental matters. The previous constitution of Puerto Rico was in fact a law of the Congress of the United States, which was called an Organic Act. Congress only could amend the Organic Act of Puerto Rico. The present status of Puerto Rico is that of a people with a constitution of their own adoption, stemming from their own authority, which only they can alter or amend. The relationships previously established by a law of Congress, which only Congress could amend, have now become provisions of a compact of a bilateral nature whose terms may be changed only by common consent''.
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On November 27, 1953 the General Assembly of the United Nations approved Resolution 748 VIII which specifically declares that: ''In the framework of their Constitution and of the compact agreed upon with the United States of America, the people of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have been invested with attributes of political sovereignty which clearly identify the status of self-government attained by the Puerto Rican people as that of an autonomous political entity''.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Puerto Rico is to be deemed ''sovereign over matters not ruled by the [United States] Constitution''; that ''the purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union''; that ''Puerto Rico occupies a relationship to the United States that has no parallel in our history''; and that ''Puerto Rico, like a state, is an autonomous political entity'' [Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 US 663, 672-673 (1974); Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 US 1, (1982); Posadas v. Tourism Co., 478 US 328 (1986); Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 US 572, (1976)]. While sitting in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Judge, now Justice, Breyer stated in a landmark case [Córdova v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 649 F. 2d 36, (1981)]:
''In sum, Puerto Rico's status changed from that of a mere territory to the unique status of Commonwealth, and the federal government's relations with Puerto Rico changed from being bound merely by the territorial clause, and the rights of the people of Puerto Rico as the United States citizens, to being bound by the United States and Puerto Rico Constitutions, Public Law 600, the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and the rights of the people of Puerto Rico as United States citizens''.
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Of the various of cases decided by Federal Courts touching upon Commonwealth status, opponents to this option single out the case of Harris vs. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980) to establish that Congress may, at any time, unilaterally alter or abolish Commonwealth. However, the point of law before the Court in Harris vs. Rosario dealt with the question of whether it was constitutional for an act of Congress to deny Puerto Rico residents benefits under the AFDC program otherwise available to that citizen if residing in the mainland. To justify unequal treatment between the Puerto Rico residents and those of the several states in its brief discussion the Supreme Court made reference to the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution.
However, there was no claim that the Commonwealth compact required that Congress must extend to Puerto Rico, in equal terms, all federal aid programs. Therefore, the holding in Harris vs. Rosario in no way invalidates the compact by virtue of which Commonwealth was created. Moreover, in all the cases after Harris in which the Supreme Court has confronted an issue regarding the nature of Commonwealth, the Court has validated the main principles of our present status. (See Rodríguez v. PDP, supra, 1982; Posadas v. Tourism Co., supra, 1986). (For further discussion of Harris see Appendices B.)
The definition of Commonwealth contained on H.R. 856 denies these precedents, presents Commonwealth as a classic colonial status and for the first time proclaims the revocability of the American citizenship all Puerto Ricans enjoy since 1917. Under these circumstances, Commonwealth followers which I represent, have no place to vote on the ballot proposed by this bill. It will force us to choose between a colonial alternative that goes against our beliefs and constitutional rights or, on the other side, deprive our children and grandchildren of the American citizenship. Two alternatives clearly unacceptable.
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
History shows that full autonomy and American citizenship are not mutually exclusive concepts. Moreover, American citizenship has always been the bond for a permanent union entirely disassociated from statehood.
This principle was clearly outlined by President Taft in his 1912 State of the Union address, advocating in favor of a bill pending in Congress to grant American citizenship to all Puerto Ricans, where he stated:
''I believe that the demand for citizenship is just, and that it is amply earned by sustained loyalty on the part of the inhabitants of the island. But it must be remembered that the demand must be, and in the minds of most Puerto Ricans is, entirely disassociated from any thought of statehood. I believe that no substantial approved public opinion in the United States or in Puerto Rico contemplates statehood for the island as the ultimate form of relations between us. I believe that the aim to be striven for is the fullest possible allowance of legal and fiscal self-government, with American citizenship as the bond between us; in other words, a relation analogous to the present relation between Great Britain and such self-governing colonies as Canada and Australia. This would conduce to the fullest and most self-sustaining development of Puerto Rico, while at the same time it would grant her the economic and political benefits of being under the American flag''.
As to the legal problems that conceivably could be raised, by granting American citizenship, Felix Frankfurter, when he was serving at the War Department, wrote in 1914 and is cited in Mora v. Torres, 113 F.Supp. 309, 319 (District of Puerto Rico, 1953), waiving aside sham constitutional objections:
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''The form of the relationship between the United States and unincorporated territory is solely a problem of statesmanship.
''History suggests a great diversity of relationships between a central government and dependent territory. The present day demands upon inventive statesmanship is to help evolve new kinds of relationships so as to combine the advantages of local self-government with those of a confederated union. Luckily, our Constitution has left this field of invention open''.
Congressional and official actions after the enactment of Commonwealth have been consistent with these principles and precedents that now this bill intents to unilaterally revoke. There is ample evidence, moreover, that Congress has expressly recognized the non-territorial character of Commonwealth Status. The report of 1964 of the federally created United States Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico (Public Law 88-271) states:
''The Commission's mayor conclusion is that all three forms of political status—the Commonwealth, Statehood, and Independence—are valid and confer upon the people of Puerto Rico equal dignity with equality of status and of national citizenship.
''The Commonwealth relationship was established through bilateral agreement. It is clear that the U.S. Government entered into a solemn agreement with the Puerto Rican people in 1952 and that the agreement, referred to in the legislation as the compact, bears permanent legal consequences.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''A solemn undertaking of such profound character between the Federal Government and a community of U.S. citizens is incompatible with the concept of unilateral revocation. It is inconceivable that either the United States or Puerto Rico would, by an act of unilateral revocation, undermine the very foundation of their common progress: the fundamental political and economic relationships which were established on the basis of mutuality.
''The key to the continuation and development of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the mainland is U.S. citizenship. This citizenship carries with it basic personal and institutional protections which cannot be encroached upon by the Legislature of Puerto Rico or the Congress of the United States''.
Other Congressional documents are consistent with these precedents. The basic principles regarding Commonwealth, that this bill pretends to deny—a bilateral relationship based on mutual consent with American citizenship as one of its components—have been recognized in all the bills that the Congress has seriously considered to further develop Commonwealth in the last 25 years. For example:
—H.R. 11200-1 introduced in Congress in 1975 to implement the result in favor of Commonwealth in the 1967 referendum and approved by the House Sub-Committee of Insular Affairs. It defined Puerto Rico as an autonomous body politic organized by their own, free and sovereign will, joint in permanent union with the United States with American citizenship.
—S. 712 approved by the Senate Energy Committee in August, 1989, recognizing the bilaterality of the relationship and the permanence of the American citizenship.
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
—S. 244 was also considered by the Senate Energy Committee in 1991. It recognized Puerto Rico's autonomy, bilateral compact, mutual consent and, U.S. citizenship as a bond of permanent union between the United States and Puerto Rico. Final Committee vote was 10-10, although major concerns to the Commonwealth definition were not reported.
—H.R. 4765 approved by the Insular Affairs Sub-Committee, by the Interior Committee and unanimously by the House of Representatives in August 10, 1990, allowing the people of Puerto Rico to vote for a New Commonwealth.
So far, I have been talking about the historic precedents that clearly show that the assumptions under which this bill has been drafted are wrong. Now is time to talk about the future. The Chairman, Mr. Don Young, and the ranking Democrat, Mr. George Miller, have graciously asked me to submit a definition of Commonwealth.
The definition I am about to present is made recognizing the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico to enter into a new relationship with the United States consistent with the principles of dignity, political autonomy and permanent union that gave birth to the present Commonwealth status. With minor changes in order to adjust it to the implementation process required by H.R. 856, the Popular Democratic Party believes that it would be adequate to work with the definition of a New Commonwealth adopted by this Committee in 1990 which was included in the report to H.R. 4765 of the 101st. Congress approved by the Sub-Committee of Insular Affairs, by the full Committee of the Interior, and unanimously by the full House on October 10, 1990.
Eleven members of this Committee, including Chairman Young and Congressman Miller, were members of that Committee and voted in favor of the definition I will now present. The New Commonwealth should be defined as follows:
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''(A) The new Commonwealth of Puerto Rico would be joined in a union with the United States that would be permanent and the relationship could only be altered by mutual consent. Under a compact, the Commonwealth would be an autonomous body politic with its own character and culture, not incorporated into the United States, and sovereign over matters covered by the Constitution of Puerto Rico, consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
''(B) The United States citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico would be guaranteed and secured as provided by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and equal to that of citizens born in the several states. The individual rights, privileges and immunities provided for by the Constitution of the United States would apply to residents of Puerto Rico. Residents of Puerto Rico would be entitled to receive benefits under Federal social programs equally with residents of the several States contingent on equitable contributions from Puerto Rico as provided by law.
''(C) To enable Puerto Rico to arrive at full self-government over matters necessary to its economic, social, and cultural development under its constitution, a Special Constitutional Convention would submit proposals for the entry of Puerto Rico into international agreements and the exemption of Puerto Rico from specific Federal laws or provisions thereof. The President and the Congress, as appropriate, would consider whether such proposals would be consistent with the vital national interests of the United States in the transition plan provided for in Section 4 of this Act. The Commonwealth would assume any expenses related to increased responsibilities resulting from these proposals.''
This definition describes the minimum content of our aspirations. By offering a definition which was the subject of serious study, was actively supported by Chairman Young and Congressman Miller among others, and met with the approval of this Committee and of the whole House a few years ago we mean to show our desire to facilitate the work of this Committee and bring about a plebiscite in which Commonwealth supporters may participate with a clear conscience.
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By using the mechanism of a Constitutional Convention, which is already included in Section 4(b) (1) (B) of H.R. 856, to implement a vote in favor of the New Commonwealth, we would adapt it to the implementation mechanism conceived by this bill.
The Popular Democratic Party is looking with enthusiasm at the future. It is in the process of reorganizing its leadership and currently involved in a healthy generational transition that will guarantee a strong and rejuvenated party for years to come. The definition I have presented today fully complies with the principles contained in a document adopted last week by the Youth Organization of the Popular Democratic Party.
Commonwealth as an autonomic ideal for the future is the only status alternative in Puerto Rico that harmonizes those aspirations and goals of the modern world by protecting our identity and simultaneously guaranteeing our relationship with the United States, with a common market, common citizenship, common defense and common currency.
We believe that modern tendencies show that the ideas that will prevail in the new century will be those similar to the basic principles of Commonwealth of national reaffirmation and political and economic integration among the peoples of the world.
Thank you.
APPENDICES A
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A NOTE ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENTER INTO A COMPACT WITH THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO
The Supreme Court of the United States has relied upon two sources to sustain Congress' power with respect to territories: the inherent and implied powers of the United States as a sovereign and the territorial clause, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 26 US 511, 542-43 (1828). Under both powers Congress can make contracts or compacts binding upon other Congresses.
The general power to make binding compacts and agreements is a necessary corollary of sovereignty. United States v. Bekins 304 US 27, 51-52 (1936). In Perry v. United States, 294 US 330, 352, 253-54 (1935), regarding the gold clause in the bonds of the United States, the Court plainly stated that ''the right to make binding obligations is a competence attaching to sovereignty''. A Joint Resolution of Congress that attempted to override the obligation created by the bond was accordingly held to be beyond Congressional power. See also: Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. United States, 99 US 700, 719 (1870), where the federal government contracted with states to grant them federal lands on certain conditions, the Court holding that such agreements had to be honored by future Congresses.
Binding compacts and agreements can also be made under the territorial clause. The power of Congress to contract is included within the power to ''dispose'' referred to in that clause. See: United States v. Gratiot, 30 US (14 Pet) 526, 537-538 (1840), regarding the lease of mineral rights on public lands and holding that Congress could dispose partially, as well as totally of the property and territory of the United States. See also: Ashwander v. T.V.A. 297 US 288 (1936).
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The binding nature of contracts entered into pursuant to the territorial clause includes contracts made with the people of a territory. See Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 US 223 (1900), concerning a contract made between the United States and the territory of Minnesota relating to the grant of certain federal lands to the territory in trust. Such an action was held binding on future Congresses.
Compacts made pursuant to the territorial clause may deal with governmental rights. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 provides the classic example. The Northwest Ordinance stated that several of its provisions ''shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States, and the people and States in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable unless by common consent''. The Northwest Ordinance was adopted by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation and ratified by the First Congress under the new Constitution by Act of August 7, 1789, 1 Stat. 50. Story was of the opinion that the Ordinance bound Congress in the exercise of its otherwise absolute power under the territorial clause. 2 Story on the Constitution [Bigelow ed., 1891] sec. 1328.
Congress may relinquish or dispose of part of its territorial powers and retain others. The admission of a territory as a state is an example of total disposal. So is the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 761, which granted independence to the Philippines. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 represents an example of partial relinquishment or limitation of Congressional rights under the territorial clause. There is no authority for the proposition that the United States is forced by its Constitution to opt only for total relinquishment of its powers under the territorial clause. Independence and statehood are not the only ways out of territorial status. As pointed by Felix Frankfurter in his days at the Bureau of Insular Affairs at the War Department (see Mr. Acevedo Vilá's statement before this Committee today), the field is constitutionally open to inventive statesmanship.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The validity of the compact entered into in 1952 between the people of Puerto Rico and the government of the United States was duly recognized by United States representatives at the United Nations in 1953. (See Mr. Acevedo Vilá's statement for the appropriate quote).
At various times, although there have been occasions to the contrary, the United States Department of Justice has admitted the constitutional possibility of a compact between the people of Puerto Rico and the government of the United States. On April 2, 1962, it stated that the more reasonable conclusion would be ''to read the Constitution as not restricting Congress' power to construct such political relationships with the territories as it may consider necessary in the light of particular instances, including one in which it permanently divests itself of part of its territorial powers''. (J. Trías Monge, Historia Constitucional de Puerto Rico, Río Piedras, Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, 1983, vol. 4, p. 184).
The United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico, established by Congress in 1964, 78 Stat. 17, concluded in its 1966 report that ''All three status alternatives—the Commonwealth, Statehood, and Independence—are within the powers of the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress to establish under the Constitution''. Report of the United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico, 1966, p. 6.
On May 12, 1975, the United States Department of Justice, being consulted by the White House as to the constitutionality of the proposed Compact of Permanent Union between Puerto Rico and the United States (H.R. 11200 and H.R. 11201, 121st Congress, 1st Sess.) concluded that ''it is possible for Congress to bind future Congresses with respect to Puerto Rico by means of a 'compact'. This may be viewed either as the vesting of certain rights, see, e.g., Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244, 261-71 (1901), or as the granting of a certain measure of independence which once granted cannot be retrieved. Thus, specifically, Article 21 of the proposed Compact, requiring mutual agreement for amendment to the Compact, would, in our belief, be constitutional. Indeed, its explicit statement would appear to be an improvement over the situation under the present Compact where there is some question as to the ability of Congress to change its provisions''. (President Ford's Library, Norman E. Ross Files, Ad Hoc Committee, folders 2-3, letter dated May 12, 1975 from A. Mitchell McConnell, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Legislative Affairs, written as an answer to the request of James M. Cannon, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs).
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As respects court opinions, the question as to the power of Congress to enter into a binding compact with the people of Puerto Rico has not yet been directly at issue, but many rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit are incompatible with the argument that for Congress to enter into a binding compact would be constitutionally impossible. Among such rulings are the recognition that Puerto Rico is sovereign over matters not ruled by the Constitution of the United States; that Puerto Rico has been accorded the degree of autonomy and independence normally associate with States of the Union; that Puerto Rico occupies a relationship to the United States that has no parallel in American history; and that, accordingly, upon the establishment of Commonwealth status, Puerto Rico ceased to be a territory of the United States subject to the plenary power of Congress. (See the note on Harris v. Rosario for the appropriate citations).
APPENDICES B
A NOTE ON HARRY v. ROSARIO
Harris v. Rosario, 446 US 651 (1981), held in a two-paragraph per curiam opinion, citing Califano v. Torres, 435 US 1 (1978), that Congress was empowered to treat Puerto Rico differently than a state in granting aid to families with dependent children. The Court briefly referred to the territorial clause as the basis for that power. The Court, it should be noted, did not face in Harris the question whether Congress retained plenary power to legislate for Puerto Rico and accordingly said nothing about that. In order to address such a momentous issue a full-dress opinion would naturally have been required, rather than the summary action taken. The Court just ruled in Harris that Congress can under the territorial clause treat Puerto Rico differently than a state as respects the application of aid programs. The power of Congress to do so has, of course, never been challenged by the government of Puerto Rico, as it actually provides one of the constitutional bases for the unique nature of Commonwealth status. The interpretation of Harris advanced by critics of Commonwealth status simply misses the substantial distinction between the power of Congress to treat Puerto Rico differently than a state and the power to legislate for the unincorporated territories basically at its pleasure.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Harris does not, therefore, support the understanding of its meaning propound by critics of Commonwealth status. Such an interpretation of Harris runs counter to other decisions of the United States Supreme Court issued both before and after Harris.
Should the construction put on Harris by critics of Commonwealth status to be correct, why is it that neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeals most familiar with Puerto Rican matters, that for the First Circuit, not only has ever failed to follow such an interpretation, but actually ruled to the contrary?
Contrary to the bizarre interpretation of Harris favored by critics of Commonwealth status, these are some of the statements issued by the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on the status change represented by the establishment of the Commonwealth:
''We readily concede that Puerto Rico occupies a relationship to the United States that has no parallel in our history...'' Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 US 572 (1972).
''Puerto Rico is to be deemed sovereign over matters not ruled by the Constitution''. Calero Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 US 663 (1974); Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 US 1 (1982); Alfred L. Snapp & Son Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 US 592 (1982), Posadas de Puerto Rico Assc'n v. Tourism Co., 478 US 328 (1986).
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''The purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with States of the Union''. Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, supra.
''Puerto Rico, like a state, is an autonomous political entity''. Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party, supra.
''The theme that consistently runs throughout the legislative history of Puerto Rico's attainment of Commonwealth status is that Commonwealth represents the fulfillment of increasing self-government over local affairs by the people of Puerto Rico...In sum, Puerto Rico's status changed from that of a mere territory to the unique status of Commonwealth. And the federal relations with Puerto Rico changed from being bounded merely by the territorial clause, and the rights of the people of Puerto Rico as United States citizenship, to being bounded by the United States and Puerto Rico Constitutions, Public Law 600, the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and the rights of the people of Puerto Rico as United States citizens''. Córdova & Simonpietri, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 649 F2d 3 6 (1st Cir. 1981).
''Thus, in 1952, Puerto Rico ceased being a territory subject to the plenary powers of Congress''. United States v. Ouiñones, 758 Fed. 2d 40 (1st Cir. 1985).
There is accordingly no basis in law for the proposition that Harris establishes that Puerto Rico is still an unincorporated territory of the United States subject to the plenary power of Congress under the territorial clause.
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF LUIS A. FERRÉ, FORMER GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO, NEW PROGRESSIVE PARTY
Chairman Young and Members of the House Natural Resources Committee:
Good Afternoon!
My name is Luis A. Ferré.
I have advocated statehood for Puerto Rico during my adult life, which extends today to 93 years.
I served as Governor of Puerto Rico from 1969 to 1973 and I appear before you as Founding President of the New Progressive Party, committed to achieve statehood for Puerto Rico, which won the 1996 election with a majority vote of 1,006,331 or 51.4% for Governor of Puerto Rico, a majority of the Senate with l9 seats out of 28, a majority of the House with 37 out of 54 seats, 54 mayors of a total of 78 municipalities and a vote of 973,654, or majority for Resident Commissioner to Congress.
The New Progressive Party stands firmly behind the Young Bill, H.R. 856. We are all happy, indeed, that you have all subscribed H.R. 856, which finally opens the road for Puerto Rico to make a decision on its ultimate political status in the dignified manner that becomes the United States Congress and the people of the United States, including statehood as an alternative, which was the implicit understanding under which the people of Puerto Rico welcomed the American forces of General Nelson Miles in 1898.
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Upon landing, General Nelson Miles published a proclamation which read in part, ''Our military forces have not come to make war on the people of the country—but, on the contrary, to bring protection,— promote your prosperity, and bestow the immunities and blessings of our enlightenment and liberal institutions and government.''
This proclamation was considered, by our political leaders and the Puerto Rican people, as a moral commitment by the United States to accept Puerto Rico, eventually, as a state of the Union, with full United States citizenship. Accordingly, both political parties that participated in the elections of 1900, under the leadership of the two most important and respected leaders, Barbosa and Muñoz Rivera, included statehood in their platforms, and gave their full support to you assumption of our destiny on an equal political basis and moral responsibility.
Unfortunately, and to everybody's disappointment, Congress enacted the Foraker Bill to establish the first civil government, in 1900, which did not grant United States citizenship to Puerto Ricans, acting in contradiction to the historical precedent of accepting territories only to become states. In spite of this disappoinunent, the people of Puerto Rico did not lose their confidence in the ultimate spirit of justice and moral responsibility of the United States and persisted in their demands for United States citizenship, as a step to ultimate statehood.
We are now approaching one hundred years from the date of the signature of the Treaty of Paris, which bestowed upon Congress the power to determine the political destiny of Puerto Rico, as at last outlined, with options for full self-government, including statehood, in Young Bill H.R. 856.
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It took Congress 19 years to grant United States citizenship, under the Jones Act, and to establish an elected Senate. It took congress 50 years to provide for an elected Governor. It took an additional four years to allow us to draft and approve our own state-like Constitution in 1952, through an elected Constitutional Convention to which I had the honor of being elected as a statehood advocate and spokesman.
In 1950, Congress authorized the people of Puerto Rico to vote in a Referendum to accept or reject Law 600, which provided for the adoption of the local Constitution, as well as to other amendments to the Jones Act of 1917. The Federal Relations Act remained unchanged, maintaining Puerto Rico, as a non-incorporated Territory under the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution and the full sovereignty of Congress.
We voted in favor of the Constitution drafted by the Convention under the clear understanding that the Commonwealth (E.L.A.), as defined therein, was to be a transitory status that kept the way open for Puerto Rico to achieve statehood or independence, at a future date, if the people so decided.
Several attempts were made afterwards to interpret and modify Law 600, which were rejected by Congress.
In 1964, and to clarify the meaning of Law 600, under which the Constitution of Puerto Rico was granted, the United States-Puerto Rico Status Commission as appointed. I was appointed member of the Status Commission on behalf of the statehood position.
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During the Commission proceedings, I was able to argue against the misleading campaign of the advocates of Commonwealth status, that statehood for Puerto Rico was not attainable and that it would be economically disastrous for the Island and an economic burden to the United States, assuming the position that I had been sustaining since November 23, 1949, when I testified before the sub-committee of the Committee on Labor and Education of the House of Representatives of the United States, that to the contrary, Puerto Rico could assume the full economic responsibilities of statehood and it would be in the long run an asset to the United States, while the territorial status of Commonwealth would perpetually be a burden.
And I added and repeat today, that if we are American citizens, then we must be given the tools that our fellow American citizens in Continental United States have to solve their problems; and these tools are equal rights under statehood. Only by having two Senators and six Congressmen who can be on the alert all the time and who have the power to protect our interests, can the American citizens of Puerto Rico give their economy the necessary impetus to solve their problems.
Finally, the Status Commission Report came out with the following conclusion amongst others: ''Economic studies indicate, that sustained economic growth, under the present status and continuation of the special arrangements will make statehood with adequate but not extraordinary or unprecedented provisions for transition, fully possible, without severe risks.''
''With respect to the nature of the compact agreed upon under Law 600, the Supreme Court of the Untied States is the final interpreter, and has not expressed itself, as yet, on these matters.'' This was in 1966. Since then, it has expressed itself in several instances, in particular, in the case of Harris vs. Rosario, in which it ruled that Congress had the authority to discriminate against the United States citizens of Pueblo Rico, since Puerto Rico was held under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution.
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me add some political considerations for the admission of Puerto Rico as a state, that I expressed before the Sub-Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress on December 7, 1959, and which I think are still pertinent today.
''The admission of Puerto Rico as a state would greatly enhance the position of the United States in world affairs. It would be the logical conclusion of a process which started in 1898, when Puerto Rico came under the American flag. Puerto Rico before the year 1900 had the old European authoritarian social structure. This structure has gradually evolved into a democratic society under the American influence, which began by teaching our youth the American principles of individual liberty, equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity, through the school system and the political institutions, which were established after the year 1900.''
''This has been, to my mind, the most significant change that Puerto Rico has undergone under the American flag. The successful achievement of our economic wellbeing is, therefore, a challenge to the American citizens of Puerto Rico and to our fellow citizens of the Mainland; a challenge to show the world that the American way is the way to both economic success, social improvement and political freedom, which can usefully serve as a pattern to solve the vaster problems of other underprivileged countries of the world. A challenge of great political and human potentialities, which may be of great world significance.''
''With respect to the relations of the United States and Latin America, statehood for Puerto Rico would have still greater significance. It would serve to improve and solidify the position of America as a friend and partner, for it would be the best proof that our Good-neighbor policy is not a mere diplomatic posture, but that it is an honest and sincere expression of respect of North America for Latin America. It would make Latin America feel, that through Puerto Rico and through its representation in Congress, their problems and aspirations would be better understood, because of our common cultural origin and tradition.''
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''As Americans identified with the political and social philosophy of America and its institutions of law, we would be able to better interpret our foreign policy to them and help the United States to succeed in bringing better understanding and cooperation in the common problems of our hemisphere.''
And at the present moment, the need to maintain and further develop the commercial interchange with Latin American, which is our natural market, when we are loosing the European market to United Europe and the Pacific markets to Japan and China, is essential to our success and prosperity.
The growth of the statehood forces have been overwhelming since 1968. In 1964, the Pro-commonwealth Party had 487,280 votes or 59.4% of the vote and the Pro-statehood Party had 284,627 or 34.6%. In the last election of 1996, there was a complete reversal. The Statehood Party obtained 963,536 votes, or 51.3%, and the Pro-commonwealth Party 855,960 votes, or 45.5%, which shows a clear growing trend for statehood.
We feel, therefore, that Puerto Rico is ripe to become a state after almost a hundred years of successful democratic apprenticeship and to assume its full political rights and responsibilities. During all this Century, more than 200,000 Puerto Ricans have served with distinction in all the wars that United States has been involved with more than 6,000 casualties and in several cases with higher casualties than some states. More than 2,000 Puerto Ricans soldiers served in the Gulf War, amongst whom was a grandson of mine in the 1st Armored Division. Four, such as Fernando Luis García, who gave their lives, heroically, in the line of duty, have been condecorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other distinguished leaders who have, also, served the Nation are: Admiral Horacio Rivero, in 1968, Commander in Chief of NATO Forces in Southern Europe and later Ambassador to Spain; Vice Admiral Diego Hernández, who was in command of the Mediterranean Fleet; Major General Pedro del Valle, commanded the U. S. Marine Corps, First Division in the Pacific; General William A. Navas, Jr., who is deputy in Command of the National Guard. Dr. Antonia Novello, served as U. S. Surgeon General. and Dr. Enrique Méndez, Jr., as Deputy Surgeon General of the U. S. Army.
The real test for Puerto Rican statehood should be how much we share common values with fellow citizens of the 50 states, and how much Puerto Ricans believe in, honor, and defend the Constitution of the United States. A look at the myriad ways Puerto Ricans have served the United States over the last 99 years is enough to pass the test.
President Clinton has just appointed Mrs. Aida Alvarez to his Cabinet, as head of Small Business Administration.
Puerto Rico is participating, successfully and with distinction, in Mainstream American to enrich its economy and its culture. There are about 2,000,000 Puerto Ricans living throughout the Nation, doing constructive and creative work as factory workers and professionals, in all fields of activity: Thousands of physicians and engineers, thousands of teachers and professors, in schools and universities.
In the arts and humanities, our rhythms and melodies have contributed to enrich American music: Justino Díaz and Pablo Elvira have been great voices at the Metropolitan Opera; our great actors, like José Ferrér and Raúl Juliá, have been American favorites.
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are contributing to enrich our cultural patrimony through Museum collections. Today you can see on loan at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, the painting, Flaming June, by Lord Leighton, which is the key painting and masterpiece of the Victorian Exhibition.
In the area of civil government, amongst many others, Judge Juan Torruella, chief Justice of the U. S. First Circuit of Appeals; Judge José Cabranes is member of the United States 2nd Circuit of Appeals.
In the area of sports, we have contributed with many baseball players, amongst whom, Roberto Clemente has been included in the Hall of Fame; Charles Pasarell, in 1969, was #1 tennis player in the United States, and now, Gigi Fernández a tennis champion; as well as, Chi Chi Rodríguez, a golf professional.
And last, but not least, to show how much Puerto Rico is embedded in American life, it was the Puerto Rican judge of the Southern District of New York, Sonia Sotomayor, who as a fearless jurist, a couple of years ago, decided to issue an injunction that could break the deadlock in the baseball strike, and by doing so, sent the baseball players back to give Americans, after more than a year, the enjoyment of one of their favorite sports. Nobody could be part of America, more than this competent jurist of 40 years of age. She was the true image of the freedom and respect of law America stands for.
Mr. Chairman, I think that time has come to Congress to live up to the commitment of equality, under which we were brought into its fold. It is time to do justice to more than 3.6 million disenfranchised American citizens of Puerto Rico. We congratulate you for taking the proper step, with H.R. 856, to comply with your moral duly, as it becomes the United Slates Congress and our fellow citizens of the United States.
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY L. FARROW, CO-CHAIR OF THE PRESIDENT'S WORKING GROUP ON PUERTO RICO
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members:
Thank you for inviting the Clinton Administration to testify on—
(1) the general idea of authorizing the people of Puerto Rico to express their preference regarding their islands' relationship to the United States before the end of 1998 and
(2) the bill that the Chairman and other Members have sponsored to provide a process leading to full self-government for the Commonwealth, H.R. 856.
Let me begin by expressing appreciation for the interest and initiative of Chairman Young and the other primary sponsors of H.R. 856 in Puerto Rico's political status dilemma: It is a matter of transcendent importance, concerning the political rights of millions of U. S. citizens and a major factor in determining the approach to many of the serious economic and social challenges faced in the islands.
It is also, however, extremely complex and sensitive, involving much of the range of Federal policy, central questions of identity, a century of history, the interests of political parties that are based on conflicting visions of what the best status would be, and differences so intense that they hinder action on the issue itself and other issues as well.
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
President Clinton is dedicated to supporting the people of Puerto Rico's decision of what status their islands should have. He has pledged to back statehood or independence if Puerto Ricans vote for either one and to do his best to make the Commonwealth arrangement work better for them if they want to continue it.
He has also, though, recognized that the frustrating debate is likely to persist until the Federal Government clarifies what the options really are and how they can be implemented: The differing status aspirations that Puerto Ricans have long discussed largely hinge on fundamental Federal decisions that have not been made.
The President has, therefore, favored Puerto Ricans making a choice in concert with congressional action in a process that is developed together with their representatives.
Establishing a process that would enable this matter to finally be resolved is his highest priority regarding the islands. And he is fully committed to working with you and others in the Congress, with Puerto Rico's elected leaders, and with all concerned to establish it as soon as possible.
The President's position is that the Federal Government should—
(1) provide the people of Puerto Rico with options that are serious and fair responses to their diverse, expressed aspirations and
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(2) commit to act on implementing an option that is authorized by a majority vote in the islands.
He very much hopes that such a process will be underway next year .. . the centennial of the U. S. acquisition of the islands. He looks forward to our entering the new millennium having concluded the debate and implementing the will of the Puerto Rican people.
To facilitate enactment of the law that is needed, the Administration offers the following comments on H.R. 856 and urges the Committee to consider them.
Options
The bill would provide Commonwealth, nationhood, and statehood options.
Democratic principles require that the expressed aspirations of Puerto Ricans be central to the development of the options (which must also be viable from the Federal perspective). The President regards this as an integral part of a sound process.
We, therefore, view Chairman Young's agreement with Senior Democrat Miller to give Puerto Rico's major political parties until March 31st to submit alternatives to the options in the bill and to seriously consider their proposals as a very constructive step and we appreciate the role that Governor Rossello and Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcelo also played in it being taken. The parties are each recognized as the leading advocates for one of the three status formulas that substantial numbers of Puerto Ricans have supported: Commonwealth, statehood, and independence.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Administration encouraged such an outreach and strongly supports the procedure that was agreed upon. Consequently, we would like to work with the Committee in fashioning the options—considering the proposals of the parties and others as well as U. S. necessities—after the parties have had this opportunity to advance their ideas to you.
Referenda
The bill would ostensibly require—
(1) a referendum before 1999 and
(2) further referenda at least every four years thereafter in the event of: no option obtaining a majority; a majority for the Commonwealth option, or Puerto Rican rejection of Federal status implementation legislation.
Rather than suggest a mandate, it would be more appropriate to simply provide a process for and facilitate a status choice. This is the approach that was used in past legislation on the islands' political development. (Public Laws 81-600 and 82-447, which helped establish the governing arrangement for Puerto Rico, including the Commonwealth Constitution and the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act; Public Law 88-271, which established a joint Federal-Commonwealth status commission; and the status process bill that the House passed in 1990.)
We also suggest giving the Government of Puerto Rico flexibility on calling additional votes. Further votes might not be desired by Puerto Ricans so often and in such a case the call for revoting at least every four years would be a disruptive burden. Additionally, if Puerto Ricans were to reject Federal statehood or nationhood implementation legislation, it probably would not make sense for them to vote again absent further Federal action.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Transition and Implementation
The bill would call for a plan for a transition of at least 10 years in the event of a majority for either nationhood or statehood.
Since the measures that would need to be taken have not been specified and would change from time to time, we recommend that the length of a transition be set in the transition plan prepared in consultation with Puerto Rico's leaders. Congress would still have its say over the duration since the plan would require congressional (as well as Puerto Rican) approval.
A more fundamental problem is that H.R. 856 would require that a law be enacted at the end of a ''transition'' to nationhood or statehood—in addition to beforehand—in order to actually implement a status change.
The Administration favors prompt, final action on implementing a status change if chosen by Puerto Ricans. The purpose of a transition should be to permit significantly different policies to be implemented on an orderly basis. A further decision and, possibly, further requirements at the end of a ''transition'' could make the period only a partial transition or, even, overturn the status choice. Rejection or new conditions after substantial fiscal and program changes had been made could be very problematic. The Federal Government and Puerto Ricans should have greater assurance of actually implementing a status before heading down the path toward it.
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
English Language Provisions
The bill includes several provisions regarding the use of the English language that should be mentioned.
One would establish a policy of English being the ''common language of mutual understanding'' in the United States.
Such a policy is unnecessary and could create divisiveness. We are also concerned that it could be used to question statehood as an option for Puerto Rico. The language that most of the islands' U. S. citizens have always used should not be a barrier to full participation in the Federal system if they want it.
Another provision would call for measures to enhance English education in public schools in a transition to statehood.
We understand it to intend measures that would supplement educational practice in the islands, consistent with local control of schools.
Finally, there are provisions that suggest an intent to make English the official language of the Federal Government and a need to use English—including that Puerto Ricans should use it ''to enjoy the full rights and benefits of their citizenship.''
As you may be aware, the President indicated his intent to veto a bill last year, H.R. 123, that would have required the Federal Government to conduct most of its official business in English only. Legislative statements on a need to use English could be used by others to promote goals which are disharmonizing and diversionary. They could also unduly influence the Puerto Rico status decision. And, of course, Puerto Ricans should be able to continue to enjoy their citizenship rights and benefits whether they continue to use Spanish or not.
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Problematic Statements
The bill would also make some other statements or suggestions which would not be part of the procedure for resolving the status issue that are problematic. These provisions relate to the current situation and have contributed to controversy about the bill in Puerto Rico.
History has given us the conflicting facts and ambiguities that have fueled the islands' divisive and distracting status debate for decades. Rather than litigate them now when there is a general consensus on what needs to be done to resolve the dilemma, we think it would be more advisable to simply concentrate on resolving it: establishing a process that includes—
(1) providing the people of Puerto Rico with options that can end the debate and
(2) providing for Federal action on implementing their choice.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for the Federal Government to meet its responsibilities regarding the Puerto Rico status question and provide such a process;