[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
             UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT

=======================================================================

                             FIELD HEARING

                               before the

                         COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   on

       H.R. 856--United States-Puerto Rico's Political Status Act

                               __________

                 MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO, APRIL 21, 1997

                               __________

                           Serial No. 105-27

                               __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources



                                


                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 43-229 CC                   WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
 Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402



                         COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                      DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana       GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California           BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California        ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland             Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California              NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California         SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington              CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North              Rico
    Carolina                         MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas   ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona                SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada               PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon              ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania          DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin 
RICK HILL, Montana                       Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

                     Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
                   Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
              Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
                John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
           T.E. Manase Mansur, Republican Professional Staff
          Marie Fabrizio-Howard, Democratic Professional Staff



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held April 21, 1997......................................     1

Statement of Members:
    Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     6
    Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, a Resident Commissioner in 
      Congress from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico..............     6
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
    Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from the 
      Territory of Guam..........................................     6
    Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Alaska; and Chairman, Committee on Resources............     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Closing remarks of.......................................   284

Statement of Witnesses:
    Alzamora, Hon. Antonio J. Fas, Minority Leader of the Senate-
      Popular Democratic Party, Senate of Puerto Rico, San Juan, 
      Puerto Rico................................................    93
        Prepared statement of....................................    96
    Aponte, Hon. Nestor S., Representative, Puerto Rico House of 
      Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico.....................    34
        Prepared statement of....................................    36
    Borges, Hector Quijano, Association of Statehood Attorneys, 
      San Juan, Puerto Rico......................................   223
        Prepared statement of....................................   226
    Calderon, Hon. Sila M., Mayor, San Juan, Puerto Rico.........   271
    Colberg-Toro, Hon. Severo E., Representative, Puerto Rico 
      House of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico............   109
        Prepared statement of....................................   115
    Fernos-Lopez, Gonzalo, San Juan, Puerto Rico.................   238
        Prepared statement of....................................   241
    Ferrer, Dr. Miriam J. Ramirez de, MD, President, Puerto 
      Ricans in Civic Action, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico..............    14
        Prepared statement of....................................    17
    Font, Hon. Jorge de Castro, Representative, Puerto Rico House 
      of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico..................   101
        Prepared statement of....................................   103
    Gallisa, Carlos, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.......................   153
        Prepared statement of....................................   156
    Gerena, Hon. Julio Cesar Lopez, Mayor of Huacao, Humacao, 
      Puerto Rico................................................   233
        Prepared statement of....................................   235
    Gonzalez, Hon. Ferdinand Lugo, Representative, Puerto Rico 
      House of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico............   183
        Prepared statement of....................................   185
    Guzman, Mr. Arturo J., Chairman, I.D.E.A. of Puerto Rico, 
      Inc., San Juan, Puerto Rico................................    54
        Prepared statement of....................................   255
    Hernandez-Arana, Efrain, Lehigh Acres, Florida, prepared 
      statement of...............................................   280
    Inocencio, Hon. Victor Garcia San, House Minority Leader, 
      Puerto Rican Independence Party, Puerto Rico House of 
      Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico.....................   167
    Jarabo, Hon. Rony, Former Speaker of the Puerto Rico House of 
      Representatives, Popular Democratic Party, San Juan, Puerto 
      Rico.......................................................   111
    Lebron, Lolita, President, National Party of Puerto Rico, San 
      Juan, Puerto Rico..........................................   143
        Prepared statement of....................................   147
    Lopez-Rivera, Hon. Carlos A., President, Mayors Association 
      of Puerto Rico, Dorado, Puerto Rico........................   190
    Marquez, Joaquin A., Esq., Springfield, Commonwealth of 
      Virginia...................................................   210
        Prepared statement of....................................   213
    McConnie, Julian O., Jr., Attorney at Law, Rio Piedras, 
      Puerto Rico................................................   198
        Prepared statement of....................................   201
    Morales, Edgardo, Professor of Organizational Psychology, 
      University of Puerto Rico, Caguas, Puerto Rico.............   159
        Prepared statement of....................................   162
    Negron-Rivera, Erick G., Tax Policy Advisor, Puerto Rico 
      Independence Party, Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico..............   177
        Prepared statement of....................................   179
    Ortiz-Guzman, Angel J., Guaynabo, Puerto Rico................   253
    Perez, Julio A. Muriente, President, Puerto Rico New Movement 
      Independent Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico...................   123
        Prepared statement of....................................   126
    Ramos, Luis Vega, President, PROELA, San Juan, Puerto Rico...   220
    Ramos, Oreste,...............................................    39
        Prepared statement of....................................    42
    Rivera, Ramon Luis, Mayor, Bayamon, prepared statement of....   278
    Robles, Ms. Belen B., National President, League of United 
      Latin American Citizens, El Paso, Texas....................    64
        Prepared statement of....................................    67
    Rodriguez, Hon. Jose Guillermo, Mayor of Mayaguez, Mayaguez, 
      Puerto Rico................................................    77
        Prepared statement of....................................    79
    Rossello, Governor Pedro, Puerto Rico, prepared statement of.   269
    Ubinas, Roberto Cardona, President, Union Patriotic National, 
      Aguadilla, Puerto Rico.....................................   132
        Prepared statement of....................................   135
    Velasco, Ramon L., Association of Pro-Commonwealth Attorneys, 
      Bayamon, Puerto Rico.......................................   221
    Velgara, Frank, Co-Coordinator, Pro-Liberated, New York, New 
      York.......................................................   142



             UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT

                              ----------                              


                         MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1997

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                                      Mayaguez, PR.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. at 
University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, 
Hon. Don Young (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

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

    Mr. young. The Committee will come to order.
    It is a pleasure to be here holding this third hearing of 
the 105th Congress on the United States-Puerto Rico's Political 
Status Act, H.R. 856, in the well-known city of Mayaguez, 
Puerto Rico. All the testimony we will hear today in Mayaguez 
will be important and considered equal with the statements 
received by the Committee in the early hearings of San Juan in 
Washington, D.C.
    The Puerto Rican legislature enacted a valid request on 
January 23rd, 1997, House Concurrent Resolution 2, asking the 
Congress to authorize a vote on Puerto Rico's political status 
before the end of next year. This bill will answer that request 
by permitting the nearly 4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico 
to exercise the right of self-determination by choosing a 
federally authorized vote, to be held no later than the end of 
1998, to continue the commonwealth structure of local self-
government, separate sovereignty or statehood.
    Not only would such a congressional sanctioned political 
status referendum next year be an unprecedented event in Puerto 
Rico, but it would likely occur before the centennial of the 
signing of the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish-
American War, and the subsequent transfer of sovereignty over 
Puerto Rico to the United States. It will be in the best 
interest of the United States to provide an adequately timed 
transition to the political status form of full self-government 
preferred by the full majority of the people of Puerto Rico.
    The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act has 
three stages, I want to stress that, three stages, to permit 
the change to full self-government in a manageable and 
practical way:
    First, the initial decision vote in 1998, followed by a 
transition period and final implementation. This multi-stage 
approach per-

mits a smooth transition to address economic, fiscal, legal and 
political concerns.
    Although the bill's approach may seem to add additional 
years to the decolonization process, it represents a relatively 
small number of years compared to the five centuries under 
Spanish and then American rule. Puerto Rico certainly has 
waited a long time for the United States to provide the people 
of Puerto Rico the most cherished right in our democracy. In 
every respect the people of Puerto Rico are every bit as ready 
as the people of other States were to exercise that right when 
their time has come. It is now.
    It is in the national interest, and in the best interest of 
preserving and strengthening our democracy, for the United 
States to move promptly to adopt the United States-Puerto Rico 
Political Status Act. The people of Puerto Rico will then be 
able to exercise their right of self-determination and decide 
in 1998 whether they want to continue the commonwealth 
structure for local constitutional self-government, separate 
sovereignty or statehood.
    Puerto Rico's political status referendum will be an 
incredibly historic event of epic proportions befitting the 
sacrifice, loyalty, and patience of the inhabitants of Puerto 
Rico, who have waited 100 years for Congress to finally provide 
for full civil and political rights as charged in the 1898 
Treaty of Paris.
    The witnesses' views and suggestions today will help the 
Committee and the Congress to meet that obligation and take the 
appropriate necessary action to enable the people of Puerto 
Rico to resolve their political status.
    The gentleman from California.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.003
    
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                           CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am delighted to 
be here this morning for a continuation of our hearings in 
Puerto Rico. I will say what I have publicly said before. I 
think these are terribly important hearings, because I do 
believe, in fact, there is a very good chance this legislation 
authorizing the plebiscite will pass in this Congress. And if 
it does, we will be telling the people of Puerto Rico that we 
are now prepared to honor their decision.
    If that is in fact the direction that we seek to go in the 
Congress of the United States, then it is very important that 
we fully understand the implications of that decision; that the 
American people fully understand the implications of that 
decision and that the Puerto Rican people fully understand 
that. That can only be done by our gathering the best evidence 
we can so that we can discuss it with our colleagues in the 
United States, in the Congress, so that they can make an 
informed judgment.
    I look forward very much to the witnesses we will be 
receiving testimony from this morning and this afternoon. Thank 
you very much. And I want to thank our colleague, Carlos 
Romero-Barcelo, for the invitation to come to Puerto Rico to 
receive the testimony of his constituents.
    Mr. young. The Gentleman from Guam.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A U.S. DELEGATE FROM 
                     THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

    Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to echo 
my words of support for the process that you have led. It is 
quite clear that the process you have led has now at least 
gathered the interest and the support of all parties in terms 
of coming to a final conclusion.
    The hearing process allows all the people of Puerto Rico 
and various points of view to be articulated and also gives 
certainly the members of the Committee to address issues that 
need to be addressed, including the definitions and the time 
line.
    Again, I want to commend you for your leadership on this 
issue and also to again relay my gratitude to the Resident 
Commissioner for his graciousness and hospitality during our 
stay here.
    Mr. young. I thank the gentleman from Guam.
    It is now my pleasure to introduce the Resident 
Commissioner, a good friend, who has worked on this project for 
the many years I have been chairman and the ranking member, 
Carlos Romero-Barcelo

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, RESIDENT 
       COMMISSIONER FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I want to 
begin my remarks by welcoming all the Committee members to the 
beautiful Mayaguez campus of the University of Puerto Rico. As 
an added factor that is perhaps not known by everyone, the 
Mayaguez campus is well-known throughout the NASA institution 
in the United States for probably the most engineer graduates 
from a single university. The largest number here has graduated 
from the Mayaguez Institute of Technology, as we call it 
jokingly sometimes. But it is an outstanding institution and 
has served Puerto Rico well and is serving also the Nation 
well.
    Mr. Chairman, on Wednesday, February 26, 1997, a historic 
process began, and on that date more than 70 Members of 
Congress introduced H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico 
Political Status Act. Many things have happened since that day, 
and on March 19, the Resources Committee held hearings in 
Washington and a group of 12 Senators introduced a similar 
version of this bill in the Senate on the same day. Last 
Saturday, April 19, we held a hearing in San Juan, and 
congressional support for the bill has increased, as we now 
have 84 cosponsors.
    President Clinton has made the establishment of a process 
that will enable the people of Puerto Rico to decide their 
future relationship with the United States his highest priority 
regarding the Island; this from a March 19th statement by 
Jeffrey Farrow.
    Throughout this time, the Committee has given everyone who 
has expressed an interest in this issue the opportunity to 
participate and state his or her point of view either by 
submitting a written statement or by testifying in person. 
During these 2 days of hearings here in Puerto Rico alone, the 
members of the Committee will have had the opportunity to hear 
from over 50 witnesses representing the whole political 
spectrum of the Island, and this process has been characterized 
for its openness, inclusiveness and fairness, and for that, 
both you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Miller, have to be commended.
    This hearing is another important step in this process, a 
process I hope will finally end Puerto Rico's long journey 
toward disenfranchisement and full self-government.
    It was almost 100 years ago, 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 
that we have cherished and valued ever since, and a citizenship 
that we have defended with our lives and our blood.
    Then in 1952, the Island adopted a local constitution and 
became a so-called Commonwealth of the United States, 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.
    Prominent members of the Popular Party have recognized this 
fact. Even former Governor and Commonwealth architect Luis 
Munoz Marin, testified at a Congressional hearing on March 4, 
1950, that the proposed changes to the Island's status did not 
change the fundamental conditions of Puerto Rico as 
nonincorporation and only permitted Puerto Rico to develop its 
own self-government.
    Jose Trias Monge, a former chief judge of the Supreme Court 
and member of Puerto Rico's Constitutional Assembly, 
acknowledged in his book Historia Constitucional de Puerto Rico 
that even after 1952, Puerto Rico continues suffering a 
colonial status. ``Puerto Ricans have the distinction of having 
the longest period of colonialism in the whole world. What a 
sad distinction,'' indicated Mr. Trias Monge in his book.
    I have devoted most of my adult life in this struggle and 
to leading my people in the long and treacherous journey toward 
enfranchisement and equality. As former Mayor of San Juan, 
Puerto Rico's capital city, and Governor, and now Member of 
Congress, I have heard my people's voices and have shared their 
dreams and their aspirations. As you may have experienced in 
these past few days, these voices, questions and aspirations 
resonate loudly in the Island, although to most Americans 
living in the continental United States, they may seem as 
distant echoes.
    Many of our students on this campus have asked if our 
present institution will at some time deny them or their 
younger brothers and sisters or their children equal treatment 
in Federal education programs that they desperately need to 
succeed in today's competitive world. Young couples ask me why 
they have to move to the States in order to search for 
opportunities that are not available to them in Puerto Rico. 
Puerto Rican veterans, who have served the United States 
gallantly in all the Nation's wars and conflicts in this 
century, ask me why they cannot vote for the President that, as 
Commander in Chief, may tomorrow also send their sons and 
daughters to fight and die in times of war. The elderly ask why 
their health benefits and other support programs are less than 
if they resided in New York, Illinois, Alaska, Rhode Island, 
California, Florida or any other State of the Union. I have 
heard the voice of a grandmother wondering why her son, who 
died in Vietnam, gave his life for a country who denied her and 
her grandchildren a right to participate on equal terms.
    The answer to this question is clear. We are not equals 
because we are not partners. We are not equal because we are 
submerged is 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 not equals because we 
cannot vote for the President of the Nation of which we are 
citizens and because we do not have a proportional and 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.
    I believe that the latest developments in Congress and 
within the Clinton administration clearly show that after 100 
years, the Puerto Rico colonial dilemma has finally become a 
national issue and one that the two active branches of 
government recognize has to be resolved before we enter the 
next millennium. The disenfranchisement of the 3.8 million U.S. 
citizens residing in Puerto Rico has to stop and it has to stop 
now.
    Before I close, I want to take this opportunity to address 
an issue that has been raised by various groups during the 
Committee's deliberations, and that is the issue of the 
nonresident voting in the proposed 1998 plebiscite. Some have 
advocated that all people born in Puerto Rico and, in some 
cases, their immediate descendants be allowed the right to vote 
in the plebiscite regardless of their place of residency by 
waiving the residency requirement of Puerto Rico's electoral 
law or by seeking approval from the U.S. Congress. While we 
recognize that some of the advocates for the nonresident voting 
may have a sincere interest in this issue, the fact is some are 
also raising this issue with the only purpose of trying to 
derail this process.
    To allow nonresidents to vote in this plebiscite is neither 
viable nor fair. Although we recognize and understand many 
Puerto Ricans who migrated to the mainland did so in search of 
better opportunities that they could not find here in Puerto 
Rico because of the Island's colonial status, it is clear the 
discussion of Puerto Rico's political destiny should remain in 
the hands of the ones who live on the Island and who will 
receive the benefits or the adverse effects of the people's 
decision. Those are the ones who will have to face the 
consequences of any new relationship between Puerto Rico and 
the United States. It seems highly unfair that those who have 
been able to enfranchise themselves by moving to one of the 50 
States be allowed to vote to continue the disenfranchisement of 
those who remain living on the Island.
    Mr. Chairman, I feel honored at having the opportunity to 
find myself in the center of this historic process. Once again, 
I want to thank you for your leadership and vision in filing 
this bill and for holding this hearing, and I look forward to 
the testimony of the panelists.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Romero-Barcelo follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.005
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.006
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.007
    
    Mr. young. I thank the gentleman.
    The audience may have noticed that the curtain was rising 
and falling behind me. I am not sure what that meant. I hope it 
is not an omen.
    We call our first panel. Dr. Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer, 
Nestor S. Aponte, Arturo J. Guzman, and Belen B. Robles.
    They are all before us, and I will try to keep the 
testimony at 5 minutes, if possible. Keep that in mind as we go 
forth during this hearing.
    I do welcome you to these hearings and we are here to learn 
and listen.

 STATEMENT OF DR. MIRIAM J. RAMIREZ DE FERRER, MD, PRESIDENT, 
      PUERTO RICANS IN CIVIC ACTION, MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO

    Ms. Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer. Chairman Young and members 
of this Committee, I am proud to welcome you to the city of 
Mayaguez. My name is Miriam Ramirez de Ferrer, and I am 
accompanied by the vice president of my organization, Attorney 
Luis Costas, who will be available for any constitutional or 
legal questions that might come up. Please include my written 
statement for the record as part of my time.
    Mr. young. Without objection.
    Ms. Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer. During all these years, we 
have visited Washington many times to tell you about the 
tangled web of local party status politics and to explain how 
failure to solve the status issue has crippled the social and 
economic development of Puerto Rico. It has been frustrating, 
because those who want to preserve their political power and 
profit by preserving the status quo have had tremendous ability 
to influence Congress.
    Today I am filled with that sense of peace that comes in 
the struggle for liberty, when the truth is finally revealed. I 
know the behavior of some of the audience at the hearing in San 
Juan was not as dignified as it should have been, but the 
Committee did the right thing by allowing the pro-commonwealth 
faction to show their true colors.
    That political faction in Puerto Rico went beyond cheering 
for their champions and showed disrespect for witnesses in the 
process. However, it was not spontaneous, it was a well-
orchestrated event meant to disrupt the hearings and reduce the 
time allotted for questions and other witnesses.
    As a matter of fact, the San Juan Star said in yesterday's 
edition, ``When the panel of pro-commonwealth witnesses 
completed its turn before the panel, dozens of the PDP faithful 
left. And that brought almost to an end the noise and 
disruption."
    That is why self-determination should not be a transaction 
exclusively between Congress and the Puerto Rico political 
parties. People have consistently voted for a status change in 
all referendums and against the status quo. The status quo does 
not have the support of the majority of the people of Puerto 
Rico. That is why it is imperative that a process for self-
determination be established. At the end, it will be an 
individual choice between the United States citizens in Puerto 
Rico who will exercise the right to self-determination in the 
privacy of a voting booth.
    At the San Juan hearing you heard the bizarre theories of 
sovereignty and tortured logic of the autonomous doctrine. It 
is a passive aggressive dogma that in a military tone demands 
recognition of a separate national sovereignty, but claims 
victimization at the mere suggestion that separate nationality 
might mean separate citizenship.
    It is a schizophrenic political identity which enables the 
aristocracy of the colonial era to perpetrate its political 
power by pretending that such aristocracy is the champion of 
Puerto Rico dignity. The discussion of status under the Young 
bill has unfolded the truth about the proposals of commonwealth 
exponents.
    Don't take it from me. You heard it yourself.
    Their theory is that since all people have inherent 
sovereignty, and this is recognized by the United Nations' 
resolutions and the United States Constitution, then Puerto 
Rico has a form of separate sovereignty. They take that half 
truth and pretend that the local sovereignty and internal 
autonomy that Puerto Rico has under the territorial clause of 
the Constitution approved in 1952 is the same as national 
sovereignty for Puerto Rico. This makes a mockery of the United 
States national sovereignty under the Treaty of Paris and the 
territorial clause.
    Again, they have revealed their false theory to Congress, 
asserting that local autonomy granted by Congress is a form of 
national sovereignty that puts Puerto Rico on the plane of 
bilateral, sovereign-to-sovereign, nation-to-nation level of 
mutuality with the United States. But when they say ``mutual 
consent,'' they mean that the political relationship of Puerto 
Rico and the United States is permanent because Congress agreed 
to a local constitution in 1952.
    According to them, through this, Congress gave up its 
sovereign power and consented to make nonincorporation a 
permanent union and binding status for Puerto Rico with 
permanent United States citizenship. Their theory ignores 
constitutional supremacy. No matter what Public Law 600 is 
purported to do, the constitutional supremacy clause prevails.
    They also told you that Congress has the power to improve, 
enhance, and develop Puerto Rico, but no authority to require 
Puerto Rico to contribute to the Union. That arrogant demand is 
what some now are calling ``reverse colonialism.'' According to 
these political leaders, the United States has national 
sovereignty only to the extent delegated by the Nation of 
Puerto Rico.
    But listen to this, even though the 10th Amendment does not 
apply to Puerto Rico, if Congress exercise its constitutional 
authority under the territorial clause, you heard them 
Saturday, they make the childish threat to take you to court. 
You also heard the politics of shouting down all who question 
their opportunistic ideology imposed on us by the strident, 
shrill and uncivil pro-commonwealth representatives.
    I will leave you with just one thought. My message is 
simple. Although the United States Federal Government 
contributed to the problem by going along with the myth and 
allowing the colonial situation to be perpetuated, the United 
States did not do this to Puerto Rico.
    The leadership of the pro-commonwealth party was the 
driving force in creating this problem because they do not have 
the courage to face a real choice between citizenship under 
United States national sovereignty and separate national 
sovereignty with separate citizenship.
    The real challenge for the people in self-determination is 
to take the responsibility for solving our own problems. 
Commonwealthers have tried for 40 years to propose a status 
which does not exist. Now we need to face the real choices. 
What we need is for Congress to set aside the myth and point 
out the realities. Please define the options available and we 
can do the rest ourselves.
    The people of Puerto Rico have great faith that this 
particular effort will put an end to our divisive status 
discussion and uncertainty about our future. Thank you very 
much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.008
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.009
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.010
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.011
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.012
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.013
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.014
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.015
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.016
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.017
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.018
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.019
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.020
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.021
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.022
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.023
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.024
    
    Mr. young. Thank you, Doctor. And for those at the witness 
table, she was allowed 6 minutes, so I will give you 6 minutes 
as well.
    The Honorable Nestor S. Aponte.

 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NESTOR S. APONTE, REPRESENTATIVE, 
  PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Aponte. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on 
Resources, my name is Nestor S. Aponte. I am the Director of 
the Institute of Political Vocation and Communication of the 
New Progressive Party and a member of the House of 
Representatives of Puerto Rico, in my fourth year consecutive 
term. During the term that ended last December, I occupied the 
position of House Majority Leader. I am an Army veteran and a 
lawyer in private practice.
    My main concern in attending this hearing is to emphasize 
the importance of having Congress define clear and precise 
formulas for any process in which we the people of Puerto Rico 
have to make our decision on status. It is of utmost importance 
to have an unmistakable definition for the relationship, 
political condition or status, presently called commonwealth, 
or any of the possible variants finally included in the 
plebiscite H.R. 856 proposes for the solution of our status 
dilemma.
    Since the enactment of the Constitution for the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1952, the advocates of 
commonwealth have capitalized on the silence of Congress in 
regard to the term ``estado libre asociado'' used as a 
translation for the word commonwealth. They have hidden and 
forgotten Resolution 22 of the Puerto Rican Constitutional 
Assembly, approved to determine in Spanish and in English the 
name of the body politic created by the Constitution, and they 
have defined the term or phrase ``estado libre asociado'' in as 
many ways necessary to fit into the particular circumstance of 
any time.
    They have been able to make our people believe that under a 
commonwealth we can acquire all the benefits of statehood 
without the responsibilities and all the possible benefits of 
independence. They call it ``the best of two worlds.''
    If this elastic type of political status is possible, 
Congress should state so. But if this elastic type of status is 
not possible, Congress should also state so. The process you 
have already begun to solve our status problem must only 
include viable alternatives if it is intended to be a sincere 
effort to put an end to our colonial relationship.
    Independently of what you may hear from detractors of 
statehood, in regard to nationality, language differences, 
Olympic representation and beauty contests, the unquestionable 
facts are that a very great majority of our people are ready 
and willing to make the necessary adjustments that will make 
permanent the points we have developed during our centenarian 
relationship. We are ready for statehood.
    There should be no doubt, with the approval of Public Law 
600 in 1950, and the enactment of the Constitution for the 
Commonwealth in 1952, our political relationship with the 
United States remained as a territory.
    The Congressional Record is clear. It was a break from the 
practice where Congress exercised local self-government 
according to organic legislation. The only purpose of that 
legislation was to authorize the establishment of local self-
government, but the fundamental relationship of Puerto Rico to 
the Federal Government would not be altered.
    Section 4 of Public Law 600 reads as follows: ``Except as 
provided in section 5 of this Act, the Act entitled 'An Act to 
provide a civil government for Puerto Rico, and for other 
purposes, approved March 2, 1917, as amended, is hereby 
continued in force and effect and may hereafter be cited as the 
``Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act''.
    The sections of said Act, known as the Jones Act, repealed 
in section 5 of Public Law 600, are the ones that deal with the 
organization of the local government, because from there on the 
organization of the local government was to be determined by 
the articles of the new constitution. All other sections are in 
force in the same way as when enacted in 1917.
    In 1953, at the conclusion of the process to enact our 
constitution, the U.S. Government sent a memorandum to the 
United Nations concerning the cessation of transmission of 
information under article 73(e) of the Charter with regard to 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
    Even though the arguments used to describe the scope of the 
local government are similar to the dispositions of Resolution 
22 of the Constitutional Assembly, the advocates of 
Commonwealth have used said memorandum for the purpose of 
trying to prove that with the approval of the local 
constitution we engaged in a new relationship with a new 
political status.
    In summary, if the language used to describe the formulas 
is not precise and clear, this process may turn into a 
political campaign as confusing as the ones that we have 
developed in our locally legislated political status 
plebiscites.
    Thank you.
    Mr. young. Thank you, and thank you for staying within the 
time. Very well done.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Aponte follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.025
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.026
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.027
    
    Mr. young. Oreste Ramos.

                   STATEMENT OF ORESTE RAMOS

    Mr. Ramos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, Mr. Romero-Barcelo and members of 
this Committee, my name is Oreste Ramos. I have the privilege 
of having served the people of San Juan as a Senator for 20 
years until 1996, the last four as Chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary. Nonetheless, I want to make clear that today I 
come as a private citizen interested in this issue.
    I would like to begin by congratulating the sponsors of 
this bill by addressing this complex issue in the most 
appropriate manner and, of course, in accordance with what was 
expressed by U.N. Resolution 1541 of the 15th General Assembly.
    Some people may ask themselves, why do we need full self-
government? Is it one of those technicalities, legal theology, 
the lawyers love to discussion but which have no impact on real 
people? In the case of Puerto Rico, as in the case of every 
other jurisdiction in the world, full self-government means 
that our people have a say in all decisions that affect their 
daily lives.
    As the aforementioned U.N. resolution indicates, there are 
only three possible ways as to how you can do that, namely, 
statehood, independence and free association. All of them are 
sovereign options.
    Do we currently exercise sovereignty in Puerto Rico? A 
careful perusal of the Congressional Record of Senate Bill 3336 
of the 81st Congress would suffice to answer this question in 
the negative. Every single congressional committee which 
reported on that bill and its House equivalent reproduced 
Secretary of the Interior Oscar J. Chapman's statement to the 
effect that the approval of what later became Public Law 600 
would not change Puerto Rico's political status or U.S. 
sovereignty as acquired over Puerto Rico under the Treaty of 
Paris.
    Thus, absolutely no measure of sovereignty has ever been 
transferred by Congress to the people of Puerto Rico. This is 
evidenced by the undeniable fact that the intricate web of 
Federal regulations, congressional legislation and decisions by 
the Federal judiciary apply to Puerto Rico, without Puerto 
Ricans having any say in the selection of the officers who spin 
the web.
    As it was correctly understood by the Court of Appeals of 
the 11th Circuit decision of U.S. v. Sanchez in 1993, Congress 
did not accord the people of Puerto Rico any measure of 
sovereignty, not even that recognized by the Constitution to 
the Navajo reservations.
    This is perfectly in line with the U.S. Supreme Court 
decision in 1980 regarding Harris v. Rosario. In short, Puerto 
Rico is, in 1997, as much of an unincorporated territory under 
the plenary powers of Congress arising under the territorial 
clause as it was in 1898 and, thus, devoid of any measure of 
sovereignty.
    Now, in finding 15, page 8, lines 4 to 12, of the bill 
under consideration today, its 84 sponsors clearly recognize 
that full self-government for Puerto Rico is obtainable only 
through the establishment of a political status under which 
Puerto Rico would cease to be sovereign to the territorial 
clause as an unincorporated territory.
    Throughout these hearings, we have also heard the 
distinguished members of this Committee state that this process 
would be one leading to the attainment of sovereignty by Puerto 
Ricans, either of a separate nature or as members of the U.S. 
polity.
    Thus, in order to comply with the avoid desire of the 
sponsors of the bill and with U.N. Resolution 1541, you must 
exclude territorial or colonial formulas from the bill.
    We have repeatedly heard proponents of the so-called New 
Commonwealth formula raise charges of unfairness and allusions 
to a, quote-unquote, unlevel playing field. These charges will 
not cease to be raised, but I beseech you to be understanding 
of the quandary the PDP faces. Keep in mind it was not designed 
to solve Puerto Rico's status problem. It has to fight very 
hard to get within its fold different factions, ranging from 
those who would like closer ties with the U.S. to those who 
advocate for free association with the maximum degree of 
sovereignty under such an agreement.
    To one of those factions, this bill is Kryptonite, Mr. 
Chairman.
    That is why their definition has so many attributes of free 
association, while maintaining some of the aspects of our 
current territorial relationship. It was contrived and 
concocted as a product for local consumption in Puerto Rico. 
They know that a lengthy and protracted discussion on how to 
fit such a formula in this bill could spell doom for the 
prospects of this measure ever becoming law.
    Is there a way to accommodate the advocates of the New 
Commonwealth as much as feasible without running astray of the 
Constitution? The possible solution in my view to the adoption 
of the New Commonwealth definition in this bill was perhaps 
implied yesterday by former Governor Hernandez-Colon. In an 
exchange with Mr. Underwood, he mentioned that if the 
territorial clause could not be construed in an elastic enough 
manner so as to allow for Puerto Rico's exercise of 
sovereignty, as called for in the proposed definition, then 
Congress could act without the constraint of the clause, but 
still within the Constitution.
    Now, there is no way of doing that unless you use the 
treaty-making power; and that would, of course, entail the 
transfer of sovereignty which could take place simultaneously 
with the enactment of that treaty of association.
    Mr. young. Mr. Ramos, how close are you to being finished?
    Mr. Ramos. Thirty seconds, sir. However, we all know that 
some elements of the definition would still be 
unconstitutional, while others would simply fall short of being 
accepted by Congress. For example, after the 1994 amendments to 
the Nationality Act, there is no way that Puerto Ricans born 
after Free Association, or New Commonwealth as they call it 
now, were born, could keep their American citizenship and still 
be citizens of a separate sovereign nation.
    So I think, Mr. Chairman, in summary, that this New 
Commonwealth--colonial definition of New Commonwealth should be 
excluded from the bill, and that in order to comply with the 
avowed desires of the sponsors of this bill, then Free 
Association, even if we have to use or if you have to include 
two versions of it, one of it would be the classical one and 
then another one called New Commonwealth, if that is what you 
have to resort to in order to comply with your avowed desires 
and what is stated in the introduction of this measure, then 
that is the way to go. But to do anything else would be to 
complicate matters even further and have to face an ever more 
complicated issue and problem 15, 20 or 50 years from now.
    Thank you, Your Honor.
    Mr. young. Thank you. May I suggest, I don't want it any 
more complicated than it is, believe me.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ramos follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.028
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.029
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.030
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.031
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.032
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.033
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.034
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.035
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.036
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.037
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.038
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.039
    
    Mr. young. Arturo Guzman.

STATEMENT OF MR. ARTURO J. GUZMAN, CHAIRMAN, I.D.E.A. OF PUERTO 
               RICO, INC., SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Guzman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Once again, it is 
our privilege to welcome you back to the colonies.
    For many years and in testimony before different 
Congressional committees we have stated that a solution to 
Puerto Rico's status condition and an end to our nation's 
legacy of colonialism could be only be achieved by an act of 
mutual self-determination on the part of the Congress of the 
United States and we the people of Puerto Rico.
    H.R. 856 constitutes such an act, and it has our full 
concurrence, endorsement and support.
    We would be remiss if we didn't take this opportunity to 
also recognize the support for our self-determination expressed 
by every U.S. president since Harry Truman and of particular 
value to our society the additional support given the cause of 
statehood by Presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, the latter two 
of which allowed me the privilege of serving through the course 
of their administrations as an unofficial advisor on matters 
pertaining to Puerto Rico and other areas of this hemisphere.
    As with any process of this nature, there are some areas 
which may warrant further definition, clarification or 
consideration which we are covering in detail in our written 
statement. Due to time limitations, I will just mention the 
titles of the topics covered, should you wish to direct any 
questions to them:
    Under the option of Commonwealth, the question of immunity 
from Federal taxation and the costs to the Federal Treasury of 
the actual condition; under the option of independence, full or 
Free Association, a need to further outline the political 
economic models that would ensue; the question of investor 
guarantees, particularly during the transition period; and the 
question of continued U.S. citizenship and some loopholes that 
may exist on the bill as drafted.
    On the option of statehood, the question of the General 
Accounting Office report and our recommendation that it be 
revised and updated; and then, under general provisions, the 
matter of voter eligibility as it pertains to the Federal 
Relations Act and the U.S. Constitution, the matter of voter 
education; and then, finally, the question of language. It is 
to this subject that I must allocate the time remaining in my 
oral presentation.
    In this congressional process, the subject of language has 
made an inappropriate change of venue from the field of 
education to the field of politics in much the same manner as 
it has been treated locally or perhaps as a direct result of 
it.
    Allow me to try and set the record straight, for oftentimes 
the impression has been given that Puerto Ricans are reluctant 
to learn English or, worse and more demeaning, that we lack the 
intellectual capacity to learn more than one language, when 
nothing could be further from historic fact.
    Let me state that we oppose English or Spanish only as we 
oppose any condition that would have the detrimental effect of 
restricting the potential of human learning and development. 
Suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, that the history of 
civilization has proven that diversity is the very essence of 
true culture.
    However, I also believe that each and every American 
citizen has the right to learn the English language; and it is 
precisely as a result of treating the question of language 
politically in order to preserve the current colonial condition 
that this right has been denied the people of Puerto Rico, with 
the implicit complicity of the Congress and Federal Government 
of the United States and also at the expense of the American 
taxpayers, who contribute 80 percent of the funds for public 
education.
    Language, like any other aspect of education, represents 
empowerment; and empowerment is conducive to emancipation. As I 
have testified before in other congressional committees, for 
the vested political and economic interests to allow the Puerto 
Rican people the equal opportunity to learn English would have 
resulted in their quest to seek parity in wages and equality in 
their citizen rights, and that would have meant the demise of 
the status quo.
    Colonial educational systems, Mr. Chairman, are designed 
for two classes of citizen, the autocrats and administrators 
that assist in the daily management of the colony, and a second 
class of peons restricted by the denial of learning the English 
language to conform to the conditions imposed upon them by the 
acting regimes, in alliance with the powerful economic 
interests that prevailed over our lives and destiny until very 
recently.
    We persist that the issue of language should be treated 
beyond the scope of status and politics, but if others in the 
Congress and elsewhere demand its inclusion in this process, 
then let them prove their good intentions by providing equal 
conditions to all status options that entail U.S. citizenship, 
regardless of the type of its nature, and that also require 
Federal funding for their educational systems.
    If the true motivation is to correct an injustice and to 
provide the people of Puerto Rico full bilingual capabilities 
that would allow them a better life and better opportunity, 
then we must endorse it. We need not wait for any future status 
transition or even for the enactment of this legislation, 
because within the powers vested you by the Territory Clause 
you possess the means to avoid condemning yet another 
generation to a life of inequality and mediocrity.
    Finally, as a reminder to you and your colleagues in 
Washington, I conclude with a quotation in the hope that it 
serves to affirm your determination to conclude this process 
and put an end to an era of colonialism in this hemisphere: 
``Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, for the bell tolls for 
thee.''
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members.
    Mr. young. Thank you, Arturo.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Guzman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.040
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.041
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.042
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.043
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.044
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.045
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.046
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.047
    
    Mr. Young. Ms. Robles.

STATEMENT OF MS. BELEN B. ROBLES, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF 
         UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, EL PASO, TEXAS

    Ms. Robles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 
members of this Committee.
    My name is Belen Robles, and I am the President of the 
League of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest and 
largest community-based organization in the United States to 
include Puerto Rico. LULAC was founded in 1929 in the State of 
Texas and has more than 115,000 members in organizing councils 
throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.
    From its inception, LULAC has been one of the principal 
civil rights organizations fighting to ensure Hispanics 
participate fully in the American society.
    Puerto Ricans have been American citizens since 1917 by 
decision of the U.S. Congress. Our Nation presents itself to 
the world as a democratic example, and so it should act 
accordingly. Our first request before you is that you grant 
Puerto Ricans their civil right to choose freely their 
political status through a vote.
    LULAC looks at this issue as one of civil rights and 
citizenship. The political alternatives discussed will have a 
tremendous impact on the Hispanic community both here and on 
the mainland. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that 
Congress seriously consider our position as the largest and 
oldest Hispanic organization in the United States.
    Should the proponents of independence win the majority of 
votes, they request that Puerto Ricans no longer be U.S. 
citizens but that they will have free access to the United 
States because of the 100 years that Puerto Ricans have had 
access to our country. They also contend that European 
countries have agreed to allow free access for certain 
countries as an example of their position.
    While taking into consideration this modality, Congress 
should pay attention to the following: Congress did not grant 
free access rights to the Philippines when they received their 
independence. Congress should consider, nonetheless, the 
Philippines' right to free access if the Puerto Rican 
independence petition is approved.
    It is important to remember that 25 years before the 
Mayflower set sail from England, Don Juan de Onate, with 40 
other men, arrived in what is today New Mexico via what today 
is the city of El Paso, Texas, the city where I reside.
    Don Bernardo de Galvez, Spanish Governor of the Louisiana 
Territory, cleaned the south part of the United States of 
English fortresses with Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban and 
Dominican soldiers.
    Therefore, if Congress decides to accept this petition of 
free access for citizens of a future Puerto Rican Republic, it 
has to consider what to do with Mexicans who want to gain free 
access to the United States, their former homeland.
    LULAC is not against this petition from the Puerto Rican 
Independence Party, but we request equality for all Hispanics 
in Latin America, especially Mexicans.
    The proponents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico request 
to continue being American citizens without, however, being 
part of the United States. They demand an association through a 
pact between both countries, while retaining their citizenship.
    Thus, Congress should consider in this case the type of 
citizenship that should exist in the United States. The 
American citizenship requested in this case is an incomplete 
one, like the one currently owned by Puerto Ricans residing in 
the island.
    How can the United States explain that we are the champions 
of democracy when 3.8 million citizens cannot vote for their 
President? How can the United States explain that its Congress 
decrees and laws apply to citizens who have no representation? 
How can the United States explain to the world that part of 
their soldiers who are enlisted in its military do not have the 
civil rights to elect the President that could send them to 
war?
    LULAC does not oppose maintaining a second-class 
citizenship, if that is the wish of this Congress. However, we 
strongly feel that you need to fully inform Puerto Ricans of 
the limitation of this form of citizenship so they know what 
they will be voting for.
    The statehood supporters propose that Puerto Rico be a 
State of the Union with Puerto Ricans having the same rights 
and responsibilities as citizens residing within the 50 States.
    This is a demand for equality. Should this request be 
granted, it would be a big boost for Hispanic representation in 
the U.S. Congress, with the addition of six Congressmen and/or 
women and two Senators residing from the island.
    This civil right to equality, should it be granted, must be 
granted completely.
    Some Congressmen have stated their intention of requiring a 
majority vote in favor of statehood in order for it to be 
granted. Other Congressmen demand that English be the official 
language of the island. These two requirements, or any other 
ones, are not suitable.
    The rights of American citizens must be the same and equal 
in all the States of the Union and in Puerto Rico. To demand a 
vast majority of the votes is to infringe the concept which is 
the cornerstone of democracy, and that is the vote must be 
equal for all.
    A vast majority of the votes means that a vote for 
statehood has less weight than a vote for independence or 
Commonwealth status. This is not democratic.
    In regard to the issue of English as the official language, 
we need to say that the right to choose the language is 
naturally reserved to the American citizens; and LULAC is on 
record of supporting English-plus--English plus Spanish plus 
any other language that the person is capable of learning.
    In summary, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this 
Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens 
strongly urges the U.S. Congress to pass the United States-
Puerto Rico Political Status Act that would allow the people of 
Puerto Rico the opportunity to express their preferred 
relationship with the United States. We request that you honor 
the civil rights of the residents of Puerto Rica and allow them 
to choose freely their political status through a vote.
    It is important that the Congress make clear to the people 
of Puerto Rico the true nature of statehood, independence and 
Com-

monwealth alternatives that are before them. We are opposed to 
requiring a vast majority of the vote cast to be for statehood 
in order to grant that option. We are also opposed to requiring 
English to be the official language of Puerto Rico.
    I thank you.
    Mr. Young. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Robles follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.048
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.049
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.050
    
    Mr. Young. I want to thank the panel for their excellent 
presentation.
    If I can ask a couple of questions, what I hear from this 
panel is that you want definite definitions in the legislation. 
Is that correct? Everybody agrees with that?
    Ms. Ferrer. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Because we feel that if the 
people of Puerto Rico do not understand what the United States 
is capable or willing to accept under each of the options, it 
might be misleading during the actual plebiscite process in 
Puerto Rico.
    Mr. Young. That is the what your position is, too? You 
don't want to confuse it any more. If we don't make it very 
black and white----
    Mr. Ramos. That is precisely my point, Mr. Chairman. We 
have heard some people come here before this Committee and 
refer to an unlevel playing field. Now, the bumps in the 
playing field are the result of a contorted and distorted and 
hodgepodge definition which has been put together by some 
people who simply wish to keep the different factions of the 
party together.
    It isn't the fault of the Committee. It is the result of 
that definition. So we need the Committee to clarify those 
definitions so the people will know what they are voting for.
    Mr. Young. Ms. Robles, your organization, have you 
attempted to promote this legislation?
    One of our problems as a Committee, and we are doing this 
basically on our own, we need to get a more national attention 
to this issue. Has your organization tried to promote this 
nationwide?
    Ms. Robles. We definitely have, Your Honor.
    Mr. Young. Don't call me Your Honor. That is twice I have 
been called Your Honor today. That worries the daylights out of 
me, believe me.
    Ms. Robles. Mr. Chairman, we have. As a matter of fact, we 
have gone on record as a result of a unanimous mandate of our 
assembly. We communicated to all the Members of Congress our 
position on this. We will be glad to reiterate it again and to 
advocate this particular position to Congress.
    Mr. Young. Just on the language issue, this is an issue 
that is very dear to my heart. I was so impressed today. I was 
flying down with the National Guard, and I wanted to 
congratulate them. Puerto Rico ought to be very proud of their 
National Guard. They were professionals. But it made me feel 
good that I was informed by your Resident Commissioner that 
they play such an important role in the hurricanes in other 
parts of the Caribbean because there was an ability to speak 
Spanish and English.
    That will be up to the discretion of the Puerto Rican 
people. There probably will be an amendment offered, I will 
tell you that; and we are going to do everything in our 
possible power to make sure that that amendment is not adopted, 
as I think it would kill the legislation. It is the wrong thing 
to do. That is a decision that the people of Puerto Rico will 
make.
    Later on down the line, if Congress was to adopt something 
like that, again, the people of Puerto Rico would have the 
decision within whatever decision they make as to what they 
will speak.
    I want to thank each one of you. There are probably other 
questions.
    Miriam, I wanted to thank you for being here, because you 
have been bugging me for the last 7 years, you and Arturo both, 
and I appreciate that.
    For those that may have opposite views of the people at 
this table, the one thing you will find out about this 
Committee, we are very open-doored and we try to listen.
    I wanted to congratulate the audience. We very frankly look 
forward to hearing the rest of the testimony.
    I am going to do as I did Saturday. I am going to transfer 
the gavel. One reason I am going to do it is this chair is very 
uncomfortable. I think my staff is trying to kill me, and I am 
going to move the chair and transfer.
    Mr. Miller, do you have questions?
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to the witnesses for their testimony. I have a 
comment, and then I have also a technical question on the bill.
    My comment is that there seems to be a substantial effort 
here to somehow demonize or to suggest that the proposal that 
was in response to the letter from Chairman Young and myself to 
the leaders of the parties, the proposal for the New 
Commonwealth definition, somehow is so outrageous and far 
outside the norm. But the fact of the matter is, when you look 
at it and look at the key words in it, there is a lot of 
precedence and other relationships in the United States; and 
there is constitutional precedence for these actions.
    The Congress can agree to a very wide range. Whether or not 
we would or whether or not that would be acceptable to the 
people of Puerto Rico is two different considerations. But 
clearly we, historically, some of which we are proud of and 
some not so proud of, we can agree to a wide range of 
relationships with peoples and territories.
    And we also can grant a wide range of privileges. The State 
of California likes to engage in commercial transactions, and 
sometimes the Federal Government tells us we can't, and 
sometimes the Federal Government says that is fine.
    Puerto Rico has sought to engage in various activities in 
the Caribbean and elsewhere, and the Federal Government said 
fine in some instances and in other instance said you are 
trampling on the sovereign powers of the United States or our 
ability to conduct foreign relations under the Constitution.
    All I am saying is that it is not--that definition is not 
as clear as statehood, it is not as clear as free association 
and obviously seeks to be a hybrid. But to suggest that somehow 
the Congress cannot accept a hybrid relationship is, I think, 
to mischaracterize that definition. Whether, again, that would 
be wise, whether the Congress would do it, whether the people 
of Puerto Rico will accept it, that is what this process is 
about. The Congress will work its will when we start writing 
the definitions on all of these issues.
    There is some suggestions from this panel. Mr. Guzman has 
made suggestions with almost each and every definition. So I 
would hope we understand the process we go through here, and I 
appreciate the political advantage.
    I am a very partisan Member of Congress. I appreciate 
looking for--I didn't have to tell my Chairman that--but I want 
to make sure that we not so politicize the process at the 
outset that it, in fact, can kill the process. That can happen. 
That can happen, that this process can sink as a result of 
politics; and at the other hearing I made somewhat the same 
admonishment, because I am concerned about that.
    This is a very fragile process. Chairman Young is engaging 
in an effort here that very few have been able to succeed in 
getting through, and I would hope that people would understand.
    Finally, and my time is short, the legislation requires if 
this is not resolved and the current status continues it can 
require there be an additional referendum essentially every 4 
years.
    Again, it is a rather well-established historical precedent 
that one Congress cannot bind another. My concern has been with 
the overall time lines within this legislation. I think it is 
very important that both Members of Congress understand that 
there are consequences to the decision that they make and the 
people of Puerto Rico understand there is a serious consequence 
to the decision they make and to being brought into union and 
we decide this matter. The longer that is, the easier it is for 
Members of Congress to maybe vote or not vote and not worry 
about the consequences, because it may happen 10 years later, 
and people come and go in our Congress.
    By the same token, if the suggestion is you can get a new 
bite of the apple every 4 years, I suggest it diminishes the 
importance of what--if Chairman Young is successful and all 
those involved in this process are successful, it diminishes 
the importance of that process because we can do it again if it 
doesn't work out.
    This is an important decision about the status, after all 
of this history, to move to the future and say this is going to 
be the status in the future. And I wonder if you would, just 
quickly because I have used up most of my time with the 
question, but is that really essential to this legislation, 
that we would have this ongoing referendum every 4 years sort 
of binding the future governments of Puerto Rico and clearly 
cannot bind the Congress as to the outcomes of that?
    If anyone wants to make a comment to that.
    Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. Yes, sir, let me make a few comments 
and then allow our attorney----
    Mr. Miller. However you want to, the time is running.
    Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. Once you have a Commonwealth, you 
have to consult the people again. You cannot finalize a status 
question if you have Commonwealth, as United States, we believe 
is going to define it there. That is in my written testimony, 
and I oppose that.
    Mr. Costas. With due respect, Mr. Miller, the problem with 
your point of view, although it sounds reasonable, it flies 
against decisions in the past proceedings in the status bills. 
Every one of your points that you made and are now being put 
out in an ELA flier for a rally Saturday to you has been 
rejected.
    For example, this, removing Puerto Rico from the 
territorial clause, if you look at the testimony of Secretary 
of Justice Dick Thornburg----
    Mr. Miller. Let me say, we spend a lot of time in this 
argument fighting the past wars. We fight the 1993 referendum, 
we fight the old issues. This is about now, what this Congress 
will and will not do.
    Mr. Costas. Why repeat the things that have already decided 
against us? Studies are there----
    Mr. Miller. For the very reasons we told you before. One 
Congress cannot bind another. It is a different Senate and 
Congress, and if people want to make those proposals----
    Mr. Costas. It is the same Constitution. It hasn't changed.
    Mr. Miller. Let us not pretend that each finding of the 
Congress is constitutional.
    Mr. Costas. No, these are legal decisions----
    Mr. Miller. I understand that.
    Mr. Costas. [continuing] that have been invariable for the 
past 40 years, almost.
    Mr. Miller. What I am suggesting is, at the outset of the 
process, people have the right to submit that to the process; 
and the whole purpose of this is for the Congress to work its 
will based upon what the Congress could agree to accept and 
what we believe, if offered to the people of Puerto Rico, we 
can make a rational choice for.
    Mr. Costas. If you look at the letter written by Chairman 
Young to the Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, December 
11th, 1996, it is precisely this fuzzy language that got Huang 
into trouble. Surely you don't want to repeat that.
    Mr. Young. I am going to allow Arturo to comment, and then 
I think the gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Guzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Miller, if I may, may I ask you a question?
    Mr. Miller. If I could get an answer to my question about 4 
years, first.
    Mr. Guzman. The 4 years, I think language was developed by 
the Resident Commissioner to have it as a maximum in repeating 
this exercise over again in 4 to 8 years. You not only have to 
think about our own destiny, but you also have to think about 
the constituents in your district and how long will they be 
willing to shore up with their taxes this present condition. 
Are you going to condemn your district taxpayers to shoring up 
for this current Commonwealth forever?
    Mr. Miller. That is just your political rhetoric. That is 
not the way the question suggested. I mean, you are welcome to 
it.
    Mr. Young. All right. The gentleman's time has expired. I 
think we will be able to address this issue as time goes by.
    The gentleman from Guam.
    Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping we 
would keep Guam out of this discussion.
    Mr. Young. I am setting a hearing for you in June so you 
don't want to keep it out of the discussion.
    Mr. Underwood. Here is the feeling I have, and it is the 
same point I raised before. The issues that are discussed here 
in terms of political status openings are phrased as formulas; 
and it tends to imply that as a political status formula, one 
way or another, you can rationally read into it whether the 
formula adds up or does not add up. In reality, what we are 
talking about, at least in terms of the way that we are 
describing these political status options is really a series of 
political aspirations; and I am willing to make a distinction 
between a legal explanation and a political program.
    What I am a little--I don't know whether the word is 
amused, but bemused is I guess a better word--is that in the 
process of discussion about what is exactly the appropriate 
formula for this, we are getting--at least I have certainly 
gotten--the impression that the pro-Commonwealth people have 
somehow misled the entire people of Puerto Rico on this issue.
    For an electorate that seems to be highly sensitive to this 
issue and an admission, at least on the part of the 
Commonwealthers at the hearing on Saturday, that what we are 
putting forward is a series of aspirations that is subject to a 
political process which their aspirations may indeed fail, may 
not come to fruition, and I think that was clarified in the 
course of the hearing on Saturday. It seems that all the 
attention that is given to the definition seems like someone is 
trying to get a political advantage over another.
    Now, the status, the electoral process itself, will account 
for that. And I didn't mean it as a kind of a cynical remark, 
but on Saturday I said we will leave it up to elected officials 
and politicals to mischaracterize each other's position in the 
course of an electoral campaign, and I think we should do that. 
I don't think we should do this in the context of this 
legislation.
    But it seems to me--am I being led to believe that in the 
course of discussion on this whole issue of political status of 
Puerto Rico--that Congress, one, is somehow complicit in 
contributing to this misunderstanding; and, second, are the 
people of Puerto Rico so naive that they don't understand this 
after discussing this issue for a long time? Is someone willing 
to say here that the people of Puerto Rico don't understand 
these options?
    Mr. Aponte. If I may comment, Mr. Underwood, what I would 
say is this. As long as the bill offers the problem as an 
answer, as a solution to the problem itself, then the Congress 
would be contributing to perpetuating the problem. It would be 
like holding a contest between different ways of washing one's 
face and allow leaving it unwashed as an option.
    Mr. Underwood. But that seems to me to be a political 
argument about the relative merits of the positions. If one 
option is unacceptable to you, you are perfectly entitled to 
that; but if it is acceptable to others, they are entitled to 
that as well.
    Mr. Aponte. Yes, sir, but then you would not be complying 
with U.N. Resolution 1541, which is what the bill says you are 
complying with.
    Mr. Underwood. Well, that is prefatory language.
    Mr. Young. May I suggest one thing? I have every intention 
to debate all proposed definitions, but before this bill leaves 
the House it will be definite definitions in the legislation. 
And not speaking up for my friend from California, I have 
looked at this 4-year deal and we are going to discuss this 
more. I would suggest what we have to do is define this bill so 
finely that when the process goes forward the people of Puerto 
Rico will know exactly what they are voting for.
    The gentleman, my good friend----
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just wanted to take a moment to perhaps clear up a little 
bit what has been said here. Because being in Congress, what we 
say in Congress sometimes is perceived differently here in 
Puerto Rico.
    These hearings are not to make a decision. We are not going 
to make a decision in these hearings, right here, either one of 
us. So these hearings are to hear, to make everyone feel they 
have a clear opportunity to express their views and what their 
desires and aspirations are.
    That is exactly what Mr. Miller was underlining and 
underscoring. He wants to listen. He does not want to argue 
whether it is or is not constitutional. Maybe he will decide 
something that is being asked is unconstitutional, but that 
will be later on when he researches that and studies with his 
staff. Then he will make that decision, not now.
    He is going to listen to all of the aspirations. Whether 
they are practical or not, he is not going to make that 
decision now. He wants to hear the aspirations, and then he 
will make that decision later on when we mark up the bill.
    Whether the aspirations and the desires of any particular 
group are acceptable politically, he is not going to decide 
that now. Neither are any of us going to decide that now. That 
is going to be decided later on.
    Most people here do know I have my mind made up. I would 
not be telling the truth, I would not be honest if I didn't say 
that. But I have spoken to all of the others, and they don't 
have their mind made up. But they would consider it.
    So don't misunderstand what Mr. Miller says. Also that he 
will listen to everything. He is not giving credit or patting 
on the back any of the aspirations. He will make that decision 
later on.
    And, George, if I have not correct--OK, you can take my 
time and say so. So don't misjudge.
    Mr. Miller. If you will yield, I just think that what you 
and Chairman Young started out here is far different than how 
we have handled this in the past. I said I think it has a great 
opportunity to succeed, and I am very concerned that we not 
have the process overwhelm with the politics and that the 
people understand that we in Congress will have to make some 
difficult discussions.
    There is a lot of arguments that have been suggested to us 
that are they thin, with all due respect. But people should be 
entitled to present them to us. Because the 49ers pick their 
colors and the Rams pick their colors. There is a long history 
in this country of these three parties. As Mr. Underwood said, 
let us not suggest that the Commonwealth is a new argument.
    So all I am saying is, as people present the evidence to 
us, let us not try to swamp the other fellow's boat in the 
process, because that is not helpful to us.
    Mr. Young. May I suggest, what colors do the Yankees have?
    Mr. Miller. I am a Mets fan.
    Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. May I make a comment?
    The problem is, sir, some of these proceedings in the past 
have allowed kind of a wish list up there; and then they say 
let them vote on it and then we will decide if those decisions 
are viable or not when we come back, Congress. We need to know 
that before we vote the first time.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. That might be a decision to be made 
later on; but what we obtain here, today, in this hearing, 
those decisions will not be made.
    On the contrary, I think every member here wants to listen 
as broadly as possible to the proposals and aspirations of each 
one that testifies. So when I ask questions about sovereignty 
and nationality and citizenship, I am trying to just make it 
clear for the panel, so when we go to decide it in the markup, 
the panel knows what each party, when they say they want to 
have citizenship, they want to have sovereignty, they know what 
they mean, so we can discuss it. Otherwise, we might make a 
decision based on assuming facts that are not correct.
    Mr. Aponte.
    Mr. Aponte. One thing that should be clear is that we are 
right now right here before Congress because we are under the 
territorial clause of the Constitution. If we had status that 
could survive independently from the Federal assistance, we 
would be before the executive branch of Congress.
    So the people of Puerto Rico, they know that Congress can 
design a Commonwealth to fit all possible alternatives. We are 
not naive, but we have been forced to adjust to the situation 
and try to take advantage of the disadvantage of our political 
status, and that is what we want to solve in this process.
    If the definitions are not clear, we can go into the 
process, but you bet we are going to have same discussion maybe 
4 years from now, maybe 6 years from now, but you will have the 
same problem. If you want to solve the problem, all we are 
asking is not to use the problem as a solution.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Aponte, the territorial clause more 
or less says that the Congress has powers over the materials 
and possessions. But are you aware that this Congress, 105th 
Congress, can make the option not to exercise those powers in 
this Congress? You know that. But what it cannot do is perhaps 
tell the next Congress, 106th, that it cannot do it. Is that 
what you are trying to say? Is that one of your points?
    Mr. Aponte. What I am trying to say is this Congress has 
decided to find a solution to the problem of Puerto Rico. It 
has not a legal obligation, but it has a moral obligation. It 
has a moral obligation. Since you are the ones that stepped 
forward, all I want to tell you is we are willing to go through 
this process and find a final solution. It will be best for you 
and best for Puerto Rico.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I think you can be assured that that is 
what I have spoken and all the Members have spoken they want to 
do.
    Mr. Young. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I want to thank the panel for their testimony and, as is 
usually and customary, I want to pass the gavel down to Mr. 
Underwood, who will be the chairman of the next panel. I will 
be in and out of the room and listening to most of the 
testimony, but that is the way we do it.
    I want to thank you personally for very good testimony.

 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSE GUILLERMO RODRIGUEZ, MAYOR OF 
                MAYAGUEZ, MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Underwood. [Presiding] OK. We will begin the second 
panel and start with the Honorable Jose Guillermo Rodriguez, 
Mayor of Mayaguez; and I would like, first of all, to thank you 
for welcoming us to your beautiful, fair city.
    Mayor Rodriguez, go ahead please.
    Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Underwood and Mr. Carlos Romero Barcelo, 
nuestro Comisionado residente en los Estados Unidos. Mi nombre 
es Jose Guillermo Rodriguez y soy el Alcalde electo de la 
ciudad de Mayaguez. Senor Presidente y miembros del Congreso de 
los Estados Unidos, deseo comenzar brindandoles la mas cordial 
bienvenida a nuestra ciudad de Mayaguez a nombre de los mas de 
100,000 habitantes que residen en ella.
    Antes de entrar en los detalles de la ponencia, deseo 
indicarles que los electores de esta ciudad en el plebiscito 
del ano 1993, auspiciado por el gobierno del Partido Nuevo 
Progresista, le dieron a la formula del Estado Libre Asociado, 
sometido a la consideracion del pueblo, alrededor de 5,000 
votos de ventaja. La mayoria con mas amplio margen en todos los 
municipios del pais.
    Este servidor de ustedes, fue electo representante a la 
Camara en las elecciones de 1998, el legislador electo 
representante a la Camara por mayor cantidad de votos en la 
ciudad, Alcalde en el 1992 y reelecto en las elecciones de 
1996, siendo el alcalde de Mayaguez que por mayor cantidad de 
votos consecutivamente ha sido seleccionado en la ciudad de 
Mayaguez.
    Entendi importante participar en estas vistas 
congresionales, donde se pretende establecer un proceso 
adecuado para que el pueblo de Puerto Rico exprese una vez mas 
su preferencia sobre el status politico que habra de regir los 
destinos de este pueblo.
    Estoy seguro que ustedes se habran preocupado por conocer 
el trasfondo historico de la creacion y establecimiento del 
actual Estado Libre Asociado, sobre algunas reflexiones de su 
fundador y ex- Gobernador de Puerto Rico, don Luis Munoz Marin, 
y sobre todo, del panorama politico, social y economico que 
existia en nuestro pais antes de la fundacion del Estado Libre 
Asociado, deseo hablarles un poco.
    Nuestro pais, era uno sin esperanza, azotado por la miseria 
y la falta de oportunidades de progreso, aun estando durante 
mas de cincuenta largos anos sobre el dominio total de los 
Estados Unidos. Ante ese cuadro desalentador, el fundador del 
Estado Libre Asociado lucho dentro de si en contra del deseo 
innato que reside en la mayoria de los seres humanos y el cual 
rechaza la idea de sentirse esclavo, arrimado, extrano en su 
propia tierra. La independencia, aunque digna, insensata en 
aquel momento.
    Puerto Rico se encontraba totalmente dividido entre dos 
extremos. Sobre cuatrocientos anos de historia marcaban en 
nuestro pueblo un arraigado nacionalismo, protagonista de 
sangrientos episodios en el pais y ante el Congreso. La 
estadidad, aunque digna, tambien insensata por la resistencia 
extrema a la entrega de nuestra cultura, de nuestro idioma, de 
nuestra identidad. Sobre el dilema del status, decia don Luis 
Munoz Marin lo siguiente: ``Cada dia se me hacia mas dificil 
tolerar aquel boxeo de sombras, aquella contienda entre los dos 
fantasmas de la independencia y la estadidad, tan amenazantes 
como irreales, que brincaban dandose punos de sombra. A veces, 
disparando balas de plomo sobre un cuadrilatero bajo el cual se 
acurrucaban la miseria, el hambre, la desolacion, la 
desesperacion y la enferma resignacion de los 
desesperanzados.'' Indicaba con profunda claridad de 
pensamiento, que el status politico debe ser para servirle a la 
vida buena de un pueblo y no para obligar a la vida de un 
pueblo a ajustarse por razones abstractas, a un status politico 
predeterminado.
    De esa lucha interna, de la refleccion del idealismo 
absurdo frente a la realidad, surge una nueva creacion politica 
que armoniza el pensamiento sobre el status politico con los 
ideales de justicia social, de vida buena y de honda 
satisfaccion para los Puertorriquenos. Es por eso que solo 
existe en el mundo un solo Estado Libre Asociado. Porque se 
creo para servirle al progreso, desarrollo y aspiraciones de 
todos los Puertorriquenos, plasmando lo mejor de los dos 
extremos tradicionales, logrando la paz entre los 
Puertorriquenos y tomando lo mejor de dos mundos, para 
confeccionar una exitosa y nueva herramienta de desarrollo 
politico, social y economico.
    Decia nuestro Comisionado residente en Washington, don 
Antonio Fernoz Isern, ``El Estado Libre Asociado responde a la 
historia de Puerto Rico. Su molde ha sido la propia vida de 
Puerto Rico. No hay que ir a buscar la definicion ni la 
descripcion del Estado Libre Asociado en ningun tratado de 
Ciencias Politicas. Forma de por si, un capitulo nuevo que hay 
que agregar al libro.'' Aqui es que ha estribado siempre, la 
dificil mision de los Estadolibristas, de hacer entender a los 
que evaluan con estrechez de pensamiento, el Estado Libre 
Asociado. Estamos ante un nuevo concepto mundial, que ha roto 
los conceptos tradicionales del pasado, de estadidad o 
independencia.
    La forma y manera en que esta redactado este Proyecto, 
comete el gravisimo error de llevar a nuestro pueblo al pasado, 
a la lucha de los extremos, en vez de permitir fortalecer el 
Estado Libre Asociado desde una perspectiva enfocada al futuro 
y no al pasado. Es en este contexto, que el Estado Libre 
Asociado es un concepto de avanzada, adelantado en el tiempo, 
apuntando siempre al futuro y no al pasado.
    Si es este un proceso genuino para alcanzar una nueva 
negociacion entre nuestras naciones, sera necesario que el 
Congreso al igual que el derecho internacional libere su 
estrechez retrograda arcaica y la tempere a la nueva realidad 
mundial, recogiendo los conceptos que en este momento mueven el 
mundo, eliminando barreras, estableciendo mercados comunes, 
relegando a un segundo plano los idealismos absurdos que aislan 
y provocan conflictos entre los pueblos.
    Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much.
    I trust there are no more mayors of Mayaguez on the panel. 
I allowed you to go on simply because you are the mayor of this 
city, and we will try to hold the witnesses as much as possible 
to the 5-minute time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.051
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.052
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.053
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.054
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.055
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.056
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.057
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.058
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.059
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.060
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.061
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.062
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.063
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.064
    
    Mr. Underwood. I now call on Honorable Antonio Fas 
Alzamora, the Minority Leader of the Senate-Popular Democratic 
Party, Senate of Puerto Rico.

 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANTONIO J. FAS ALZAMORA, MINORITY 
LEADER OF THE SENATE-POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, SENATE OF PUERTO 
                  RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Alzamora. Muy buenos dias, senores Congresistas. Como 
bien ha mencionado el Congresista, represento a la delegacion 
del Partido Popular Democratico en el Senado, cuerpo 
legislativo que llevo dieciseis anos en el y cuatro en la 
Camara. Para veinte anos, trabajando en la politica 
Puertorriquena y defendiendo el ideal del Estado Libre 
Asociado.
    Por segunda vez comparezco ante esta honorable Comision, 
para exponer algunos de mis puntos de vista en torno a este 
proyecto. Hay dos aspectos que deseo enfocar, pero quiero 
previamente adelantar que el mismo esta redactado en forma 
viciada, prejuiciado para fabricar una mayoria a favor de la 
estadidad aunque no se compromete a concederla.
    Este proyecto, a mi juicio, como esta redactado, le falta 
el respeto a la democracia Puertorriquena. En primer lugar, la 
discusion del futuro politico de Puerto Rico debe partir de la 
propia creacion del Estado Libre Asociado. Quiero citar 
palabras que dijera el primer Gobernador electo por los 
Puertorriquenos, don Luis Munoz Marin, el veinticinco de julio 
de 1952, cuando se izo esa bandera Puertorriquena que ustedes 
ven ahi, junto a la bandera de los Estados Unidos de America, y 
cito: ``Voy a izar cuando termine mis palabras, la bandera del 
pueblo de Puerto Rico al fundarse el Estado Libre Asociado, en 
voluntaria asociacion de ciudadania y afecto con los Estados 
Unidos de America. El pueblo vera en ella el simbolo de su 
espiritu, ante su propio destino y en el conjunto de America. 
Junto a la bandera de los Estados Unidos, la del pueblo mas 
pequeno del hemisferio significa que a los pueblos como a los 
hombres, la democracia los declara iguales en dignidad'' y 
cierro la cita.
    Estas elocuentes palabras del arquitecto del ELA, que ha 
marcado el rumbo de nuestra relacion con los Estados Unidos 
durante las pasadas cuatro decadas y media, pusieron fin a un 
proceso de descolonizacion. Se reconocio nuestra soberania y el 
pacto bilateral entre Puerto Rico y Estados Unidos. Todo este 
logro le fue informado por ustedes, a las Naciones Unidas en 
1953.
    A Puerto Rico no se le conoce como una isla en el Caribe, 
ocupada por ciudadanos Norteamericanos, sino como una nacion 
Caribena con cultura, caracteristicas y personalidad propia. 
Estados Unidos no encontro en 1898 a una isla desierta, sin 
identificacion nacional. No llego a un territorio abandonado, 
sino a una nacion con caracteristicas propias, con igual 
dignidad a las demas naciones del mundo.
    El Proyecto en cuestion debe incorporar, para que exista un 
juego limpio o igualdad de condicion en este proceso, la 
definicion del nuevo ELA que ha sometido el Presidente de 
nuestro partido. El desarrollo y culminacion del ELA no es 
hacia la independencia ni tampoco hacia la estadidad, que es el 
status que conllevaria a la desaparicion de nuestra 
nacionalidad Puertorriquena. Insisto, la estadidad no es el 
desenlace final en el desarrollo del ELA. Esta no ha sido la 
intencion de los que hemos favorecido la formula del ELA en las 
consultas de 1952, 1967 y 1993.
    Un segundo aspecto de nuestra vision de este proceso, es 
que hay que desenmascarar la estadidad a nuestro juicio, de la 
cual se dice es un status digno. Con el respeto que me merecen 
quienes asi piensen, la asimilacion seria una condicion de 
indignidad, porque seria retornar a Puerto Rico a un status 
colonial en forma permanente.
    Somos dos naciones distantes, dos razas distintas. Los 
estadistas Puertorriquenos quieren la estadidad, no porque se 
sientan Americanos, sino en razon de los dolares y centavos que 
segun ellos llenarian nuestras arcas. La inmensa mayoria de los 
Puertorriquenos, no nos sentimos Americanos. Nos sentimos 
Puertorriquenos con ciudadania Americana, y no es lo mismo ni 
se escribe igual, pues tenemos la voluntad y el compromiso de 
mantener una relacion con Estados Unidos porque nos sentimos 
orgullosos de esa ciudadania y reconocemos su valor y sus 
responsabilidades.
    La estadidad tiene multiples desventajas porque afecta 
significativa y adversamente tanto a Puerto Rico como a los 
Estados Unidos. En esencia, la estadidad daria aunque muchas 
cosas negativas, una significativa reduccion en el crecimiento 
de la economia de Puerto Rico. En cuanto a los Estados Unidos, 
la estadidad le impone mayores gastos en Puerto Rico, pero aun 
mas importante, la cultura y el idioma vernaculo de Puerto Rico 
ira desapareciendo a medida que avanza el proceso de 
asimilacion de los Puertorriquenos para convertirse en 
Norteamericanos como ha ocurrido en varios estados.
    oCuales serian las ventajas de la estadidad? No puede haber 
ventaja alguna, pues la asimilacion es un proceso de 
autodestruccion, de dejar de ser lo que somos para convertirnos 
en otra cosa. Es pretender borrar nuestra historia y 
reescribirla bajo la asimilacion. Con la estadidad, Puerto Rico 
enfrentaria los numerosos problemas que conllevaria a hacerla 
el estado mas pobre de la nacion Americana. Otro problema que 
enfrentaria Puerto Rico es la aplicacion de contribuciones 
Federales a nuestra gente productiva, lo que originaria una 
situacion catastrofica en la economia familiar pues tendriamos 
que pagar mas contribuciones.
    La estadidad seria el suicidio politico de Puerto Rico, la 
desaparicion de nuestra nacionalidad. Es por esto, que en lugar 
de ayudar a imponer una formula politica en contra de la 
mayoria de los Puertorriquenos expresada en las urnas, asi como 
en contra de los mejores intereses de nuestros pueblos, hay que 
darle continuidad al compromiso desarrollado por nuestras 
naciones.
    El ELA, como todo sistema, hay que mejorarlo en aquellas 
partes donde no ha sido desarrollado. Para esto es menester 
tener la voluntad politica de entender nuestro status. De eso 
es que se trata esto, de la voluntad politica de unos y otros, 
voluntad politica de los que queremos la ciudadania Americana y 
seguir siendo Puertorriquenos y la voluntad politica de ustedes 
para respetar eso y por tanto no darle la espalda a la creacion 
mas afortunada en este continente.
    Senores Congresistas, se necesita solo la voluntad politica 
para mantener y desarrollar nuestra autonomia con ciudadania. 
Nosotros somos Puertorriquenos primero. Puerto Rico es una 
nacion. Definan el nuevo ELA con la misma dignidad como lo 
concibe la mayoria de nuestro pueblo, tal y como lo hemos 
propuesto. Recuerden, la clave de todo es voluntad politica. 
Nosotros la tenemos. Demuestrenla ustedes. Atrevanse.
    Muchas Gracias.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Alzamora follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.065
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.066
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.067
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.068
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.069
    
    Mr. Underwood [Presiding]. Next we have Mr. Jorge de Castro 
Font, a Representative of the Puerto Rico House of 
Representatives. Sir, the floor is yours.

       STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JORGE DE CASTRO FONT, 
REPRESENTATIVE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, 
                          PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Font. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Governor 
Romero, and distinguished members of this Committee, welcome to 
the Commonwealth, indeed the shining star of the Caribbean.
    Since 1900, with the adoption of the Foraker Act, through 
the Jones Act of 1917, the Elective Governors Act of 1947, and 
finally with the adoption of the Constitution creating the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1952, the United States has been 
complying slowly but consistently with its international 
obligations to Puerto Rico.
    In 1952, a big step was taken defining United States-Puerto 
Rico political and constitutional relationship. The official 
position of the United States as respects the process 
culminating in the adoption of the Constitution creating 
Commonwealth status can best be expressed in the words of 
former President George Bush while U.S. Ambassador to the 
United Nations in 1972, and I quote:
    ``Since 1953, the practice of self-government has become a 
firmly rooted tradition among the people of Puerto Rico. The 
compact under which the peoples of Puerto Rico and the United 
States live harmoniously in association has been achieved in 
complete freedom.''
    However, Representative Don Young, through H.R. 856, in 
treating the present Commonwealth status as colonial in nature 
and being under the plenary powers of Congress, openly and 
brazenly contradicts official policy as pertains the nature of 
the present Commonwealth relationship. If this is the case, 
then I submit to the learned gentlemen from Congress that what 
Judge Magruder refused to accept is quite true: ``Congress did, 
in fact, perpetrate a monumental hoax upon the people of Puerto 
Rico and upon the international community.''
    The Popular Democratic Party believes in self-determination 
for the people of Puerto Rico and self-government within the 
framework of an enhanced and permanent Commonwealth status 
firmly rooted on common citizenship, common market, common 
defense and common currency. We hold these principles to be 
nonnegotiable. We also believe in fair play.
    We want to participate in this process but we must insist 
that the status option that we support and have enjoyed since 
1952 be not only validated as to its constitutional soundness, 
but also that it be treated on an equal footing with the other 
status options to appear on the ballot.
    The bill we now consider falls short of this prerequisite. 
It clearly violates the fundamental principles governing the 
historic and special constitutional relationship between Puerto 
Rico and the United States. This bill seems to be tailor-made 
for failure of statehood, since it is the only option capable 
of assuming for Puerto Ricans a permanent union with the United 
States and American citizenship, which we insist must be made 
part of any definition of Commonwealth appearing on the ballot.
    Furthermore, the process contained in the Young bill lacks 
self-executing definitions and in no way binds Congress. It 
forces our people to multiple referendums while not even 
guaranteeing a swift and uninterrupted process of transition. 
It is, therefore, totally unacceptable to us and, in all 
candidness, should likewise be unacceptable to you. The 
question I ask each and every one of you is the following: Why 
deprecate Commonwealth? Why deprecate Commonwealth? Governor 
Romero?
    Commonwealth has been an exceptionally good partnership for 
both the United States and Puerto Rico. It has assured a 
political and social stability without parallel in this 
hemisphere, responsible for the unbelievable transformation of 
Puerto Rico in the last 45 years. All this, gentlemen, has been 
possible under Commonwealth.
    We are really not asking for the impossible. What we are 
asking this Committee in general, and Mr. Don Young in 
particular, is to be consistent with previous definitions of 
Commonwealth status which have been specifically endorsed, to 
wit: that appearing on H.R. 4765, of May 1990. We will ask 
nothing less.
    We want a vote taken on this matter; but for this vote to 
have any meaning, it must be an exercise of fair play and 
pursuant to the most basic principles of American democracy. It 
must be a process that dignifies our relationship and that 
treats with due respect the 1 million American citizens in 
Puerto Rico that favor Commonwealth. Estado libre asociado.
    My party has always defended the political bonds that 
through Commonwealth have united Puerto Rico and the United 
States. I really hope that the doings of this Committee in 
relation to Commonwealth status, which I uphold, will fully 
justify that defense.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressmen.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. de Castro Font follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.070
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.071
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.072
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.073
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.074
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.075
    
    Mr. Underwood. Thank you. And now we have the Honorable 
Severo E. Colberg-Toro, who is a Representative in the Puerto 
Rico House of Representatives. Sir, the floor is yours.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SEVERO E. COLBERG-TORO, 
REPRESENTATIVE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, 
                          PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Colberg-Toro. Senor Presidente y resto de los 
Congresistas. El Proyecto 856 supone el establecer un proceso 
que lleve a Puerto Rico a un completo gobierno propio. Para que 
ese objetivo se cumpla, senor Presidente, hay que garantizar 
que los Puertorriquenos puedan optar entre las alternativas en 
forma libre, sin presiones o manipulaciones. El proceso tiene 
que ser un ejercicio verdadero del derecho a la libre 
determinacion. Con el historial de imposicion a que Estados 
Unidos ha sometido a este pueblo por casi cien anos, oque 
razones tendriamos en esta ocasion, los hijos de esta tieorra, 
para pensar que esto es un proceso verdadero de libre 
determinacion?
    Veamos parte de ese historial antidemocratico sobre Puerto 
Rico, por parte de Estados Unidos, quien ha actuado de acuerdo 
a su interes y en violacion a los principios morales de los 
cuales Estados Unidos se vanagloria de ser el paladin a nivel 
mundial. El 25 de julio de 1898, las tropas Norteamericanas 
invadieron a Puerto Rico. La ciudad de San Juan fue 
bombardeada, poniendo en peligro la vida de mujeres y ninos 
Boricua. Estados Unidos impuso en nuestra patria, un regimen 
militar que dictatorialmente trastoco todo nuestro sistema de 
vida.
    La ley Foraker, que Estados Unidos tambien nos impuso, 
trajo un gobierno civil. Este regimen fue valuado y comparado 
con el sistema Norteamericano bajo la administracion del 
Presidente Carter y dicho informe determino, que en todos los 
sentidos no adquirimos nada mejor de lo que teniamos. Intento 
imponer el Ingles en la educacion y en la judicatura. 
Economicamente, los Estados Unidos no hizo nada de lo que ya 
hacia Espana al devolvernos las tarifas que le imponia a 
nuestros productos.
    En 1917, ustedes impusieron la ciudadania Americana. La 
legislatura de Puerto Rico, presidida por quien honramos hoy, 
don Jose de Diego, aprobo unanimemente una resolucion que 
establecia, que aunque se respetaba la ciudadania Americana, 
mantenia su oposicion a ser declarados en su contra, ciudadanos 
Americanos, intentando despojarnos de la ciudadania 
Puertorriquena. Desde la decada de los treinta, el pueblo 
Puertorriqueno a traves de sus sectores ideologicos y 
politicos, han desarrollado todas las formas de lucha 
concebibles, para conseguir que Estados Unidos colaborara en la 
solucion del status politico.
    El cabildeo de los estadistas, las grandes demostraciones 
electorales del Partido Popular y la lucha armada del Partido 
Nacionalista no fueron suficiente para adelantar a nuestro 
pueblo en su lucha por la libre determinacion y autogobierno. 
Se desato una represion contra las fuerzas politicas 
Puertorriquenistas y en especial, contra el independentismo.
    El Director del FBI, Edgar Hoover, le informaba al 
Secretario de Justicia de los Estados Unidos con gran 
preocupacion, que la legislatura de la isla habia aprobado una 
ley para que se celebrara un plebiscito. Como consecuencia de 
esa intencion, se desato una persecucion contra las fuerzas 
Puertorriquenistas.
    En el 1952, senor Presidente, como resultado de uno de los 
logros mas importantes de nuestra historia como nacion y por 
ejercer ese derecho a la libre determinacion, nuestro pueblo 
aprueba una constitucion, de las mas completas del mundo. En 
1952, se creo el Estado Libre Asociado, en el entendido, que se 
creaba una nueva formula de relacion no- colonial con los 
Estados Unidos. El Congreso Norteamericano elimino la Seccion 
20 de nuestra Constitucion, atropellando la voluntad de nuestro 
pueblo, y maculando el ejercicio a la libre determinacion.
    Como resultado de la creacion del ELA, el Gobierno de los 
Estados Unidos fue a las Naciones Unidas y consiguieron que se 
le eximiera de seguir brindando informes obligatorios, basado 
en que Puerto Rico habia entrado en una nueva relacion no- 
colonial con los Estados Unidos. El Proyecto 856, presentado 
por el senor Presidente y avalado por otros congresistas 
concluye, que Puerto Rico sigue siendo una colonia de los 
Estados Unidos. Esta aseveracion nos lleva entonces a la 
conclusion de que Estados Unidos engano a las Naciones Unidas y 
engano a la humanidad en el 1953. Esto demuestra el aspecto 
moral de esta controversia.
    Se ha senalado que el Partido Popular al que yo pertenezco, 
colaboro con ustedes en el engano. Primero, creo que es bien 
injusto dentro de la relacion de fuerza entre Estados Unidos y 
Puerto Rico, siendo nosotros los mas en desventaja y donde ha 
predominado la fuerza de la imposicion, aceptemos nuestra parte 
en la responsabilidad de los Puertorriquenos en el engano. 
Senor Presidente, yo le digo que aun asi, yo acepto la parte 
que pueda haber de esa responsabilidad historica. Ahora bien, 
yo pregunto, oaceptan ustedes la responsabilidad moral del 
Gobierno de los Estados Unidos por ese engano?
    La relacion de 1953. . . Ustedes le deben una explicacion 
al pueblo Puertorriqueno. Si el reconocer esa situacion 
significa que en esta ocasion el proceso se marcara dentro de 
las normas del derecho internacional, al dia de hoy, para 
comenzar a cumplir con ese derecho y obligacion, ustedes le 
deben a las Naciones Unidas cuarenta y cinco informes 
correspondientes por cada uno de los anos del 1952 que no se ha 
cumplido. Desde el 1952 al presente, y en una demostracion de 
buena fe y anhelo del pueblo Puertorriqueno por resolver su 
status, se han celebrado dos plebiscitos, se han creado 
comisiones, comites ad hoc, se han radicado proyectos en el 
Congreso, se dio el proceso del 1989 y aqui estamos como 
empezamos. Como diria don Luis Munoz Marin, ``Estamos en una 
situacion donde cada punto es un 'turning point' porque estamos 
moviendonos en circulos.''
    Para romper este circulo senor Presidente y terminar, vamos 
a ver y tener un verdadero derecho a la libre determinacion, de 
acuerdo a lo que establece el derecho internacional. Yo, que 
creo en lo establece ese derecho internacional para la 
asociacion con soberania entre dos naciones, la libre 
asociacion, lo acepto. Ahora bien, oaceptan ustedes que 
entienden que Puerto Rico es una colonia, y por ende no puede 
ser un caso domestico, la aplicacion del derecho internacional 
en este proceso?
    Finalmente les senalo, que ustedes tienen un problema de 
indole moral con Puerto Rico y como ustedes saben, en este 
ambito no puede haber puntos intermedios. No se puede ser el 
lider de la democracia en el mundo y atropellar la voluntad de 
un pueblo durante cien anos. En ese sentido, rechazo la 
utilizacion de la ciudadania Americana como forma de chantaje 
contra amplios sectores de nuestro pueblo para favorecer a una 
de las opciones, la estadidad. Eso es un acto de agresion, 
caracteristico de la politica de las canoneras. El jugar con 
las lealtades y la querencias de un pueblo. Ustedes impusieron 
la ciudadania Norteamericana cuando nadie la pidio. Ahora 
tienen que asumir la responsabilidad por sus actos. Lo que se 
da, no se quita. No pierdanle perspectiva que la paciencia del 
pueblo, por mas pequeno que sea, tiene su limite y puestos 
contra la pared no se suicidan, sino que se reafirman.
    Muchas gracias.
    Mr. Underwood. Now we have the Honorable Rony Jarabo, who 
is the former Speaker of the House of Representatives. Sir, you 
may proceed.

 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RONY JARABO, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE 
PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, 
                     SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Jarabo. Thank you, sir. Acting Chairman Underwood, 
former Governor and Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero-
Barcelo, Congressman Miller, I come before you as a deeply 
concerned citizen who finds the design of the process of 
consultation and implementation of status preference as 
proposed by H.R. 856 very peculiar, highly objectionable, and 
very unfair to the people of Puerto Rico. Decisions on the 
political destiny of a people are a very serious matter, of 
such proportions and consequences that they should exclude 
partisan and sectarian biases that prejudge the merits of the 
questions involved.
    The exercise of a nation's most fundamental right, the 
right to self-determination, and the possibly irreversible 
results that ensue thereof, should be framed in a process that 
is equitable to all competing options, not slanted in favor of 
one of them. The process should embody effective moral, 
political, and legal commitments of all entities with a 
deciding role so that they shall be obligated to act on the 
people's mandate within a reasonable time.
    Admittedly, the criteria of political feasibility is 
relevant and, indeed, essential to the responsible legislative 
choices that must be made when drafting a bill that purports to 
be a means of self-determination. But such criteria should be 
applied evenhandedly, with fair play as the guiding spirit of 
its application to all options in the process, not just to the 
obvious target of the bill's design.
    Certainly the process should facilitate solutions to 
existing problems and not create new ones that cannot be 
solved. I am deeply worried that we may be placing Puerto Rico 
on a sure course to a no-exit situation, whereby the existing 
political reality, Commonwealth, is the means and disqualified; 
and the other probable choice, the other alternative with 
sufficient political backing, there is no commitment as to it.
    So we could end up recognizing or viewing what we have as 
unacceptable and not being able to get what supposedly is 
acceptable. I feel that would be a much worse situation than 
what Puerto Rico now has in the present. And I feel that this 
Committee, and Congress in general, have a very special 
historic responsibility that this situation not be created.
    I respectfully submit to you that H.R. 856 does not meet 
the minimum basic requirements of a bill that fairly offers a 
means to legitimate and effective self-determination. 
Accordingly, I respectfully propose to you that this bill be 
amended as follows:
    Eliminate all provisions on findings that demean the option 
of Commonwealth or that assume that nothing of political, 
historic, or of constitutional relevance happened when 
Commonwealth was created. They are unnecessary to the bill but 
they slant the balance, the competitive balance, between the 
options before the people of Puerto Rico.
    Avoid the dualistic or bipolar approach of separate 
sovereignty versus the formulas for union. I know you are 
getting an intensive course in the labyrinth of Puerto Rican 
status politics. I know that you have argued about sovereignty 
and citizenship, and maybe by now you have realized that the 
word and the concept of sovereignty in Puerto Rico is used at 
least in three different meanings:
    One, natural, or inherent sovereignty, which means the 
inherent sovereignty of a people, the ultimate source from 
which a political entity derives its authority. Which means the 
right to self-government. Which means the right to self-
determination; Sovereignty of a political entity within the 
Federal system of self-governing units within a Federal system, 
which means reserved powers, retained rights. As, for example, 
the rights of States, not delegated to the Federal Government 
according to the 10th amendment of the Federal Constitution. Or 
the Commonwealth sovereignty, ``over matters not ruled by the 
U.S. Constitution.'' The quote is from the U.S. Supreme Court; 
And the third meaning of a concept of sovereignty in Puerto 
Rico is national sovereignty, which is what the bill calls 
sovereignty. Separate sovereignty, of course. The full 
sovereignty of independent states, which as an essential 
characteristic exclude other entities; authority over the same 
jurisdiction.
    There is no conflict between the sovereignty of Puerto Rico 
understood in the first or second meanings of the concept and 
U.S. citizenship for Puerto Ricans as it exists under current 
Commonwealth status. It is a basic flaw of H.R. 856 to equate 
statehood with the only possible guarantee of permanent U.S. 
citizenship.
    I submit to you that the nature of citizenship is one 
irrespective of its constitutional or statutory origin. I 
believe we are afforded the same guarantees against loss of 
citizenship that Afroean versus Rusk defined for all citizens.
    The fact that voting rights of citizens vary according to 
the political entity in which they reside, as do benefits under 
Federal programs and tax obligations, does not invalidate the 
principle of one class of citizenship. These differences are a 
consequence of residence, not of citizenship, not of ``levels 
of citizenship.''
    The Nationality Act provides that for the purposes of 
nationality, U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico shall be deemed 
to have been born in the United States, thus bridging the gap 
of nonincorpora-

tion. I believe this bill should not create a gap between 
Puerto Rican born U.S. citizens, natural born U.S. citizens, 
and fellow citizens born in one of the States of the Union.
    There is no gap in the battlefield, there is no gap as to 
due process and equal protection of the laws, there should be 
no gap as to citizens.
    I know I am running short of time.
    Mr. Underwood. You have run out of time, but, please 
continue.
    Mr. Jarabo. Well, there are a number of----
    Mr. Underwood. Would you please wrap it up, sir?
    Mr. Jarabo. Yes. I will back Congressman Miller's point of 
view as to the Commonwealth definition. I could answer 
questions on it. There is nothing unusual or heretical or 
unconstitutional in it.
    I would like to end my testimony by addressing a number of 
matters on statehood which deeply worry me.
    As I said before, there is no commitment that statehood 
will be granted even if statehood wins. I find that very 
unfair.
    I think that this bill should, in the absence of the 
resolution expressing the sense of Congress that statehood is 
possible, that Congress would be willing to grant statehood, if 
statehood wins in Puerto Rico or if statehood reaches the 
required majority and sustains it; because it should worry you 
that since 1964 only twice, the third time this year, a party 
has repeated its electoral victory. In 1964, PDP, the Popular 
Democrat Party won, in 1968 the PNP; in 1972. So it goes back 
and forth. So you could have a status decision here and the 
consensus would not hold in 4 years or 8 years.
    I believe there should be a policy established here as to 
the possibility of statehood. It is a very relevant and very 
essential factor of the debate on Puerto Rican status whether 
statehood is possible or not. And as you know, the consensus 
analysis of what happened with the Senate bill in 1990-91 was 
that the Republican Senators would not vote for the bill 
because it had automatic provision for statehood, if statehood 
won.
    Second----
    Mr. Underwood. One final point, sir.
    Mr. Jarabo. OK. On the language issue. I believe no 
condition should be imposed on Puerto Rico, in the event of 
statehood, that would not be imposed equally when it is imposed 
on the rest of the States.
    There should not be a provision that seems to place Puerto 
Rico in a different light than what other States would be. And 
that there should be in this bill, in this bill, policy 
established as to Spanish in the event that statehood would win 
and that Puerto Rico would become a State of the Union.
    I believe that a plebiscite every 4 years is excessive.
    Mr. Underwood. Now you have gone from language to the 
plebiscite.
    Mr. Jarabo. That is my last point, Chairman Underwood.
    Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much. All of this is very 
interesting testimony.
    I wanted to ask a quick question of Mr. Castro Font. I read 
about the vote in the newspaper. You alluded to it in your 
written testimony but you did not say it in your statement. 
Does your political party have a unified stand on who should be 
eligible to vote in this political status process?
    Mr. Font. I didn't have that in my address today because of 
the time, but you read the papers; so, good.
    Mr. Underwood. I tried to.
    Mr. Font. Let me tell you something. I am a very pragmatic 
man, let me tell you. I believe the only people that have the 
authority to vote in Puerto Rico must be the residents of the 
Island of Puerto Rico, and that is my point of view.
    I am pro-Commonwealth. I am a member of the Popular Party, 
but I am a very pragmatic man. I believe this is fair. The 
fairness of the process is, if you are going to a plebiscite in 
1998, you have to fix that definition, and also the only people 
that must have the right to vote are the people living in 
Puerto Rico, and if they apply the electoral law of Puerto Rico 
for the year of residency in Puerto Rico.
    Mr. Colberg-Toro. Si, senor Presidente, en cuanto a esa 
pregunta, nosotros diferimos respetuosamente del companero. El 
Partido Popular no ha definido su posicion en cuanto a eso y la 
que se ha discutido. . . La que se ha discutido ha sido de que 
Puerto Rico es una sola nacion. Y eso incluye los 
Puertorriquenos que viven en los Estados Unidos, que son tan 
Puertorriquenos como nosotros los que vivimos aqui en la isla.
    Nosotros entendemos que es justo y razonable, que siendo 
una sola nacion y se vaya a definir. . . Se vaya a definir el 
futuro de la nacion, sean los nacionales, los Puertorriquenos 
eh. . . No importa dondequiera que estos se encuentren. Y un 
ejemplo clasico seria el Puertorriqueno que lleva tiempo 
viviendo en los Estados Unidos, tiene siempre el deseo de 
regresar a Puerto Rico o que ha regresado, lleva veinte anos, y 
esa persona y sus hijos son Puertorriquenos no pudiera votar 
cuando viene una persona que cumpla con la ley electoral y 
simplemente sea un residente de un ano en Puerto Rico, ese si 
pueda votar en la decision de un pueblo. Parece que hay una 
gran contradiccion y que es un punto por lo cual me parece que 
debe ser evaluado y sobre todo, si se va a cumplir con el 
derecho internacional.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Colberg-Toro follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.076
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.077
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.078
    
    Mr. Underwood. My only point was, I wanted to know whether 
the party had a position, and it appears it does not.
    Mr. Jarabo. In the past, Mr. Chairman, the party has made 
public statements backing the vote by Puerto Rican-born 
citizens and leaving the door open, given the problem of 
logistics, as to children born of Puerto Rican parents and 
living in the States.
    That is the past. I don't know what the present position 
would be.
    But let me just point out that if this is a process of 
self-determination, it seems to me the only valid option is 
that all Puerto Rican-born citizens would be able to vote.
    Whether non-Puerto-Rican-born citizens residing in Puerto 
Rico could vote, that is a different question, whether you 
would consider them as a different segment of the vote, because 
they are part of the people of Puerto Rico, because they reside 
here, they are citizens of Puerto Rico, their children have 
been born here, that type of consideration.
    But as to the first question, I believe all Puerto Rican-
born should be able to vote.
    Mr. Font. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I want to add 
something, because you are mistaken. This is my personal 
belief. I want to say something to you.
    My family is the Castro family. We came to Puerto Rico 500 
years ago from Spain, 500 years. I have cousins in California, 
I have cousins in North Carolina, I have Puerto Ricans, the 
Castro family, in Florida and New York. I don't vote for the 
decision of my fellow cousins in the United States mainland.
    Mr. Underwood. Very good, understood.
    Before we go to the other members, just briefly on the 
issue of reporting in the United Nations, I want to share an 
issue with you. The issue of how that is portrayed is one that 
I have watched very carefully.
    In the case of Guam, Guam is still on the list of non-self-
governing territories at the United Nations. It was 
communicated to me in no uncertain terms that had Guam adopted 
what was called a constitution of self-government, then the 
U.S. Government would have moved toward removing Guam from the 
list, even without a particular change in political status. So 
the issue has many different dimensions to it.
    I have run out of time, and I will go to Mr. Miller from 
California.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate your question on eligibility to vote. As you 
know, we have been approached by our colleague, Mr. Serrano, 
who is deeply concerned about that issue, and I am sure we will 
be debating it.
    As he points out, we can resolve it in a manner in which he 
can be a Puerto Rican with a vote in Congress but no vote in 
Puerto Rico, which would be an interesting turn of events.
    I really don't have a question. I want to again make a 
couple of defining remarks here about this process. It has been 
suggested by various witnesses that we have had, both in 
Washington and here--that somehow each of these definitions 
ties you down to a specific status, and in some cases that is 
heralded as a benefit, and in others it is suggested that is a 
detriment. Again, it is depends on who is characterizing this.
    I would only state this process comes at a rather unique 
time in our own history, when the Congress is in the process of 
redefining the status of many of the States. We are handing off 
burdens to many of the States, some of which they asked for and 
think they can handle, and others which they are now quite 
alarmed at having to deal with.
    We also find our own courts now taking another look at the 
powers of the Congress with respect to the commerce clause vis-
a-vis the States and obligations that we can place on those, 
and even the obligations we can place on individual citizens.
    The general use of our system is that it is, in fact, a 
fluid system. It is never static, it is constantly changing 
within those relationships. And that is why, again, I would 
argue that this process remain as open as possible and as fair 
as possible, because eventually the decisions that will have to 
be made on both sides of the equation are very, very serious 
decisions.
    As we properly should, we continue to dwell on the 
decisions that the people of Puerto Rico will have to make. I 
suggest to you that many Members of Congress, when they realize 
that this is in fact a very real legislative proposal, this 
will be every bit as serious a decision for them as any vote 
they cast in the Congress of the United States. Some of them 
will come to that realization sooner than others.
    But the fact is, by the time we vote on the Floor of the 
House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and pass this to 
the President of the United States, this will be a very real 
concrete decision for Members of Congress.
    For that reason, I just continue to argue that we should 
remain open to all suggestions. Again, we will not accept all 
suggestions, by any means, but that is the process, and we have 
got to make sure as we take that first step, which will be the 
presentation of this legislation, that all parties feel truly 
enfranchised in that process.
    I raise that point for some of the reasons that some of you 
raised it here and the previous panel raised it. I think it is 
maybe the most important gift that this Committee can give to 
the process, is that all concerned citizens of Puerto Rico 
truly feel enfranchised by this Committee.
    I know that Carlos and Congressman Young have worked very 
hard to do that. We had a lot of negotiations, and we will 
continue to have those, to make sure that, in fact, people who 
are in this room and watching this and participating in this 
long and historical debate believe that the Congress served 
them well. As we have already heard, some of you are not so 
sure of that today. But that is our obligation back to you.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
    Mr. Alzamora. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify something 
very important. Se trata, como portavoz del Partido Popular en 
este. . . En este grupo, dejar una cosa bien clara para el 
record. La posicion oficial del Partido Popular Democratico, 
que fue aprobada en una resolucion y que no ha sido revocada, 
es que los nacionales Puertorriquenos no importa donde vivan, 
participen en el plebiscito que tenga que ver con el futuro de 
el pais. La posicion del querido companero de Castro Font se la 
respetamos. Es un. . . Como el ha dicho, su opinion personal. 
Pero la oposicion oficial del partido, hasta tanto no sea 
revocada y no anticipo que vaya a ser revocada, es que todo 
nacional Puertorriqueno pueda votar en relacion al futuro del 
[U/I].
    Mr. Underwood. Thank you for that clarification.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo?
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to start first of all by saying that we talk about 
the vote of people that do not reside in Puerto Rico. We have 
too short a time to discuss the logistics of it, but the 
logistics are just impossible. So to try to do that is the way 
of derailing the process.
    The other thing: As far as some people claim, there are 3.3 
million Puerto Ricans residing in the mainland, 50 States of 
the Union, and in other countries. To give them the same 
process of identification as we do here for those who vote here 
and to issue them a voting card with a photograph, it would 
just be logistically impossible.
    The other thing that I would like to let you be aware of: 
This is a process where we are asking that each group say what 
it is they want from Congress; in other words, how do they 
define the formula? But you must also be aware of, this is not 
a one-way street, this is a two-way street.
    One thing is what you might want to see, and the other 
thing is what can be reasonable or what others are going to be 
willing to accept. Each Congressman and each Senator responds 
to their citizens in their State.
    So when you claim, for instance, that you want to have 
equal benefits in Federal programs and yet you are not willing 
to pay Federal income tax, well, you have to be aware, whether 
it is constitutional or not, how does that sit with the 
citizens of the 50 States who do have to pay Federal income 
taxes? That is part of the things that each Congressman and 
each Senator is going to weigh.
    So one thing is what you might want, and the other things 
is what Congress is going to be willing to give.
    Then the other thing is, when you ask that the Congress 
commit themselves, and I see that you underscore when they 
commit themselves to statehood, 37 territories became States 
after the original Thirteen Colonies, and those 37 territories, 
none of them were offered or guaranteed statehood. They had to 
go through a process. They had to ask for statehood. In some 
instances it was a very short time, and in some instances it 
was a very long time.
    But you think that we should be guaranteed something that 
has not been guaranteed historically to anyone else? I know you 
have great concerns for statehood. Please, let us deal with 
that. We will take our chances. We will take our chances.
    The other thing I wanted to say: When you think of a 
sovereign nation--and Puerto Rico is a sovereign nation with 
U.S. citizenship--do you, as a sovereign nation, think Puerto 
Rico should abide by the Federal banking laws or not--the 
banking laws adopted by Congress, or not?
    Mr. Alzamora. Bueno, la--la soberania de Puerto Rico la 
reconoce el propio Congreso de los Estados Unidos, cuando en la 
Ley 600----
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Please, I know that you can evade 
answering my question and you can talk for the rest of the 
time, but I am trying to get a point across so the people 
understand what it is that you want in your choice. Do you 
think in the new Commonwealth--would you expect the banking 
laws that were then adopted by the Congress--do you think they 
should be applicable to Puerto Rico, yes or no?
    Mr. Alzamora. Bueno, yo le voy a contestar conforme a como 
yo entiendo que debo contestar mi pregunta no como usted desea 
que yo se la conteste. La propuesta del Estado Libre Asociado 
esta clara. En el Inciso C en particular, habla de una asamblea 
constituyente especial para cualquier cosa que no este 
debidamente definida dentro del concepto de mejorar el Estado 
Libre Asociado a obtener el maximo de autonomia y que nosotros 
podamos decidir sobre la legislacion Federal a aplicarla o no. 
Esa asamblea constituyente estaria a cargo de redactar todo ese 
proceso que es bastante detallado. Por lo tanto, eso no puedo 
contestarlo con un si o un no. Ahora, si para complacerlo mas, 
le puedo decir lo siguiente. Denos la oportunidad a que se 
acepte esta definicion. Estoy seguro que con esta definicion 
volvera a ganar por tercera ocasion el Estado Libre Asociado y 
esa asamblea constituyente se encargara de esa preocupacion.
    [Applause.]
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. When the Congressmen or Senator asks 
me, with this definition of ``New Commonwealth,'' when we pass 
banking laws, are they going to be applicable to Puerto Rico, I 
say I don't know. How can we make a decision?
    Mr. Alzamora. Pero precisamente, la Asamblea Constituyente 
especial atendera todo aquello que tenga que ver con la 
aplicabilidad de leyes Federales.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. So I cannot answer them, because then 
they want to know. But they want the entitlements. On that they 
are clear; they want the money, but not the obligation.
    Mr. Alzamora. Pero es que la--el desarrollo del Estado 
Libre Asociado obviamente tiene que estar basado en primero, en 
un mandato del pueblo. A pesar de que han habido dos mandatos y 
Estados Unidos no los ha atendido gracias al boicot del 
liderato estadista en el Congreso, como en el del 1993 que 
ustedes lo propusieron y no nos permitieron entonces a nosotros 
trabajar en la forma que habia que trabajar. Estamos aqui ahora 
mismo, debatiendo en un futuro status precisamente, porque al 
Estado Libre Asociado no le han permitido desarrollarlo por el 
boicot antidemocratico de las personas que pierden plebiscito 
en este pais. Y entonces, ante esa realidad, pues estamos 
nuevamente en un proceso congresional ahora para poder definir 
la formula.
    La estadidad se sabe cual es, una sola, Americana, la 
eliminacion de la nacionalidad Puertorriquena. La independencia 
se sabe cual es, separarse de Estados Unidos. El Estado Libre 
Asociado tiene los parametros basicos que se basa en la comun 
ciudadania, la comun defensa, el comun mercado, la comun moneda 
y entonces la aspiracion de mejorarlo, manteniendo esos cuatro 
pilares basicos pero logrando el maximo de autonomia compatible 
con nuestra relacion permanente con los Estados Unidos. Y por 
eso en el Inciso C proponemos como podemos desarrollar esa 
autonomia a base de que ley Federal se aplica Puerto Rico y 
cual no y que forma Puerto Rico pueda tener su presencia 
internacional. Eso esta contestado en esta definicion que hemos 
sometido.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. It is not answered. You are just going 
around in circles, but you are not answering.
    Just one final question. How do I answer when they ask me, 
this group of people that want U.S. citizenship, that one of 
the spokesman says, ``I do not feel American''? What do you 
think their constituents of the Congressmen and Senators are 
going to say? Why do you want to give citizenship to those 
people that don't want it? Why? What can we tell them?
    Mr. Alzamora. You don't have to give us citizenship; we 
have citizenship. Just nationality.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Why should we guarantee it?
    Mr. Alzamora. Es que no hay--no hay que darles ciudadania. 
La ciudadania la tenemos igual que la nacionalidad. Lo que 
sucede--yo le pregunto a usted, si usted se siente--si usted se 
siente Puertorriqueno o Americano porque yo me siento----
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Las dos cosas.
    Mr. Alzamora. ... Puertorriqueno.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I feel both.
    Mr. Alzamora. No, yo me siento Puertorriqueno----
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I feel both.
    Mr. Alzamora. [continuing] y ciudadano Americano. Son dos 
cosas distintas porque la nacionalidad no puede ser nada mas 
que una. La ciudadania puede ser dos como la tenemos en Puerto 
Rico, la Americana y la Puertorriquena por naturaleza. Pero 
nacional uno es solamente de una nacion, y nuestra nacion es 
Puerto Rico.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Then you don't want to be a U.S. 
citizen. Will you defend it?
    Mr. Alzamora. No, claro que la defendere, claro que 
defendemos la ciudadania Americana. La defendemos, claro que 
si. La hemos defendido con nuestras vidas inclusive en las 
guerras, defendiendola dentro del pacto que existe bilateral, 
que es parte de ese pacto, la ciudadania Americana.
    Mr. Underwood. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am sure we 
can continue this discussion ad infinitum. I would like to 
thank again the members of the panel.
    Before I turn the gavel over to Mr. Miller, I would like to 
just take one small privilege and say, ``Hafa Adai,'' which is 
the greeting in Guam, to all the people of Puerto Rico and 
Mayaguez who are watching this, and also take an opportunity to 
introduce a couple of people in the audience. One is Senator 
Elizabeth Barrett Anderson of the Guam Legislature. I see she 
is not there. The other is her staffer, Jim Underwood, who 
magically has the same last name. I don't know how that 
happened. He is my first cousin. He is also a former Senator of 
the Guam Legislature.
    Thank you very much for being a good panel.
    Mr. Miller [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony and 
time and consideration of the Committee.
    The next panel will be made up of Mr. Julio Muriente Perez, 
who is the president of the Puerto Rico New Movement 
Independent Party; Mr. Roberto Cardona Ubinas, president of the 
National Patriotic Union; Ms. Lolita Lebron, the president of 
the Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico; Mr. Frank Velgara, co-
coordinator, Pro-Liberated; Mr. Carlos Gallisa, Hato Rey; and 
Dr. Edgardo Morales, professor of organizational psychology, 
University of Puerto Rico.
    Welcome to the Committee.
    Mr. Perez, we will begin with you.
    Mr. Gallisa. Senor Presidente, antes de comenzar a deponer 
este panel queremos expresar nuestro profundo disgusto por la 
ausencia del senor Don Young que es el que preside este panel, 
y creemos que es una falta de respeto.
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Young is watching this testimony. Mr. Young 
happens to have a bad back. Mr. Young cannot sit through all of 
the testimony. He has been monitoring and watching the 
testimony, just as he did in San Juan.
    Mr. Gallisa. Pues yo espero que asi sea, pero de cualquier 
manera nos parece que el senor Young ha hecho un compromiso de 
venir a oir aqui a todo el mundo y que solamente esta oyendo a 
un sector de los que se expresan aqui. Asi que conste nuestra 
protesta desde este comienzo por la ausencia de el, que 
entendemos que es irrespetuosa.
    Mr. Miller. That is fine. That is simply an inaccurate 
statement.
    Senor Perez, we begin with you.

 STATEMENT OF JULIO A. MURIENTE PEREZ, PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICO 
     NEW MOVEMENT INDEPENDENT PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Muriente Perez. Senores congresistas, mi nombre es 
Julio Antonio Muriente Perez. Soy geografo y profesor 
universitario. Comparezco ante ustedes en calidad de Presidente 
del Nuevo Movimiento Independentista Puertorriqueno, hoy 21 de 
abril de 1997, fecha en que se conmemora treinta y dos anos de 
la muerte del patriota don Pedro Alvisu Campos, cuya vida y 
ejemplo nos inspira como igualmente nos inspira compartir aqui 
con la heroina nacional Lolita Lebron, presente aqui con la 
misma firmeza con la que los enfrento a ustedes. . . [Applause] 
En el Congreso el primero de marzo de 1954.
    Hace casi noventa y nueve anos, las tropas Estadounidenses 
invadieron Puerto Rico y nos tomaron como botin de guerra. 
Entonces no hubo plebiscitos ni consultas. Se apoderaron de 
nosotros a la fuerza. Desde entonces, Estados Unidos ha 
controlado nuestras vidas, ha impuesto sobre los 
Puertorriquenos las leyes que emanan del Congreso. Ha intentado 
imponer su lengua y su cultura, ha militarizado grandes 
porciones de nuestras tierras.
    Esta situacion de unilateralidad no vario con la creacion 
del Estado Libre Asociado en el ano 1952 y se mantiene hasta 
nuestros dias. Casi noventa y nueve anos despues, ustedes 
senores congresistas, radican un proyecto de ley que han 
catalogado como de naturaleza descolonizadora sin contar con el 
parecer del pueblo Puertorriqueno, concebido y disenado en 
funcion de sus intereses y de los intereses de un sector 
antinacional y antipatriotico que son los eleccionistas que no 
representan el sentir de la mayoria del pueblo Puertorriqueno.
    Ustedes le han pedido definiciones de status a los tres 
partidos politicos del pais, pero en ultima instancia seran 
ustedes quienes decidan que definiciones apareceran si el 
Proyecto Young se convierte en ley y si se implementa alguna 
consulta al pueblo. Incluso, si se diera dicha consulta, no se 
comprometen a reconocer los resultados de la misma.
    Ustedes celebraron unas vistas publicas recientemente en 
Washington y celebran estas vistas publicas en Puerto Rico para 
dar la impresion de que el pueblo de Puerto Rico participa en 
este proceso. Pero la realidad es que ustedes aprobaran, si es 
finalmente aprueban algo, lo que a ustedes y solo a ustedes les 
convenga. Vistas publicas, que si para algo han servido, es 
para dividir aun mas al pueblo Puertorriqueno en tribus 
irreconciliables.
    Mientras tanto, al pueblo Puertorriqueno se le mantiene en 
las gradas mientras ustedes imponen sus decisiones en el campo 
de juego. Cuando decimos el pueblo Puertorriqueno, nos 
referimos tanto a quienes residimos en Puerto Rico como a los 
millones de compatriotas radicados en Estados Unidos y otras 
partes del planeta, que son hijos de esta tierra como el que 
mas, y que tienen los mismos derechos fundamentales para 
decidir sobre el destino de este pais.
    El Proyecto Young, senores Congresistas, no representa un 
proceso descolonizador sino una imposicion similar a la ley. . 
. A la Ley 600 de 1950. Ustedes, senores Congresistas, y la 
institucion que ustedes representan, tienen que demostrar que 
tienen la voluntad para promover un proceso real y genuinamente 
descolonizador en Puerto Rico si es que interesan gozar de 
alguna credibilidad. Corresponde a ustedes reconocer que Puerto 
Rico es una nacion sometida al colonialismo y que son ustedes 
la metropoli que somete a esta nacion Caribena y 
Latinoamericana.
    Tienen ustedes que reconocer que existe una legalidad 
internacional en materia de colonialismo que no comienza con la 
quince (15) cuarenta y uno (41) quinza [sic] (XV) sino que esta 
inspirada en la Resolucion Quince Catorce (1514) Romanos quince 
(XV) de la ONU, la cual establece que todo proceso de 
descolonizacion tiene que estar precedido por una transferencia 
de poderes fundamentales de la metropoli a la colonia. Sin esa 
transferencia de poderes, no puede haber proceso 
descolonizador.
    Tienen ustedes que desistir de lanzar una escalada militar 
como lo es la imposicion del Comando Sur de su ejercito y la 
instalacion de un sistema de radares por su Marina de Guerra. 
Sin desmilitarizacion, no puede haber proceso descolonizador. 
Tienen ustedes que dar muestra de su buena fe liberando a los 
quince (15) prisioneros politicos Puertorriquenos que purgan 
largas condenas en las carceles Estadounidenses por el solo 
delito de luchar por la independencia de su patria.
    Ustedes, senores Congresistas, y el Congreso que ustedes 
representan, tiene el poder para hacer eso y mucho mas, si 
fuera su voluntad. Claro, tambien tienen el poder para imponer 
un proyecto de ley como el Proyecto Young, o mas grave aun, 
tienen ustedes el poder para intentar imponernos la anexion, 
como nos han impuesto el colonialismo.
    La anexion, quede absolutamente claro, no es una 
alternativa descolonizadora para la nacion Puertorriquena. Por 
el contrario, constituiria la consumacion del colonialismo, y 
ello es inadmisible.
    Si prevalece como hasta ahora la soberbia colonial, o peor 
aun, si se intenta llevar a la nacion Puertorriquena al 
despenadero que representa la anexion, sepan ustedes senores 
Congresistas y haganle saber a sus colegas en el Congreso, que 
Puerto Rico es un hueso duro de roer. No ha sido en vano que 
hemos logrado prevalecer como nacion tras casi un siglo de 
colonialismo. Si hemos luchado por largo tiempo, primero contra 
el colonialismo espanol y luego contra ustedes, no tenemos 
ningun reparo, ninguno, en comenzar el siglo veintiuno 
combatiendo el colonialismo y la anexion.
    Sepan ustedes, senores Congresistas, que la comunidad 
internacional esta muy atenta a los paso que de Estados Unidos 
para adelantar legitimamente la descolonizacion de Puerto Rico. 
Asi quedo patentizado en la Conferencia Ministerial de la 
Organizacion de Paises No Alineados celebrada asi varios dias 
en Nueva Delhi, India--a la cual asistimos.
    Nosotros simplemente queremos alcanzar la meta que ustedes 
alcanzaron hace mas de dos siglos. En 1776, el pueblo de las 
Trece Colonias hubiese rechazado firmemente un Proyecto Young 
proveniente de la metropoli Britanica, como nosotros hoy 
rechazamos este que proviene de la metropoli Estadounidense.
    Deseamos la autodeterminacion e independencia, es decir, la 
verdadera descolonizacion y una relacion de paz y respeto con 
Estados Unidos. Estamos dispuestos a ir a la mesa de 
negociaciones, pero tambien al campo de batalla como lo hemos 
hecho en el pasado.
    En esta coyuntura tan injusta y desigual, corresponde a 
ustedes senores Congresistas, y al Congreso de Estados Unidos, 
ofrecer algo mas que un proyecto de ley amanado, en el que una 
vez mas se nos impone su criterio y que tal como se ha 
conducido este proceso, constituye un nuevo engano y una 
perdida de tiempo.
    Concluyo senores Congresistas, leyendo para ustedes el 
fragmento de un poema, ``Aleluya'', escrito por el patriota 
Jose de Diego, cuya vigencia y pertinencia es indiscutible. 
Dice asi, ``Hablamos otra lengua, con otro pensamiento, en la 
onda del espiritu y en la onda del viento y os estamos diciendo 
hace tiempo en las dos, que os vayais con el diablo y nos 
dejeis con Dios.''
    Muchas gracias.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Perez (in Spanish) follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.079
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.080
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.081
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.082
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.083
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.084
    
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you.
    Mr. Ubinas.

STATEMENT OF ROBERTO CARDONA UBINAS, PRESIDENT, UNION PATRIOTIC 
                NATIONAL, AGUADILLA, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Ubinas. Senor Presidente del Comite de Recursos, 
senores Congresistas. . . Mi nombre es Roberto Cardona Ubinas. 
Presido la organizacion politica Union Patriotica Nacional. En 
primera instancia, quisiera solicitar respetuosamente que se 
admita en evidencia la ponencia que se preparo para esta 
audiencia ante ustedes y me permito presentarles a quien sera 
nuestro portavoz durante la tarde de hoy, el Licenciado Eduardo 
Villanueva Munoz, quien ocupara el turno concedido a la Union 
Patriotica Nacional.
    Si, un saludo a todos los eh. . . A los Congresistas y a 
todos los compatriotas que se encuentran aqui. Bienvenidos a mi 
patria, a mi nacion, Puerto Rico, para dialogar sobre un asunto 
tan importante como es la descolonizacion de Puerto Rico. 
Hubiera preferido que este dialogo analitico se diera ante un 
tribunal internacional presidido por observadores imparciales 
que juzgaran la controversia de forma objetiva y que no fueran 
parte interesada o gestora del problema colonial como lo son 
ustedes. De todos modos, si la intencion real es terminar la 
relacion colonial que nos une, estamos dispuestos a iniciar un 
dialogo que propicie un proceso justo para todas las partes y 
sectores.
    La Union Patriotica Nacional ha dialogado con sectores 
obreros, ambientalistas, organizaciones independentistas no 
electorales, maestros e individuos no afiliados, con el 
proposito de recoger un consenso sobre los elementos y 
garantias que debe contener un verdadero proceso de 
descolonizacion. Estos elementos son los siguientes:
    Reconocimiento de la existencia de la nacion Puertorriquena 
tal como la definio el Senador Ruben Berrios, con la cual 
coincidio el ex-Gobernador Hernandez Colon, a saber, la 
definicion clasica de ``nacion'' es aquella incluida en el 
Diccionario de la Academia Espanola desde 1925.
    Es ``una colectividad de personas que tiene el mismo origen 
etnico y que en general, habla un lenguaje comun y poseen una 
tradicion comun.'' Otras caracteristicas comunmente asociadas 
con la nacion o la nacionalidad son, territorio, historia, 
simbolos y rituales comunes y fidelitas [sic] O lealtad 
primaria a la nacionalidad. Por eso es que las lenguas romance 
de las que son indigenas la palabra ``nacion'' y 
``nacionalidad,'' la raiz de esas palabras se refiere a origen 
o ascendencia, ``natio'' en Latin. Reconocimiento de la 
ciudadania Puertorriquena, con plenitud de derechos 
constitucionales, a saber, derecho al voto, a viajar, a ser 
elegido a puestos publicos y con libre acceso al territorio de 
los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica, con sustancial con el 
reconocimiento de la ciudadania Puertorriquena. Es necesario 
que se garantice para esta y futuras generaciones, que el 
idioma oficial de Puerto Rico bajo cualquier status ha de ser 
el Espanol. El idioma natural de los ciudadanos Puertorriquenos 
lo es el Espanol y no el Ingles. Cualquier intento por imponer 
el Ingles en la ensenanza o en gestiones administrativas bajo 
cualquier status constituye una violacion de nuestros derechos 
humanos, ademas de ser antipedagogico como lo ha senalado el 
Senador Roberto Resach [sp] Benites. Tercero, liberacion de 
todos los presos politicos Puertorriquenos, en virtud de que no 
puede darse un proceso de descolonizador en el cual la 
poblacion votante sea intimidada o coaccionada para evitar o 
disuadir la lucha por la independencia con medidas represivas 
como lo es el encarcelamiento o la exigencia de 
arrepentimiento. Dicho sea de paso, tambien debe concederse el 
indulto incondicional al luchador por la independencia en el 
clandestinaje, Filiberto Ojeda Rios. Cuarto, detencion del 
proceso de militarizacion. Por ejemplo, que se desista de 
establecer unidades del Comando Sur en la isla y se detengan 
los planes para instalar el radar que auspicia la Marina en 
vista de que esto es un organismo militar.
    El uso de Vieques para bombardeo y practicas de la Marina 
de Guerra de Estados Unidos tambien debe terminar, siendo que 
Vieques es parte de Puerto Rico y sus votantes tambien tienen 
derecho a autodeterminarse. Todas las formulas sobre las cuales 
se consulta al pueblo, deben ser no coloniales, a tono con las 
Resoluciones Quince Cuarenta y uno (1541) y Quince Catorce 
(1514) Quince (XV) de la Organizacion de Naciones Unidas. Por 
tanto es contraria al derecho internacional, incluir al ELA 
clasico, en virtud de que su fundador, Luis Munoz Marin, 
reconocia que la soberania seguia en poder del Congreso y asi 
lo reitero el Licenciado Javal Hernandez Dolon ante las vistas 
de 1989 que presidio el Senador Bennett Johnston.
    El FBI, la CIA, el Consejo de Seguridad y todos los 
organismos de inteligencia de Estados Unidos, deben abstenerse 
de participar en cualquier proceso de autodeterminacion del 
pueblo Puertorriqueno para que este cumpla con los criterios 
reconocidos por el derecho internacional. En ese sentido, nos 
preocupa el anuncio de que ha de aumentarse la presencia del 
FBI en Puerto Rico, mediante la apertura de nuevas oficinas en 
diversos pueblos de nuestro pais. Documentos de COINTELPRO 
Revelan que el FBI jugo un rol manipulador decisivo en el 
proceso plebiscitario de 1967.
    En vista de la amplia documentacion que existe acreditando 
la intervencion para amedrentar, dividir, dirigir procesos 
hacia el resultado querido pero oculto de varios organismos de 
inteligencia de Estados Unidos, es imprescindible que un 
verdadero proceso descolonizador y de autodeterminacion cuente 
con observadores internacionales, especialmente de 
Latinoamerica, que es el entorno geografico cultural e 
historico al cual pertenecemos.
    Es imposible que un pais intervenido militarmente, sin 
control sobre su frontera, sin representacion internacional, 
sin relaciones comerciales libres y extremadamente dependiente, 
pueda en realidad ejercer el derecho a la autodeterminacion. Es 
por ello que las normas de derecho internacional han disenado 
un proceso previo de transferencia de poderes como condicion 
sine qua non a un proceso descolonizador. Ese paso de justicia 
necesaria, obliga a que ustedes y su pais devuelvan al pueblo 
de Puerto Rico, la soberania que detentan ilegalmente desde 
1898.
    Puerto Rico esta preparado para recibir en una convencion 
constituyente todos los poderes constitutivos de la soberania y 
en ejercicio de nuestro derecho a la libre determinacion e 
independencia, decidir el tipo de relacion que convenga a los 
intereses de ambos paises. Convendria a este proyecto 
incorporar la transferencia de poderes como una expresion 
genuina del Congreso de Estados Unidos para propiciar y 
asegurar un verdadero proceso de autodeterminacion. La 
propuesta del----
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ubinas (in Spanish) 
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.091

    Mr. Miller. Mr. Velgara.
    Mr. Ubinas. La propuesta del----
    Mr. Miller. If I might ask that you honor the time, please.
    Mr. Velgara.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The original time for Mr. Cardona be 
added to--if you want to yield that time, if that was your 
intent, was to yield your time.

STATEMENT OF FRANK VELGARA, CO-COORDINATOR, PRO-LIBERATED, NEW 
                         YORK, NEW YORK

    Mr. Velgara. Yes.
    Mr. Ubinas. La propuesta del PI [?] Para que exista un 
proceso de transicion economica de diez anos es una razonable y 
necesaria en vista de la responsabilidad que tiene Estados 
Unidos por haber creado y disenado en nuestro pais una economia 
dependiente.
    Los Puertorriquenos no tenemos duda de que podemos en la 
Republica, crear una economia prospera y autosuficientes. 
Existen paises mas pobres que nosotros ahora, pero los hay con 
igual o menos poblacion y territorio que son mas prosperos y 
dinamicos que nosotros. La inmensa mayoria del pueblo de Puerto 
Rico estoy seguro, rechaza la alternativa que se nos convierta 
en un territorio incorporado. Ello solo incrementa la 
dependencia economica y sociologica y seria como decia don 
Pedro Alvisu Campos de la estadidad, ``El paso previo a la 
culminacion del coloniaje.'' Incluso el electorado 
estadolibrista que ronda cerca de 900,000 electores, deberia 
considerar seriamente boicotear cualquier proceso que contemple 
la incorporacion, porque esta jamas seria un proceso orientado 
a la culminacion del ELA, sino mas bien encaminado a la 
transicion hacia la estadidad. La generalidad del 
independentismo Puertorriqueno preferiria que en una votacion 
sobre nuestro destino ulterior, voten los nacionales 
Puertorriquenos. Es importante que no voten personas con 
arraigo en otra cultura, con intereses economicos y politicos 
mucho mas vinculados a otros paises o incluso a estados 
federados, que de advenir un resultado contrario a su 
ideologia, no se quedarian a vivir las consecuencias de su 
eleccion.
    En un verdadero proceso de autodeterminacion, la tendencia 
historica ha sido permitir que voten exclusivamente los 
nacionales del pais que se autodetermina. Nacionales pueden 
definirse como los hijos de Puertorriqueno y de aquello que 
lleven residiendo en Puerto Rico mas de cinco anos. No son 
nacionales Puertorriquenos los Norteamericanos por adopcion de 
ciudadania. Ejemplos, Cubanos, Dominicanos, Argentinos, rabes, 
etcetera, que tienen su domicilio en Puerto Rico porque tienen 
animos [uninteligible] Aqui.
    Las transferencias de fondos Federales en el periodo de 
transicion hacia la independencia pueden extenderse en bloques 
y debe ser negociada la cantidad de anos por las cuales se 
recibirian, en virtud de que consideramos que son una 
compensacion por los danos que ha causado el coloniaje en 
terminos psicologicos, morales, economicos y sociologicos a los 
ciudadanos Puertorriquenos que lo han sufrido.
    El Estado Libre Asociado y la Libre Asociacion son dos 
formulas distintas, conforme al derecho internacional. El 
Proyecto Young equipara la libre asociacion con la 
independencia, lo cual en la practica equivale a estimular o 
incitar los miedos que tienen algunos sectores en Puerto Rico 
con la independencia. Por lo tanto, el proceso segun iniciado, 
y la definicion de la formula tiende a favorecer la formula 
estadista. No hay que decir que ello es injusto y contrario a 
los mejores intereses tanto de Puerto Rico como de Estados 
Unidos.
    Finalmente, reconocemos que existen fuertes vinculos 
historicos, economicos y politicos entre Estados Unidos y 
Puerto Rico. Tenemos mas de 2 millones de Puertorriquenos en 
Estados Unidos que probablemente sigan viviendo alla pero se 
preocupan por nuestro destino. Queremos finiquitar el regimen 
colonial y queremos hacerlo de una manera racional, ordenada, 
pacifica y honorable para ambas partes.
    Sin embargo, queremos hacer claro, que para los 
Puertorriquenos el derecho a preservar nuestra identidad 
nacional, nuestra cultura, nuestro idioma Espanol, nuestro 
territorio para uso agricola, industrial y no militar, nuestra 
identidad deportiva incluyendo la representacion internacional 
olimpica y el origen Latinoamericano que establece un vinculo 
indisoluble con nuestros hermanos que viven desde el Rio Bravo 
hasta Tierra de Fuego, son valores y principios por los cuales 
no dejaremos de luchar en todas las formas, absolutamente en 
todas, incluso en la estadidad federada.
    Es por ello que esa formula, que para nosotros es la 
culminacion de la disolucion nacional, no conviene ni a Puerto 
Rico ni a Estados Unidos, tanto desde un punto de vista 
practico, como desde la proyeccion historica que ustedes 
quieren impartir a este proceso.
    Muchas gracias.
    Mr. Miller. Ms. Lebron.

STATEMENT OF LOLITA LEBRON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PARTY OF PUERTO 
                  RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

    Ms. Lebron. Senor Don Young, Senores Congresistas, 
Distinguido Pueblo de Puerto Rico. . . Yo soy Lolita Lebron, 
Presidenta del Partido Nacionalista de Puerto Rico, ex-
prisionera politica de los Estados Unidos. Soy la que dirigio 
el ataque al Congreso de Estados Unidos de Norteamerica el 
primero de marzo de 1954, en defensa de la liberacion del 
Pueblo de Puerto Rico y en rechazo al Estado Libre Asociado, o 
sea, al engano que gracias a ustedes, al Proyecto Young, puede 
hoy Puerto Rico decir que estaba bien y don Pedro Albizu Campos 
se tiene que regocijar en el Paraiso porque el ordeno ese 
ataque por el abuso que se hizo con nosotros.
    Gracias . . . y gracias por un merito mas que tienen. El 
merito que tienen es que han conmovido a este pueblo para que 
se decida definitivamente a liberar a su pais. El Movimiento 
Libertador de Puerto Rico existe desde 1868, cuando el Padre de 
la Patria, don Ramon Emeterio Betances lucho para nuestra 
liberacion y proclamo la Republica de Puerto Rico, la primera, 
el 23 de septiembre de 1868, cuna de la nacion Puertorriquena.
    Don Pedro Albizu Campos, nuestro apostol, Padre de la 
patria contemporanea, nos quito la venda de los ojos, nos dijo 
que somos esclavos de ustedes, y les voy a decir que si ustedes 
nos hicieran a nosotros banqueros y nos hicieran nuestras 
calles de oro y nos llevaran a pasear a la luna, senores, aqui 
hay un movimiento de liberacion que ha de haberlo, siempre.
    Y yo le digo a todo este pueblo puertorriqueno que ha 
tenido la desgracia de haber sido modificada su conciencia 
nacional para que rechace su liberacion, y para que viva un 
siglo de rodillas, que ellos son sus victimas.
    Un pais como los Estados Unidos de America, que cuando 
invadio nuestro territorio, era entonces ``La Luz del Mundo'', 
decian, que traian la libertad a los pueblos, enganaron hasta a 
unos patriotas puertorriquenos. Pero ustedes vinieron aqui con 
las armas. Ustedes vinieron aqui con sus cinco naves armadas y 
ustedes dispararon aqui sus cohetes, y vinieron aqui con terror 
y la violencia y todavia quieren que nosotros bajemos la cabeza 
y nos hinquemos ante ustedes.
    Perdonen, debo decir, sus antepasados cometieron el grave 
error de tener a este pais bajo sus botas. Desgraciadamente, le 
han hecho dano a ustedes mismos y a nosotros y son unas llaga y 
un cancer en el rostro del mundo, y ustedes estan obligados a 
curar esta desgracia. Y yo los invito a ustedes, y los exhorto 
desde aqui y lo hace la mujer que ataco el Congreso de los 
Estados Unidos, estuvo un cuarto de siglo alli en defensa de la 
Nacionalidad Puertorriquena.
    Yo los invito a ustedes, y les he mandado tres razones 
desde que sali de la prision, y ustedes deben haberlas 
recibido, porque hasta el Presidente de los Estados Unidos le 
mande a decir, que aqui no viniera jamas, jamas ponga un pie 
aqui, hasta que este pueblo sea libre, entonces senores, el 
vendria aqui como nuestro invitado de honor, como iguales, de 
igual a iguales.
    Yo los invito a ustedes a curarse su error, porque le han 
infundido en la mentalidad puertorriquena un rechazo y un 
repudio a la libertad, y eso es un crimen, y ustedes tienen que 
curarse de ese crimen. No son los pueblos libres llamados a ser 
esclavos en la tierra, y ustedes deben saber que cuando la 
esclavitud estaba presente, aquellos que andaban con cadenas, 
hubo que llevarlos a la libertad casi obligados, porque tenian 
miedo a la libertad. Esta gente le tiene miedo a la libertad. 
Una inmensa mayoria de los puertorriquenos teme la libertad, 
porque ustedes los han infundido con un temor a la libertad.
    oDonde esta esa gran nacion norteamericana, que era la luz 
del mundo? oDonde esta? Senores ustedes corrijan su error. 
Diganle a los puertorriquenos estadistas, diganle a todos los 
puertorriquenos que no le teman a la libertad, que es la 
dignidad de sus hijos, que desde que el nino esta en el vientre 
de la madre, debe herendar la libertad, porque Dios nos hizo 
libres.
    Yo le doy las gracias a Dios que estoy aqui, despues de 
ustedes haberme tenido un cuarto de siglo en sus prisiones, yo 
estoy aqui para defender una dignidad que esta dormida. t Esta 
dormida! Ahora dicen estos senores que van a hacer un estado de 
la union norteamericana de este pais, jamas, jamas, jamas.
    Nada puede suceder en esta tierra, a no ser la libertad 
plena y total de este pueblo. Y cuando este pueblo haya 
disfrutado esa libertad y quiera hacer cualquier negocio que 
sea digno con ustedes o con cualquier pueblo del mundo, 
soberanamente lo puede hacer, pero no antes.
    Yo hablo duro senores, oigan mi voz, es fuerte y ha de 
morir y vivir eternamente fuerte por este pueblo.
    Ademas les tengo que decir que tienen unos prisioneros 
politicos. Saquenlos de ahi porque ellos no han matado a nadie, 
y ustedes cuando un asesino anda por sus calles le dan unos 
poquitos de anos y los sacan por ahi para que sigan matando. 
Los patriotas puertorriquenos son castigados y torturados en 
las carceles. Oscar Lopez esta siendo torturado en las 
carceles, todos ellos estan siendo torturados en las carceles.
    Yo les pido a ustedes, el Partido Nacionalista de Puerto 
Rico le pide a ustedes, ponga a esos hombres, esas mujeres 
patriotas en las calles.
    Yo aqui llamo a Clintock, ocomo se llama el? Kenneth 
McClintock, yo soy patriota. t Tu eres un entregado! Tu no 
tienes patria, te has expatriado a ti mismo.
    Senores, tomad conciencia de sus deberes en este Planeta. 
Olvidense tanto de las estrellas. t que quieren hacer colonias 
alli! Tomen conciencia de la gran dignidad que ustedes ostentan 
ante el mundo, y echen a un lado esas pequeneces, porque la 
dignidad de los hombres no se compra con dinero. Este pueblo 
tiene lo que tiene porque lo ha trabajado, y es sudor de su 
frente. Ustedes a nosotros no nos dan nada, nada, nada. Ustedes 
dicen que nos meten la comida en la boca. Ustedes dicen y asi 
me dijo una prisionera, ``Look at them, they are asking for 
freedom. Give them freedom, my country,'' decia ella ``and you 
will see them here in week, asking for food.''
    Senores, nosotros somos trabajadores y decentes. Nosotros 
somos honrados, nosotros somos una gente civilizada. No abusen 
de nosotros. Ustedes no nos dan a nosotros nada, nada, nada. 
Aqui ustedes tienen el mas grande comercio, el quinto comercio 
de Latinoamerica y cada papelito que venden le sacan una 
millonada. oOyeron? Aqui ustedes no . . . Ustedes le deben a 
esta tierra, mucho, y cuando seamos libres, que tenemos que ser 
libres ya mismo, muy pronto, y ustedes perdonados por nosotros 
y por Dios, y Dios Perdonando a nuestro padres, nosotros 
podemos encaminarnos hacia un mejor mundo y hacer una nueva 
era, una era de paz y de concordia y de liberacion para todos 
los pueblos. Donde los ninos puedan levantar su frente y ser 
ninos con esperanzas de un futuro, donde nadie se le pare 
encima.
    Oiganlo bien. Yo les estoy llamando a ustedes la atencion 
por ustedes mismos. No crean ustedes que porque hayan miles y 
miles y miles de puertorriquenos que dicen que lo que quieren 
ser es americanos--miren senores, no quieren ser americanos, 
ellos quieren ser puertorriquenos, pero ustedes le han 
infundido cientificamente en la cabeza al puertorriqueno, que 
ellos son pequenitos y que no pueden ser libres.
    Dios los bendiga a ustedes, porque yo soy una mujer de 
Dios. Dios bendiga a este mundo, y ustedes como un poderio 
grande de la tierra, saquen esas bombas atomicas del medio del 
mundo. Ustedes se las dieron al mundo y despues que se las 
dieron . . .
    Mr. Miller. I'm going to ask if you might----
    Ms. Lebron. No, yo le voy a decir a usted, voy a terminar 
ya. No quisiera que en mi pais nadie me tuviera que mandar a 
callar por defender la libertad de mi pais. . . Y ella no se ha 
encontrado todavia.
    [Applause.]
    Senores, no hay odio, no hay nada. Lo que hay es el derecho 
y el deber de un pueblo a ser libre. t Nada, nada trabajara 
aqui que se no la liberacion total y plena del pueblo de Puerto 
Rico.
    Muchas gracias.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lebron follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.092
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.093
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.094
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.095
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.096
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.097
    
    Mr. Miller. Thank you.
    Mr. Gallisa.

       STATEMENT OF CARLOS GALLISA, HATO REY, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Gallisa. Senor Presidente y miembros del Comite de 
Recursos. La primera pregunta que nos tenemos que hacer ante 
este Proyecto Young, es si esta es una propuesta seria, que 
conduce a la descolonizacion de Puerto Rico o si por el 
contrario, este proyecto se presenta como una recompensa o pago 
a los sectores anexionistas de Puerto Rico por el dinero que 
han repartido en el Congreso y las contribuciones y 
aportaciones que han hecho a las campanas electorales de 
ustedes y de sus partidos.
    En Puerto Rico hay un refran que dice, que quien paga la 
musica escoge el repertorio, y en la prensa del pais ha salido 
publicada el numero de congresistas de este comite, senor 
Kennedy, Burton, Young y otros que tal vez no haya habido la 
informacion para publicarla, que han recibido dineros y 
contribuciones de Puerto Rico y me parece que es hora de que 
tanto estos senores que he mencionado de este Comite comenzando 
por el senor Young, le digan al pueblo de Puerto Rico y hagan 
una declaracion de todo el dinero que han recibido de aqui en 
Puerto Rico, la cantidad y quienes, porque se puede decir como 
han dicho ya algunos, que es legal recibir donaciones. Pero lo 
legal no es lo moral siempre, y creo que se falta a los minimos 
de etica y de moral que debe presidir un cuerpo del Congreso, 
para que aquellos que pretendan fungir de congresistas 
legislando para un proceso de descolonizacion en Puerto Rico, 
tengan que observar una conducta distinta. Esa conducta 
observada por este Comite, y no incluyo a todos los miembros, 
esta conducta no puede crear credibilidad ni confianza entre 
los Puertorriquenos de que aqui se esta trabajando un proyecto 
justo para darle a Puerto Rico el derecho a la libre 
determinacion.
    Y no podemos creer en este proyecto, porque este proyecto 
fue manufacturado en las oficinas del senor Young, con un 
sector anexionista de este pais, excluyendo a todas las demas 
tendencias politicas de Puerto Rico en la confeccion de este 
proyecto. Y por ahi viene la doble desconfianza nuestra, 
respecto a las verdaderas intenciones de este proyecto y al 
caracter del mismo.
    La desconfianza de nosotros los Puertorriquenos en ustedes 
como Congreso y en el gobierno de su pais esta solidamente 
justificada en la experiencia vivida a lo largo de los cien 
anos de dominacion colonial que ustedes le han impuesto al 
pueblo de Puerto Rico. Han sido cien anos de mentiras, de 
medias verdades, de falsedades, de imposiciones, de 
falsificaciones y de promesas incumplidas.
    Desde la proclama del General Meiss [sp] Que vino aqui con 
sus tropas y a raiz de la invasion le dijo a este pueblo que 
venia a traer democracia y libertades, desde ahi comienza esta 
historia de enganos. Y por aqui al igual que ustedes 
congresistas, han pasado docenas y docenas de congresistas, 
desde Ford aquel en el 1900, Johnson en el 1916, el Senador 
Tydings en 1930 y en el 1940, [uninteligible] Bryan, Aspinal, 
Bennett Johnston, Lagomarcino y hoy es Young. Los presidentes 
de Estados Unidos desde McKinley hasta Eisenhower, que prometio 
la independencia cuando la pidieramos hasta el Gerald Ford 
hasta hoy Bill Clinton, tambien nos han hecho toda clase de 
promesas.
    Y todos los Puertorriquenos independientemente de 
ideologias y de partidos hemos sido enganados por ustedes a lo 
largo de cien anos porque nunca han cumplido la promesa y nunca 
han cumplido con su responsabilidad como potencia colonial, 
administradora de este territorio. Y digo territorio porque 
ustedes insisten en llamarnos territorio como si nosotros 
fueramos un pedazo de tierra en el Mar Caribe. Nosotros somos 
un pueblo con una historia, con una cultura. Somos una nacion 
Caribena y Latinoamericana y jamas vamos a entregar esta nacion 
que es la unica que tenemos y es la patria nuestra.
    Ese sentido que ustedes tienen de nosotros como territorio, 
es por donde tienen que comenzar ustedes para entendernos a 
nosotros. Ustedes y nosotros somos dos cosas totalmente 
distintas. Ni tan siquiera hablamos el mismo idioma. Somos dos 
naciones, somos dos culturas, somos dos pueblos y ustedes no se 
pueden tragar a este pueblo, y ustedes no se pueden tragar una 
nacion y ustedes nunca se han anexado una nacion. Ustedes se 
han anexado unos territorios que estaban vacios y que los 
llenaron ustedes con Americanos mismos, como sucedio con Hawai 
y con Alaska.
    Si algo meritorio tiene esta gestion, podriamos decir algo, 
son los diez puntos que ustedes han incluido en los llamados 
``findings'' que ustedes le llaman a las conclusiones de este 
proyecto y que tal parece que por fin, ustedes reconocen que 
existe un problema colonial en Puerto Rico.
    Ahora se me dice que por no ofender a los popular, van a 
sacar los diez puntos del proyecto. O sea no ofenderan a los 
populares, pero ofenderan entonces una vez mas, a la verdad 
historica de este pais.
    Nosotros creemos en la democracia y creemos en los derechos 
civiles y en los derechos humanos, y nosotros los practicamos. 
Pero mientras ustedes se proclaman ante el mundo como 
defensores de la democracia y los derechos humanos, aqui en 
Puerto Rico en su dominacion colonial, ustedes han sido unos 
violadores graves de los principios democraticos y de los 
derechos humanos.
    Mientras ustedes se ufanan que su politica como nacion esta 
inspirada en los ideales de Washington, Jefferson y de otros 
que ustedes los ``Founding Fathers,'' los Padres de la Patria, 
aqui en Puerto Rico a los que pensamos como los ``Founding 
Fathers'' de ustedes, como los Padres de la Patria de ustedes, 
ustedes los han perseguido como veinticinco anos de prision que 
le impusieron a Lolita Lebron y a otros y han matado patriotas 
Puertorriquenos para ejercer su dominio colonial en Puerto 
Rico. Ahora mismo hay quince patriotas Puertorriquenos con 
condenas de sesenta y ochenta anos de carcel, por el unico 
delito de luchar por la independencia de esta patria. Y ustedes 
son los carceleros de esos quince patriotas Puertorriquenos.
    Si ustedes quieren comenzar un dialogo con este pais, con 
este pueblo, yo estoy seguro que aqui todos los Puertorriquenos 
queremos un dialogo, y queremos llegar a ponerle fin a este 
sistema colonial. Empiecen ustedes con un gesto de buena fe, 
liberando a los presos Puertorriquenos.
    Pero este proyecto no puede ser credibilidad y garantia 
para ese dialogo. Este proyecto surge de unas componendas 
politicas con un sector del pais. Este proyecto no tiene 
credibilidad para la mayoria de los Puertorriquenos. Este 
proyecto pretende dejar a un lado las consideraciones mas 
importantes.
    No nos llevan mas a votar el plebiscito. No vamos a 
resolver el problema de Puerto Rico, arrancando a votar en un 
plebiscito. Ese es un camino fracasado, fracasado en el 1993, 
fracasado en el 1967. Tenemos que empezar otro camino. Tiene 
que haber un dialogo primero, antes de votar, porque ustedes no 
tienen consenso en Estados Unidos en el Congreso y en los 
circulos de poder sobre que hacer con Puerto Rico y nosotros 
los Puertorriquenos tampoco tenemos consenso sobre el futuro de 
esta patria. Por lo tanto, no se puede empezar a votar cuando 
no hay consenso en ninguno de los dos lados.
    Yo propongo que ustedes examinen otro curso de accion que 
comience con la creacion de una asamblea constituyente que 
sirva como instrumento negociador del pueblo de Puerto Rico y 
buscar unos consensos para que este pueblo finalmente vote 
sobre opciones reales, no sobre deseo y aspiraciones, sobre lo 
que es alcanzable. Mientras no se vote sobre lo que es posible 
y alcanzable, no vamos a resolver este problema.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gallisa follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.098
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.099
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.100
    
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Morales.

   STATEMENT OF EDGARDO MORALES, PROFESSOR OF ORGANIZATIONAL 
   PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, CAGUAS, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Morales. Buenas. Mi nombre es Edgardo Morales, soy 
profesor universitario. Como un ciudadano privado, me preocupa 
la forma en que los temas de identidad y cultura aparecen en la 
ley que esta ante su consideracion.
    Considero que esta ley parte de supuestos erroneos acerca 
de nuestra cultura, nuestra historia y nuestra identidad. 
Ademas es ambigua en cuanto a nuestras opciones para el futuro, 
especialmente la estadidad. La vision de la estadidad que 
aparece en esta ley la describe esencialmente como una relacion 
juridico- politica que existe entre diferentes jurisdicciones o 
estados. Es por esto que los estadistas hacen referencia 
constante a los temas de ciudadania y union permanente. Ambos 
terminos juridico- politicos. Entiendo que esta nocion de la 
estadidad ignora el desarrollo historico de su nacion. Durante 
su guerra civil, uno de los factores que hizo posible el 
movimiento Secesionista en los estados del sur, era el 
[uninteligible] Que la lealtad y la identificacion del 
ciudadano era con su estado y no con la Union. Su guerra civil 
se peleo para restaurar la union como una realidad juridico- 
politica y como una relacion psicologica. Como consecuencia, 
durante los ultimos ciento cincuenta anos, su pais se ha 
preocupado no solo por las relaciones entre el gobierno Federal 
y los estados, sino por asegurarse que sus ciudadanos se 
identifiquen a si mismos como Americanos. Mientras que la 
estadidad que se propone en esta ley ignora esta realidad 
historica, los lideres del pais en Puerto Rico la niegan. 
Proclaman que la Constitucion Estadounidense le da el derecho a 
los estados a promover el que sus ciudadanos se identifiquen 
con aquellos simbolos que los distinguen como pueblos 
separados.
    En nuestra ultima eleccion, mientras nuestro Gobernador 
aparecia en frente de la bandera Puertorriquena en la mayor 
parte de sus anuncios, la bandera Americana brillaba por su 
ausencia. Por otro lado, los lideres estadistas afirman que no 
existe problema con que nuestro equipo Olimpico bajo la 
estadidad compita en contra de los Estados Unidos en 
competencias internacionales.
    Deben entender senores Congresistas, que no estamos 
hablando meramente de una competencia atletica. Al igual que en 
su pais, nuestro equipo es un simbolo igual que nuestra bandera 
y nuestro himno nacional son simbolos. Representan lo que somos 
como un colectivo, como una unidad, como una nacion. Nuestro 
idioma nos es solo una herramienta de comunicacion. Es un 
simbolo que representa nuestra esencia de pueblo Caribeno y 
Latinoamericano.
    La fortaleza de nuestra identidad nacional nos ha permitido 
resistir los intentos por asimilarnos dentro de una cultura y 
un sistema politico extranjero, porque despues de todo lo que 
ustedes son en Puerto Rico, son extranjeros. Es por eso que los 
Puertorriquenos nos referimos a ustedes como ``los Americanos'' 
o ``los gringos''. Sus noticias aparecen en nuestros noticieros 
como

noticias internacionales y su bandera y su himno no estremecen 
nada a nuestro electorado. Por eso es que los estadistas no 
pueden apelar a los simbolos de su nacion para aglutinar a sus 
huestes. Aunque desean la ciudadania, muy pocos desean que se 
les refiera a ellos como Americanos.
    Para dramatizar este punto, les pregunto que le exh- les 
exhorto a que le pregunten a los lideres estadistas ocual es su 
pais? oCual es la bandera de su pais? Preguntenles, si son 
``Puerto Rican-Americans'', preguntenles si son Americanos. Los 
estadistas mas fervientes contestaran inequivocamente. La 
mayoria, sin embargo, disgregaran un poco y terminan hablando 
de la ciudadania Norteamericana.
    En cuanto a esto no han sido claro con nuestro pueblo ni 
con el suyo. La verdad es que para muchos de ellos la estadidad 
es un matrimonio de conveniencia, un arreglo legal sin amor, 
provocado por el miedo a la perdida de las ayudas Federales y 
del libre transito hacia los Estados Unidos. Me parece que 
ustedes tienen la responsabilidad de clarificar en esta ley lo 
que la estadidad significa desde un punto de vista de la 
psicologia y la identidad nacional. Esto es necesario, no solo 
para nosotros sino para su propio pueblo.
    Deben preguntarse si estan dispuestos a resucitar una 
vision que fue sepultada con la Guerra Civil, y ha creado una 
union que en su esencia seria una entidad multinacional, cuyos 
ciudadanos se vinculan a traves de lazos juridico- politicos y 
una ciudadania en comun, pero en donde sus lealtades 
psicologicas y emocionales, permanecen con su estado o su grupo 
nacional. Claro, siempre pueden seguir el curso de la 
ignorancia y la negacion. Pueden creer que todo lo que hacen es 
integrar una minoria etnica o cultural que ha sido discriminada 
politicamente. Sin embargo, no se enganen.
    Al considerar la estadidad, deben saber que estan aceptando 
en el seno de su union, una nacion Latinoamericana, cuyo 
proceso historico comenzo mucho antes que ustedes fueran 
colonizados y que ha desarrollado su propia identidad y 
cultura. Estaran aceptando en su seno una nacionalidad 
Latinoamericana, cuyos lideres de estadisticas- estadistas ya 
han proclamado su derecho a proteger su idioma Espanol, no 
importa los mandatos del Congreso.
    Lo que deben saber, senores Congresistas, es que si la 
clausula numero diez de la Constitucion nos protege, segun 
alegan los lideres estadistas, tambien nos permite escoger el 
idioma Espanol como el idioma del estado de Puerto Rico. Lo 
hemos declarado asi en el pasado. Nada impediria que lo 
volvieramos a hacer en el futuro. Al no ser como ustedes, 
seremos un cancer para su Union, representando y dirigiendo las 
fuerzas que habran de desintegrarlos.
    La necesidad de que su ley sea clara en cuanto a las 
implicaciones de las opciones que habran de redactar y en 
cuanto a su concepto de lo que es el pueblo de Puerto Rico, es 
tan importante para ustedes como para nosotros, ya que al 
tratar de resolver nuestros debates, estaran debatiendo los 
temas que son de fundamental importancia para su pueblo. 
oQuienes somos? oQuienes queremos ser? oCual habran de ser los 
lazos que nos unan? Esten seguros que al intentar definir su 
futuro, estaran definiendo el fut- nuestro futuro, estaran 
definiendo el suyo propio. Rueguenle a Dios que no cometan un 
error. La existencia de su nacion como hoy la conocen, esta en 
juego.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Morales follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.101
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.102
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.103
    
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Underwood.
    Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much. It has been a long time 
since I have been called a gringo, although I appreciate the--
--
    Mr. Morales. I exclude you from the category.
    Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much. I was hoping that you 
would give me some relief from that characterization.
    You touched on a very important point, Dr. Morales, on 
identity and nationhood, yet you have offered as an example the 
American Civil War.
    It strikes me that even though there is much sympathy and 
much empathy for the idea of a national identity and that that 
national identity is one that is of primary importance inside 
an individual, there are also many other identities in life and 
that, in fact, much of the history of the world in recent times 
has been moving in a direction that is not exactly comforting 
or compatible with nation states as such.
    So my question to you is, given the complexities of modern 
identity, given the fact that we are talking about one aspect 
of our lives and none of these are in isolation--and I am sure 
you readily admit as a fellow academic that none of these 
characteristics that we take with us are in isolation from 
others--and given the reality that at least, as has been 
portrayed to me, although there may be many explanations for 
support for independence as a political option has remained 
relatively stable over time and has declined from earlier 
decades, is it not conceivable that your characterization of 
identity as a national identity is seen by many people as just 
one dimension of their entire political personality and perhaps 
not the dominant one?
    Mr. Morales. Yes, let me answer that. I am a psychologist, 
so we could have a profound discussion about levels of identity 
and depths of identity and all those relevant terms.
    Mr. Underwood. That is why I am so relieved we are not.
    Mr. Morales. The point I am trying to make--or I was trying 
to make--in my presentation is that I believe that, really, the 
issue here is not about us but it is about your conception of 
who you are as a nation.
    The question really is whether it is important within the 
present framework of the United States and whether it is 
important for the Congress to consider your identity as a 
nation as a key element in any relationship or an inner 
relationship with a future state and the identification of 
inhabitants of that state with the idea of being part of the 
Nation and being, in a sense, Americans.
    My whole point is that, for the last 150 years, the key 
issue that has driven most of the policy of the Congress has 
been, and it is presently underlined, the whole question, 
around English only and other laws having to do with 
immigration and having to do with who is an American. I believe 
that that is a key point. Now, you have to make a decision 
about that. That is my whole point.
    What I think is confusing is when you start talking or 
making an equivalence between American citizenship and the 
psychological identification with being an American. I think 
those are two totally different things. I think you should 
consider that.
    Mr. Underwood. I think it is a point well taken, and I 
would hasten to point out that the debate inside the United 
States has not fully been resolved either. And although there 
are always people that have a very narrow definition as to what 
constitutes being American, there are also other more expansive 
views.
    Mr. Morales. My question is whether you would be willing to 
have a state where at least 50 percent of the people do not 
feel themselves to be Americans. That is just my point. Is that 
acceptable to the U.S. Congress, where half of the population 
of a future state, at least half of the population--I am not 
including the statehooders in this, but I imagine some 
percentage of those would resent being called americanos or at 
least they certainly do not call that themselves--would you be 
willing to accept that type of state?
    Now that is a question I think for the Congress to decide. 
What I am suggesting is that you should introduce that as part 
of the debate that you are having in your own Nation.
    Mr. Underwood. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think everyone who has given testimony, they obviously 
mean what they have said, they are very sincere, and I think 
their points of view are very, very clear. I have no questions.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you.
    I want to thank you very much. I think the views 
represented here and represented on other panels reflect the 
political history of this country. That is why I hate to keep 
beating a drum to one note here, but this is a very serious 
decision, and it should not be taken as anything other than 
that. It is very, very serious for the Congress, for the people 
we represent and for the people of Puerto Rico; and there is no 
way to get around that.
    One of the problems I have always had in the past when we 
have considered starting this process is that sometimes people 
thought this was a free vote. They thought this was something 
you could do for politics. You could appear one way or 
another--the statehooders, the commonwealthers, the 
independents or what have you. I do not think it is that way at 
all. I think--if anybody believes that, I think they are losing 
the dignity of the political and cultural history of Puerto 
Rico. I just think that is fundamental.
    I think that you have given us a great deal to think about 
and, hopefully, our colleagues in the Congress. Because this is 
not a trivial matter, and certainly it is not a trivial matter 
when we consider that worldwide dynamics of people in this day 
and age. I want to thank you very much for your testimony and 
for giving your time to the Committee.
    Mr. Ubinas. Senores Congresistas, una pregunta. Le habla 
nuevamente----
    Mr. Miller. Oh, excuse me, I'm sorry.
    Mr. Ubinas. Roberto Cardona Ubinas de la Union Patriotica 
Nacional. Todos los deponentes en este panel hemos coincidido 
en varios puntos, pero uno en particular. Quince compatriotas 
nuestros se encuentran presos cumpliendo condenas- largas 
condenas en Estados Unidos por el unico delito de defender la 
idea de la libertad en su propio pais. Nosotros interesamos que 
ustedes nos digan a nosotros, que ustedes van a hacer ahora con 
esta peticion que al unisono le hace la inmensa mayoria del 
pueblo Puertorriqueno.
    We would like to know, what is your answer to our request?
    Mr. Miller. That is quite easy. I have received the 
petition, I have received individual letters over the recent 
past, and I will do as I do with all those. I will look into 
it. I will not speak for others, but very clearly that is my 
situation. And those who chuckle do not know my political 
history.
    I thank you.
    Mr. Muriente Perez. Senor Congresista, si me permite a mi 
un tanto----
    Voice. Nosotros no admitimos eso, habla de ellas un 
poquito.
    Mr. Muriente Perez. Nosotros, como ustedes, entendemos la 
importancia de la situacion politica del pais. Esa es una de 
las razones por la que estamos aqui esta manana. Solo quiero 
hacer un senalamiento, conforme a esa importancia que se supone 
que se le este asignando a esto, el Por Tanto numero cinco de 
la Resolucion 1514 XV romano. . . 1514 romano XV de la ONU 
establece lo siguiente, muy brevemente. ``En los territorios en 
fideicomiso y no autonomos y en todos los demas territorios que 
no han logrado aun su independencia, deberan tomarse 
inmediatamente medidas para traspasar todos los poderes a los 
pueblos de esos territorios sin condiciones ni reservas en 
conformidad con su voluntad y sus derechos libremente 
expresados, y sin distincion de raza, credo ni color para 
permitirles gozar de una libertad y una independencia 
absoluta.''
    Si ustedes creen, como dice creer, en la aplicacion de la 
legalidad internacional para el caso de la descolonizacion de 
Puerto Rico, tendrian ustedes que comenzar por aplicar el Por 
Tanto numero cinco de la Resolucion 1514 Romano XV que supone 
la transferencia----
    Mr. Miller. Thank you.
    Mr. Muriente Perez. [continuing] de poderes al pueblo de 
Puerto Rico. De esa manera si podemos imprimirle esa 
importancia, que usted Congresista Miller dice que tiene este 
proceso. De otra manera, lamentablemente prevalece la 
unilateralidad del Congreso que usted representa.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. [Presiding] I will call the next panel: 
The Honorable Victor Garcia San Inocencio, Mr. Erick Negron-
Rivera, Ferdinand Lugo Gonzalez, Carlos A. Lopez-Rivera, Julian 
O. McConnie, and Joaquin Marquez.

 STATEMENT OF HON. VICTOR GARCIA SAN INOCENCIO, HOUSE MINORITY 
 LEADER, PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF 
             REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. We will start the panel now. We will 
start with Victor Garcia San Inocencio. Welcome.
    Mr. Inocencio. Muy buenas tardes. Nuestro saludo a los 
miembros del Congreso, al senor Presidente Actuante.
    Antes que nada, quisieramos que para proposito de registro, 
sea admitida nuestra ponencia alargada, que obviamente es mucho 
mas extensa de la que vamos a leer aqui, que fue sometida el 
jueves pasado para que sea admitida en record.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The statement by Mr. Victor Garcia San 
Inocencio has been submitted in writing and will be made part 
of the record. So ordered.
    Mr. Inocencio. Muchas gracias. Saludamos al senor 
Presidente y a los miembros de esta comision. Permitasenos 
dirigirnos a un asunto crucial debe ser objeto de tratamiento 
en la version final de este proyecto. Un asunto crucial mas, 
entre los muchos. oComo propiciamos una consulta sobre el 
futuro politico de Puerto Rico en la que el asfixiante poder 
economico de las corporaciones privadas y el gobierno 
controlado por el anexionista Partido Nuevo Progresista, no 
influyan indebidamente para favorecer una formula de status 
particular. Se trata de un asunto de equidad esencial.
    Nuestra historia politica reciente muestra la enorme 
influencia que ejercen las personas juridicas en los recaudos 
de fondos para las campanas politicas, junto a la utilizacion 
de dinero y recursos del pueblo para subvencionar esas 
campanas. La autorizacion de fondos y recursos publicos para 
adelantar la causa del partido politico que controla el 
gobierno.
    Es preciso que sus investigadores esten al tanto, de como a 
lo largo de nuestra historia politica, el partido politico 
incumbente se ha valido del presupuesto y los recursos publicos 
para apoyar su posicion politica. El asunto fue tratado por el 
Tribunal Supremo de Puerto Rico el ano pasado, concluyendo que 
se utilizaron indebidamente millones de dolares por el gobierno 
controlado por el PNP para resaltar su imagen.
    Se trata de un mal viejo del que no han estado exento 
ninguno de los dos partidos politicos que predican la union 
permanente con los Estados Unidos. Han tenido derecho otro 
union permanente con el presupuesto publico, para adelantar 
ventajeramente sus intereses partidistas y status politico.
    Segundo punto, el mal de los donativos y contribuciones 
politicas de las cam- de las corporaciones publicas. Los 
partidos politicos de la union permanente con el presupuesto, 
PNP y PPD, no se contentan con este abuso que burla cualquier 
aspiracion de que haya un proceso eleccionario o plebiscitario 
democratico. Anaden a su mofa, la practica habitual de requerir 
a contratistas gubernamentales, aportaciones economicas 
cuantiosas para financiar campanas politicas.
    Se crea una asombrosa simbiosis corporativa y de partido de 
gobierno. Cientos de campanas individuales de alcaldes, 
legisladores y de los partidos que ocupan las oficinas 
gubernamentales, son financiadas por contratistas y proveedores 
a traves de donativos. Lo cierto es, que lo que no se financia 
con dinero publico esquilmado ilicitamente, se financia con 
donativos corporativos de proveedores y suplidores. Para los 
contratistas inescrupulosos, tales donativos se traducen en una 
inversion economica de campana que sera recuperada con creces 
en el siguiente termino de gobierno.
    Punto numero tres, las raices del mal. Lo cierto es que la 
politica local al interior de la colonia, contiene un semillero 
de corrosion y de corrupcion. Acostumbrados a predicar, 
promover e intensificar la independencia economica hacia los 
Estados Unidos, los lideres politicos coloniales del PNP y del 
PPD se han encargado de hacer lo que halla que hacer para 
quedarse en el control de los cargos y han fomentado la 
dependencia economica y los miedos a la libertad a traves de 
los resortes de control economico.
    Numero cuatro, el remedio que proponemos. Sostenemos que 
bajo la clausula territorial, ustedes, miembros del Congreso, 
deben prohibir los donativos de contratistas del gobierno de 
Puerto Rico o el de los Estados Unidos y de las personas 
juridicas en general, a las campanas partidistas o de comites 
de accion politica dirigidos a favorecer algunas formulas de 
status final para Puerto Rico.
    Mas aun, sostenemos que el proyecto debe incluir tambien 
medidas coercitivas que prohiban la utilizacion de recursos 
gubernamentales y fondos publicos para promover directa o 
indirectamente cualquier campana de status. Existiria una 
excepcion a este principio y seria la de los fondos 
expresamente consignados en la ley de plebiscito Federal o 
estatal para el uso en campanas.
    Una mencion final, urge que se modifique el proyecto para 
restringir los donativos corporativos y de contratistas 
gubernamentales a las campanas de status. Resulta igualmente 
urgente que se controle cualquier gasto gubernamental en 
especie, anuncios de dinero publico, para favorecer a alguna 
formula de status.
    Gracias por su atencion.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Inocencio follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.104
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.105
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.106
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.107
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.108
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.109
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.110
    
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Senor Erick Negron-Rivera.

STATEMENT OF ERICK G. NEGRON-RIVERA, TAX POLICY ADVISOR, PUERTO 
       RICO INDEPENDENCE PARTY, PUERTO NUEVO, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Negron-Rivera. Good afternoon. Mi nombre es Erick 
Gustavo Negron-Rivera y comparezco como asesor economico del 
Partido Independentista Puertorriqueno. En conversaciones sobre 
el Proyecto Young y al igual que ocurrio en las discusiones 
plebiscitarias de 1989 a 1991, varios congresistas ya han 
empezado al PIP su interes por conocer lo que seria el perfil 
economico de la independencia para Puerto Rico. Es mi intencion 
resumir los contornos basicos de esa opcion de status.
    Durante las decadas de 1950 y 1960, Puerto Rico logro un 
gran crecimiento economico, alcanzando en el 1970 un producto 
per capita casi similar al de Israel, Italia, Japon y Austria. 
En los ultimos veinticinco anos, sin embargo, la experiencia ha 
sido muy distinta. Un buen numero de paises independientes que 
en 1970 eran mas pobres o mucho mas pobres de Puerto Rico, como 
Singapur, Malta, Portugal, Irlanda y Argentina, entre otros, 
nos ha sobrepasado en producto per capita a veces por mucho.
    A la vez, los paises que en 1970 eran mas ricos que Puerto 
Rico, han aumentado considerablemente su ventaja sobre la isla 
mientras que esta no ha sobrepasado en producto per capita a un 
solo pais desde entonces.
    El relativo estancamiento de Puerto Rico frente a tantos 
paises independientes no ha sido casualidad. Las ventajas 
economicas de la independencia, en efecto, se han multiplicado 
como consecuencia del gradual desmantelamiento de las barreras 
comerciales y los avances en la inversion trasnacional durante 
el ultimo cuarto de siglo.
    Hoy dia la independencia en vez de impedirle a un pais 
pequeno el acceso a los principales mercados mundiales, le 
permite a los paises competir eficazmente en la economia 
globalizada, ajustando sus politicas de incentivos a sus 
propias necesidades particulares.
    En el caso de Puerto Rico, la independencia permitiria 
accesar [sic] Otros mercados aparte del Norteamericano con 
mucha mayor facilidad que en la actualidad. Al dejar de aplicar 
las restricciones Norteamericanas de importacion, tarifa, 
cuotas, presuntos requisitos de calidad, leyenda de cabotaje, 
etcetera, la isla podria comprar bienes y servicios del 
extranjero a un costo mas bajo que el actual, tanto en el 
renglon de los productos de consumo como en el de los insumos 
agricolas e industriales.
    A la vez, la capacidad de suscribir tratados comerciales 
con otros paises, haria posible ampliar nuestro mercado de 
exportacion, principalmente en el Caribe, America Latina y 
Europa. Por otro lado, en el area contributiva, tras la 
reciente eliminacion de la Seccion 936, Puerto Rico ya ha 
quedado sujeto para propositos de nuevas inversiones, a las 
mismas normas Federales generales aplicables a las inversiones 
Norteamericanas en paises independientes. Paises como Irlanda y 
Singapur han usado estas normas durante decadas para atraer 
exitosamente industrias Norteamericanas. Bajo la independencia 
mas aun, Puerto Rico podria suscribir tratados de exencion 
contributiva con los paises de Europa Occidental, Japon y 
Canada, diversificando asi sus fuentes de inversion y 
tecnologia.
    Si Puerto Rico, usando las herramientas de la 
independencia, lograra reducir en tan solo uno por ciento anual 
el costo de sus actuales compras de bienes y servicios en el 
exterior, ya fuere mediante el acceso a mercados mas baratos o 
mediante la sustitucion competitiva de importaciones, se 
estaria ahorrando a los diez anos mas dinero del que 
actualmente recibe en transferencias unilaterales del gobierno 
Federal, es decir, excluyendo derechos adquiridos y excluyendo 
los gastos operacionales de las agencias Federales en la isla.
    El beneficio de esas transferencias que han convertido a la 
isla en un gueto economico, han sido a lo sumo dudoso. Lo que 
si ha beneficiado a Puerto Rico, ha sido la cultura de libre 
mercado que ha desarrollado en su relacion con los Estados 
Unidos. Esa cultura unida a nuestra localizacion geografica, 
infraestructura fisica y adelanto tecnico, situa a Puerto Rico 
como foco potencial de enlace comercial y liderato economico en 
el Caribe.
    Frente a las propuestas del ELA y la estadidad, basadas en 
perpetuar y aumentar la dependencia que desmoraliza a Puerto 
Rico y socaba sus fibras de convivencia, la independencia se 
basa en el trabajo digno, productivo y autosostenible. Esa 
diferencia fundamental hace de la independencia la mejor opcion 
economica tanto para Puerto Rico como para el Tesoro de los 
Estados Unidos.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Negron-Rivera follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.111
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.112
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.113
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.114
    
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Negron-Rivera.
    Mr. Gonzalez.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FERDINAND LUGO GONZALEZ, 
REPRESENTATIVE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, 
                          PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Gonzalez. Buenas tardes, senor Presidente de la 
Comision de Recursos, senor Comisionado Residente Romero-
Barcelo y a los distinguidos congresistas que estan presentes y 
nos visitan.
    Se dirige a ustedes el Licenciado Ferdinand Lugo. Primero 
bienvenidos al Distrito Representativo numero diecisiete de 
Mayaguez, y al area oeste del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto 
Rico. Represento en la legislatura el distrito en el cual nos 
encontramos y tambien a miles de Puertorriquenos que como yo, 
estan indignados ante la poca o ninguna consideracion politica 
seria que el lenguaje del Proyecto 856 ha tenido para el pueblo 
de Puerto Rico y sobre todo, para su mayor logro politico- 
juridico: el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico.
    Puerto Rico ha tenido y tiene una tradicion autonomista, 
que se materializo por vez primera luego de luchas, 
sufrimientos, encarcelamientos y negociaciones en la carta 
autonomica con Espana alla para el ano de 1897. Este ano 
precisamente, celebramos los hijos y las hijas de la nacion 
Puertorriquena, cien anos de haber obtenido nuestro primer 
proyecto de gobierno propio, la carta autonomica, que dio 
origen al primer gabinete constitucional y gobierno de 
Puertorriquenos, inaugurado el 14 de febrero de 1898.
    Luego vino la guerra Hispanoamericana y sin ser Puerto Rico 
parte del acto belico, fuimos ocupados militarmente por los 
Estados Unidos y nuestro primer gobierno autonomico 
Puertorriqueno fue desecho por via de la ley congresional 
Foraker.
    Volvimos de nuevo a la lucha de pueblos, a rescatar el 
gobierno propio, el orden constitucional civil, el idioma 
Espanol para nuestros hijos, mejorar las condiciones de vida, 
restaurar nuestra naturaleza de pueblo dominado y mancillado. 
Cincuenta y tres anos despues lo logramos, producto de otras 
luchas, sufrimientos, encarcelamiento, persecucion y 
negociacion con el Congreso de los Estados Unidos de America 
para llegar a un pacto y obtener gobierno propio.
    En el ano de 1950, luego de que el pueblo de los Estados 
Unidos y la comunidad internacional vieron la fuerza, pujanza y 
exigencias del pueblo de Puerto Rico por obtener mayor 
autonomia, un gobierno propio y una constitucion, el Congreso 
aprobo la Ley 600, la cual fue ratificada por mayoria del 
pueblo de Puerto Rico. Posteriormente se perfecciono un pacto 
al aprobar el Congreso y el Presidente firmar, la Ley Publica 
447 el 3 de marzo de 1952 y completarse un pacto bilateral 
entre dos pueblos.
    Fue de tal manera reconocido por los Estados Unidos el 
pacto y el nacimiento del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, 
que el propio Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos, a 
traves de la delegacion Estadounidense, presento ante el 
Consejo General de las Naciones Unidas, la posicion de que 
Puerto Rico habia superado su condicion colonial y habia sido 
investido de los atributos de gobierno propio con su soberania, 
como una entidad politica autonoma.
    Ese pacto y nueva relacion politica ha sido respaldada por 
nuestro pueblo en tres plebiscitos, habiendo sido el ultimo en 
el 1993, y ahora el Congreso pretende con este Proyecto 856 
hacernos retroceder en la historia, entregar los derechos 
colectivos alcanzados con nosotros en asociacion con los 
Estados Unidos, y volver al coloniaje de antes de 1952 u 
obligarnos a optar por la estadidad en contra de nuestra 
voluntad. Obviamente, eso no lo puede permitir este pueblo.
    Este proyecto, aparte de ser indigno y denigrante para 
nuestro pueblo, esta siendo legislativamente procesado como si 
las vistas publicas fuesen un ejercicio investigativo rutinario 
del Congreso, y no un proyecto de la seriedad que amerita la 
situacion del status de este pais. Advertir a los testigos que 
pueden ser bajo juramento tiene el efecto, si no la intencion 
de amedrentar a los deponentes, o por lo menos crea una 
disgustante opinion sobre los procesos de la Comision y sus 
fines.
    Senores congresistas, cuarenta y cinco anos despues de 
haberse constituido el Estado Libre Asociado ratificado en tres 
ocasiones por los Puertorriquenos, ustedes van a entender, van 
a tener que entender de corazon, que la nacion Puertorriquena 
no quiere ser incorporada como otro estado de la Union. 
Exigimos el respeto al pacto establecido en 1952 y vamos en 
camino a solicitar mas gobierno propio y mas poderes para el 
Estado Libre Asociado. Si ustedes aceptan la definicion 
propuesta por el Presidente del Partido Popular Democratico, 
aceptan las definiciones propuestas por las otras dos formulas 
tan dignas como la nuestra y se comprometen implantarla en un 
termino razonable el mandato del pueblo, entonces estaremos 
ante un proceso justo, en el cual podemos participar sin ceder 
los derechos, garantias, privilegios obtenidos en mas de cien 
anos de lucha, por autonomia y gobierno propio.
    Muchas gracias, senor Presidente.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzalez follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.115
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.116
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.117
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.118
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.119
    
    Mr. Young. I thank you.
    Carlos Lopez-Rivera.

 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CARLOS A. LOPEZ-RIVERA, PRESIDENT, 
     MAYORS ASSOCIATION OF PUERTO RICO, DORADO, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Lopez-Rivera. Muy buenos dias, senores Congresistas. Mi 
nombre es Carlos A. Lopez-Rivera, Alcalde de la ciudad de 
Dorado y Presidente de la Asociacion de Alcaldes de Puerto 
Rico, que contiene el cincuenta por ciento de la poblacion de 
nuestra patria. Todos defendemos el Estado Libre Asociado en la 
forma en que el Congreso lo definio en el informe y en la 
legislacion que aprobo el 10 de octubre del 1990.
    Este Proyecto Young es un proyecto enganoso. Llama a las 
cosas por nombres distintos a lo que son. A la colonia la llama 
Estado Libre Asociado. A la independencia la llama Libre 
Asociacion. La trampa es clara. Quienes conocen bien a Puerto 
Rico saben que atesoramos nuestra identidad propia, porque 
somos una nacion con su propia historia, su propio idioma y su 
propia cultura, de la cual es eje fundamental nuestro idioma 
Espanol.
    De igual manera, atesoramos la ciudadania de los Estados 
Unidos, que adquirimos en el 1917 y que hemos honrado y 
defendido con nuestras vidas. Si Puerto Rico atesora su propia 
identidad a la vez que atesora la ciudadania Americana, tiene 
que votar por una formula de status donde dos pilares de las 
aspiraciones del sentimiento Puertorriquenos puedan lograrse en 
armonia Este proyecto es un proyecto mezquino, pequeno. Le hace 
dano a los Estados Unidos y le hace dano a Puerto Rico. Yo no 
se de leyes, pero si se que las Leyes 600 del 1950 y la Ley 447 
del 1952 hablan de un pacto. Puede haber diferencias sobre la 
naturaleza de ese pacto, pero lo que no puede haber es una 
ceguera tal que se niegue que en esas leyes se dice lo que 
cualquier persona que sabe leer sabe que dicen. Venir ahora con 
el legalismo de que el Congreso de los Estados Unidos no tenia 
autoridad para hacer lo que hizo o tratar de hacer aparecer a 
los Estados Unidos como un pais enganador, mentiroso ante los 
ojos del mundo, cuando le informo a las Naciones Unidas lo que 
le informo en el 1953, representa un servicio pobre a la 
democracia Americana.
    En este momento, le planteo a ustedes lo siguiente. oQue 
credibilidad nos merece lo que ustedes digan y hagan hoy? 
Senores Congresistas, no se puede jugar asi con el destino de 
un pueblo, de una nacion.
    El Proyecto Young, un proyecto de imposicion de la 
estadidad. . . Yo le digo a ustedes los siguiente, el fuerte no 
puede abusar del debil, y aqui me refiero a la debilidad en el 
sentido de fuerza economica, de poderio militar, porque 
moralmente y en orgullo somos tan fuerte como el mas.
    La verdad es mas fuerte que el engano. La nacion Americana 
es una historia gloriosa, de ese respeto al ser humano y a los 
derechos que la asisten. Este proyecto es una negacion y 
representa un bochorno para los Estados Unidos. Si you fuese 
Congresista como lo son ustedes, me avergonzaria de auspiciar 
un proyecto como este.
    Les propongo lo siguiente, primero, descarten este proyecto 
ofensivo. Segundo, eliminen toda sospecha fundado de que los 
proponentes de la legislacion estan parcializados hacia una 
formula de estadidad. Tercero, expresen la realidad con una 
vision mas respetuosa de la historia politica y juridica de 
nuestra patria, Puerto Rico. Cuarto, incorporen a los 
propulsores de las tres formulas politicas en la redaccion de 
distintos borradores, de los cuales se produzca uno final que 
sea aceptable a todos. Quinto, sometan la legislacion 
plebiscitaria al modelo de la Ley 600. Sexto, dispongan, que de 
no tener ningun formula mas del cincuenta por ciento de los 
votos emitidos, se celebrara una nueva votacion entre las 
formulas con el mayor numero de votos. Setimo, comprometanse en 
aceptar la decision del pueblo en cuanto a la preferencia que 
este exprese por cualquiera de las formulas de status, 
legislando para que la decision de Puerto Rico sea 
autoejecutable. Octavo, una vez se certifiquen los resultados 
del plebiscito, el pueblo queda autorizado a convocar una 
asamblea constituyente para establecer los procedimientos y 
adoptar las medidas necesarias para coordinar con los Estados 
Unidos la implantacion de la formula de status triunfante en un 
periodo no mayor de tres anos.
    Senores Congresistas, es posible que no todos ustedes esten 
conscientes de la trampa que representa esta legislacion. Yo 
los invito a examinar con detenimiento todo este proceso y toda 
esta propuesta. Puerto Rico no se merece este atropello. Esta 
legislacion es un acto de tirania. Puerto Rico se merece un 
trato justo, honrando la relacion que por casi cien anos hemos 
mantenido con los Estados Unidos, relacion que Puerto Rico ha 
honrado hasta [sic] La. . . A ofrendar la vida de sus hijos.
    Les dejo senores Congresistas, para que hablen con su 
conciencia, pero sobre todo, para que sus conciencias le hablen 
a su entendimiento. Puerto Rico, Borinquen, nuestra patria, se 
lo habra de agradecer.
    Muchas gracias.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez-Rivera follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.120
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.121
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.122
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.123
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.124
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.125
    
    Mr. Young. Senator?

  STATEMENT OF JULIAN O. McCONNIE, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW, RIO 
                      PIEDRAS, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. McConnie. It is indeed an honor to be talking to the 
most important deliberative body in the world, and I know and 
expect that attention of such talented persons will lead to a 
solution in this matter.
    According to instructions, the first thing you have to say 
is your status. My preferred status is statehood. I do not 
object to the approval of this bill as long as it offers all 
Puerto Ricans the opportunity to back their respective 
ideologies equitably and democratically.
    As a lifelong Puerto Rican statehooder active since the 
early fifties as President of Citizens for State 51, which 
Carlos remembers well, I have learned to respect the ideals and 
sentiments of those who differ with my statehood ideal. After 
all, it is from their ranks that additional votes must be 
obtained to attain statehood. Therefore, I must strongly object 
to the unfair attitude against Commonwealth repeatedly 
expressed in the past and the present Young bill, perhaps 
conflicting with matters under the control, not of this 
Committee.
    This clashes with everything that I have been taught during 
more than 40 years to the effect that a plebiscite process must 
be fair and not mixed with a normal elective process. The 
voters are the ones to decide the issues as to the preferred 
status, not the Young Committee. As testified on Saturday by 
nonpartisan witnesses, the choice, of course, must be within 
the pertinent constitutional and legal parameters.
    I am glad to see that Congressman George Miller said 
Saturday that it must be a fair and open process. That is fine. 
We are in agreement. So this Committee has a great amount of 
work to do amending the Young bill in order to bring that 
about, and I am sure that you will do it. We offer our 
cooperation. I don't think this is going to be a short session 
nor is it going to be easy. It is hard.
    What you have before you is very difficult. I know that. 
Nobody said being a Congressman was an easy job. You guys have 
to work like hell, and this is a very tough problem. We will 
help you in any way we can. We are helping you now with our 
limited statement here.
    Unfortunately, Saturday's hearing confirmed this is 
anything but fair and open. The angry and offensive 
demonstrations were to be expected in view of the provocation 
of this bill. You cannot strip from the present legal status of 
Puerto Rico all pretense of legality without offending many 
Puerto Ricans.
    To many it would seem that Public Law 600 and Public Law 
447 of the U.S. Congress creating and confirming Commonwealth 
are still in effect until annulled by the courts or other 
proper authorities, which has not happened. The 2-year thing is 
not that easy. You can't just say if not, I will go to Congress 
and not listen to any law that is passed more than 2 years and 
disobey it. This is much more complicated than that.
    In this case, that is not enough of an explanation. Maybe 
there are explanations, and this bill, this Committee will 
bring them about. They have not said so now. You don't even say 
whether your bill is valid because Public Law 600 and Public 
Law 447 were approved by a different Congress.
    It is no small wonder that the Chairman had difficulty 
controlling the noisy behavior of commonwealthers and 
statehooders. When you provoke a hornet's nest, you are not 
going to get flowers and kisses in return. But Chairman Young, 
to his credit, handled the matter with restraint and great 
patience. Thank you, Congressman Young.
    Saturday's hearings confirmed that the sooner the unfair, 
improper and unnecessary hostile attacks on Commonwealth are 
amended away and all differences of opinion are presented in a 
fair and impartial manner, as all the previous status bills 
were able to do, I appeared before all five of them, in writing 
or in person, and all of them were able to define the issues 
and go ahead, the sooner the level playing field that such a 
serious matter demands will be created.
    It should also be remembered that any victory in a flawed 
and unfair plebiscite could indeed be hollow and last only 
until its first encounter in court. The ones that don't win 
here could be in court the next day, unless this Committee 
sticks to what they have to stick to, setting up the rules, but 
don't try to decide the issues. Because you have not the 
authority. That is what the plebiscite is for. We should also 
note the fact that commonwealthers have not completely 
eliminated the possibility of their not participating in what 
they will consider an unfair plebiscite. They said we are 
listening to you, but are not saying we are going ahead with 
the whole thing. In all the past bills and hearings, 
Commonwealth has participated. So from any objective point of 
view, this could constitute a very serious problem.
    Because statehood is the Crown Jewel, the Holy Grail, the 
Super Bowl of American democracy, it must be earned, and earned 
in fair combat. I have held for a long time that the only way 
to deserve statehood is by decisively, overwhelmingly defeating 
Commonwealth, like Alaska and Hawaii defeated their opposition 
to statehood. We Puerto Ricans have not done that. We have not 
earned that.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Do you have much longer to go?
    Mr. McConnie. No, I don't have much longer to go. Just one 
paragraph, and then it is over. I have another statement. This 
is shorter.
    This will take much more than a mere partisan effort as 
shown by the defeat in the 1993 status plebiscite, despite 
controlling all the marbles. I know it is very hard, but 
somehow you, the Committee, has to distinguish between 
nonpartisan idealogy and partisanship. This is not a fight 
between the parties. This is between statehood, Commonwealth 
and independence, and you guys have to fight this out, not me. 
I merely talk here, and you can forget me. But eventually that 
is one thing you will have to decide.
    What I am telling you is really ideological and not 
partisan. So I tell people instead of attacking the loyalty of 
commonwealthers to the U.S., it simply must not be continued, 
because it is not the actual truth and harms statehood.
    I served 30 years in the Army. We did not have any cases of 
disloyalty of American soldiers from Puerto Rico for partisan 
or ideological beliefs. There is no Puerto Rican Army. As a 
Civilian Aide, I served the Army from 1970 to 1984, and have 
been Civilian Aide Emeritus since 1985 to date. The said 
experience has been continued. There has never been any 
disloyalty of any Puerto Rican soldier in the Army with their 
uniform on.
    I believe and trust that the 200 years of Ballots and not 
Bullets of both the U.S. and Puerto Rico will make Puerto Rico 
the 51st State, especially if we Puerto Rican stateholders show 
the proper respect and admiration for commonwealthers and for 
all Puerto Ricans and for those who have chosen to be here and 
stay with us.
    No one ever said being a U.S. Congressman is an easy job. 
It isn't. That is all, thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McConnie follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.126
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.127
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.128
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.129
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.130
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.131
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.132
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.133
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.134
    
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. [Presiding.] Thank you. Mr. Joaquin 
Marquez?

    STATEMENT OF JOAQUIN A. MARQUEZ, ESQUIRE, SPRINGFIELD, 
                    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

    Mr. Marquez. Chairman Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Underwood, Mr. 
Romero, my name is Joaquin Marquez, and I appear before you as 
a private citizen. I have been a resident of the Old Dominion, 
the proud State of Virginia, for the last 29 years. In the 
seminal book, a Nation of Immigrants, Daniel Patrick Moynihan 
richly describes the successive waves of immigrants that form 
the fabric of our Nation, as well as their legacy.
    I am a part of that legacy and a part of that immigrant 
wave that has helped build our Nation, the great wave of Puerto 
Rican immigrants that is still struggling to earn its rightful 
place in the American melting pot.
    Although my generation did not land at Ellis Island, it 
landed at Idlewild and Newark in search of the same thing, a 
better future. My generation's contribution to the general 
commonwealth is no less valuable than the contributions of 
earlier waves of immigrants that washed upon our shores.
    Because of time constraints, I would like to address only 
two very sensitive issues relating to the proposed legislation: 
who should be allowed to vote in the referendum; and, the 
requirement that English be used as the official lingua franca 
for the Federal Government in Puerto Rico.
    The issue of who may vote may be disposed of very easily. 
However much I love my Borinquen, and I come from Humacao, I 
cannot in good conscience vote in the proposed referendum 
because I am no longer a resident of the island. Only those 
persons who will personally have to bear the direct 
consequences of the results of the proposed referendum should 
have the right to vote. Only those who have a direct stake in 
the outcome, regardless of where they were born, should be the 
determinants of Puerto Rico's future status.
    Let those nonresidents who demand the right to vote by 
proclaiming their love for Puerto Rico prove their love by 
returning to our island and contributing their sweat, toil and 
talent to the building of a better community.
    Let me quickly turn to the issue of language. Puerto Ricans 
have been enslaved by a political system under Commonwealth 
status that has used language to intentionally create an 
economic, social, and political ghetto. By failing to teach 
English, Commonwealth politicians have erected an 
insurmountable barrier to opportunity and progress for Puerto 
Ricans. The result has been that at least three generations of 
Puerto Ricans have been condemned to economic slavery and 
dependence on the island, and particularly, on the mainland.
    It is interesting to note that the leading supporters of 
Commonwealth all speak excellent English, and even though they 
chose to not speak English here, they have attended Ivy League 
and other prestigious mainland schools and universities. It is 
cruel for Commonwealth leaders to impose the crushing burden of 
English language illiteracy on the people of Puerto Rico, while 
forcing many to migrate to drug-infested mainland ghettos in 
search of meaningful employment.
    When Commonwealth leaders say that most Puerto Ricans 
cannot read and write the English language well, they are 
indicting themselves. Puerto Ricans have not learned more 
English simply because Commonwealth leaders have deprived them 
of the opportunity to learn the language.
    Before Commonwealth was established, English was taught in 
all the public schools by teachers properly schooled in the 
language, many of whom were retired teachers from the mainland. 
The Commonwealth leadership, then headed by former Governor 
Munoz Marin, recognized that a fully bilingual Puerto Rico 
would have the option of seeking statehood or easily 
transferring to the mainland.
    In order to preclude statehood and to prevent a brain 
drain, they elected to discontinue the teaching of English 
coequally with Spanish. Under the guise of preserving our 
cultural identity, they thus created an artificial barrier, in 
the hope that Puerto Ricans would not seek the full measure of 
their American citizenship.
    In spite of this barrier, over 1 million Puerto Ricans fled 
the Commonwealth to fetid mainland ghettos in search of a 
better future. The people of Puerto Rico have come to see the 
perfidy of this situation and have increasingly turned to 
statehood as the fulfillment of their hopes and aspirations in 
their inalienable right to pursue happiness and economic 
progress. It is high time that this ugly secret be exposed and 
corrected.
    If English has not supplanted Spanish after nearly a 
century of American domination, I submit it will not do so when 
Puerto Rico attains its full rights as a State of the Union. 
Puerto Ricans must master the language of Cervantes as well as 
the language of Shakespeare in order to realize the full 
potential of their God-given talents.
    I disdain those who denigrate the abilities and talents of 
my fellow islanders. Puerto Rican doctors, lawyers, carpenters, 
mechanics, barbers, whether professionals or laborers, are no 
less capable than their counterparts on the mainland. They may 
just be unable to realize their full worth simply because of a 
language handicap. Puerto Ricans need to be apprised of the 
terrible price they are paying as a result of a failed 
ethnocentric policy imposed by Commonwealth leaders in order to 
keep them in a linguistic reservation.
    Almost 38 years ago, I appeared in support of statehood in 
Puerto Rico before a subcommittee of this Committee's 
predecessor, the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, 
which was then chaired by Mr. Wayne Aspinall. I was a 17-year-
old student then. At that time statehood was supported by a 
small minority of the electorate. What gave me great hope that 
in time, in spite of the long odds, my fellow Puerto Ricans 
would come to appreciate the many blessings of statehood was 
the shining example of your own State's struggle, Mr. Chairman, 
to add Alaska's bright star to the constellation of American 
stars in our flag.
    Ernest Gruening's life-long fight to attain full equality 
under the Constitution for all Alaskans had finally borne 
fruit. His successful struggle kindled a passionate fire for 
equality in me and many of my generation.
    I have always struggled in defense of the proposition that 
all Americans cannot be equal as long as one citizen is 
unequal. The world has turned many times since that day, but 
the fire has only grown stronger in me. Let this be the 
Congress that brings about full equality for Puerto Rico, 
ending the stench of a century of colonialism that stains both 
the soul of my people and the conscience of our Nation. Let 
this be the Congress that fulfills the implied promise of full 
equality through statehood made to Puerto Ricans when 
citizenship was granted in 1917.
    Let this be the Congress that burnishes our Nation's honor 
by proving to a doubting world that the price of admission to 
the blessings of full equality under statehood is not measured 
by the amount of tax dollars paid, but by the recognition of 
our continuing love and commitment to the American ideals of 
freedom and democracy embodied in our national Constitution.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Marquez follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.135
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.136
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.137
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.138
    
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Marquez.
    I would like to make a couple of statements before we go 
into the questions. One of them is regarding what has been said 
about whether the United States lied or not at the United 
Nations. I want to say that my belief and my understanding, 
because of what was said, is that the United States lied, but 
they didn't lie by themselves. The Government of Puerto Rico 
was part of the conspiracy of that lie. The Government of 
Puerto Rico supported that lie, and the administration then in 
effect in Puerto Rico actually proposed they go to the United 
Nations and relieve the United States from having to submit the 
reports to the United Nations, because what they said to the 
United Nations was that in Puerto Rico, a full measure of self-
government had been achieved. And now I am in Congress, and I 
don't have a right to vote on the Floor, and I see there every 
day laws being passed that affect Puerto Rico, that obligate 
Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico has to abide by them.
    So, therefore, there is no full measure of self-government. 
Whoever says that there is a full measure of self-government 
here in Puerto Rico, we are not telling the truth. Whoever said 
it before, didn't tell the truth. It wasn't only the U.S., it 
was also the administration in Puerto Rico at that time.
    The other thing I would like to say for a historical 
perspective is the statements that something is unfair as far 
as the Commonwealth is concerned. I think we should be 
concerned with the fairness to the people, not fairness as a 
status, but to the people. The people of Puerto Rico, when they 
are presented with a decision, that the decisions are fair to 
them, that they are decisions which are realistic. That is what 
we should be concerned about.
    If one of the options contains elements that are not 
realistic, either constitutionally, legally, or politically, we 
should take care that they are not included, and that is why we 
should be concerned. We should be fair to the people of Puerto 
Rico, not to statehood and not independence and not to 
Commonwealth.
    And to say that the reason is because the Commonwealth 
Party has said that they might boycott this plebiscite, that is 
nothing new. The reason that the Commonwealth party had 
participated in the prior plebiscites is because they were the 
ones that formulated those plebiscites.
    When Commonwealth was adopted, the second party in Puerto 
Rico was the Independence Party, and they boycotted the whole 
process. They boycotted the process for two reasons: They 
didn't like the process, and they also knew they were going to 
lose; so why go through the process? That is one of the reasons 
they boycotted the process.
    Then came the plebiscite in 1967. In 1967 there was a 
plebiscite that gave the three options, and the two parties 
that represented those options at that time, they both 
boycotted the plebiscite. Both parties boycotted, the 
Republican Party and the Independence Party, and only groups 
organized by themselves went to represent their options.
    So every time we have had a plebiscite, the opposing 
parties have the tendency to boycott it, because they realize 
they are going to lose, and that is the only reason there will 
be a boycott to a plebiscite.
    Of course we learned a lesson in the 1967 plebiscite, and 
that is, by boycotting the plebiscite, the Republican Party 
disappeared and a new party sprung up, so that is something the 
Popular Party will have to look at.
    But I want to bring this into perspective, because the 
first to boycott is not only that the people might be 
dissatisfied with what is said, but also because they feel they 
are going to lose. If they felt they were going to win the 
plebiscite, I am sure they would participate.
    Now I would like to ask some questions about the--to 
Ferdinand Lugo Gonzalez.
    When I hear your statement, I wonder, ask myself, why, if 
you feel that way about the United States, do you want to be a 
U.S. citizen?
    Mr. Gonzalez. Senor Comisionado Residente, voy a 
mencionarle unos asuntos personales. Mi senor Padre, fue 
veterano de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, mi hermano mayor 
veterano, mi segundo hermano veterano, y este servidor tiene 
diecisiete anos de servicios con la Fuerza Armada de los 
Estados Unidos. O sea, yo no tengo que estarle probando a nadie 
si yo aprecio la ciudadania Americana. No tengo que estar 
probandoselo a nadie. Eso es eh. . . Se concedio y no se debe 
estar discutiendo Lo que a mi si me preocupa es lo siguiente, 
por eso yo planteo en mi ponencia, que respetemos el pacto. Con 
mi accion personal, la de mi padre, la de mi hermano, la de mis 
familiares, nosotros cumplimos con nuestra parte del pacto y 
ahora resulta que en el proceso, fuimos enganados. Ahora 
resulta, que del 1952 para aca, no hubo pacto. Ahora resulta 
que el sacrificio de los Puertorriquenos se hizo como parte del 
producto de un engano.
    Aqui no debe estar en ``issue'' la cuestion de la 
ciudadania Americana. Se concedio en 1917, los que nacieron 
posterior a eso son ciudadanos por el derecho natural. Eso no 
es un asunto que debe estar en discusion aqui. O sea, los 
Puertorriquenos somos Puertorriquenos, la nacion Puertorriquena 
con ciudadania Americana. Lo que a mi me preocupa en todo esto 
y yo le respeto obviamente su posicion que usted es el 
Comisionado de todos los Puertorriquenos aunque no estoy- estoy 
en total desacuerdo con su posicion, pero respeto obviamente, 
porque yo cumplo siempre mi parte del pacto. Ahora, me preocupa 
cuando la otra parte no la cumple. Bien, entonces me preocupa 
por ejemplo en estos momentos, la posicion suya que luce que es 
la posicion de esta Comision, si no me corrigen, es que los 
Estados Unidos en confabulacion cuando vino a Puerto Rico, 
enganaron al mundo.
    Las consecuencias de eso van a ser que si resentimientos 
hay contra los Estados Unidos en estos momentos y ustedes lo 
vieron en el panel anterior, Lolita Lebron, mancillada, danada 
en su espiritu. Si resentimiento habia, ahora despues de las 
expresiones. . . No, si lo que paso fue que no hubo ningun 
pacto, esto todo era un engano, obviamente los Estadolibristas 
vamos a ir a los tribunales. Por lo menos yo voy a los 
tribunales. Pero va a haber mas resentimiento--en este pais.
    Va a haber mas resentimiento en este pais, porque siguen 
dividiendo al pueblo de Puerto Rico. Yo tengo la fuerza moral 
para exigirle el pacto, le di diecisiete anos de servicio, 
todavia estoy en la reserva activa. Mi padre, mi hermano, mi 
otro hermano. . . Yo tengo la fuerza moral. Ahora resulta que 
no hubo pacto, pues vamos a los tribunales. Pero el problema de 
todo esto es que siguen dividiendo al pueblo de Puerto Rico y 
eso es mas lamentable porque crea mas resentimiento.
    Tambien quiero tocar. . . Aprovechar la oportunidad, 
alguien toco el asunto del Ingles. O sea, que los 
Puertorriquenos el problema del aprendizaje del Ingles. No, el 
problema del aprendizaje del Ingles de los Puertorriquenos. Es 
que aqui no se ha ensenado Ingles para que aprendamos Ingles. 
Aqui se ha ensenado Ingles para desnaturalizar a los 
Puertorriquenos. A mi siempre me llega. . . A mi. . . 
Inmediatamente me llega a la mente, el cuento que nos 
estuvieron contando de ninos, de Jorge Washington, el que nunca 
dijo una mentira. Yo quiero hacer igual que Jorge Washington 
que nunca dijo una mentira. Entonces nos estan vendiendo, a 
nuestros ninos le han estado vendiendo durante todo el siglo, 
de que la mejor forma de ser mejor ciudadano es parecerse a 
Jorge Washington en los Estados Unidos. Entonces en el proceso, 
en lugar de ensenarles Ingles a los Puertorriquenos 
reconociendo los valores de los Puertorriquenos, los queremos 
desnaturalizar. Y por eso es que el espiritu del Puertorriqueno 
se resiste a aprender el Ingles. No es porque no quiera 
aprender Ingles, es porque lo que le estan ensenando es. . . 
Simplemente le estan danando su naturaleza. El Puertorriqueno 
quiere aprender el Ingles y quiere aprender el Frances, pero es 
que en el proceso, no le quieren ensenar Ingles, lo quieren 
desnaturalizar. Y todas esas cosas, pues son lamentables pero 
tienen que llegar a esta Comision.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. My time is up. I have to turn to the 
others.
    Mr. Underwood.
    Mr. Underwood. I have no questions.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Young.
    Mr. Young. I have one comment to Ferdinand.
    You are in the State House? State Senate?
    Mr. Gonzales. House.
    Mr. Young. Do you have rules?
    Mr. Gonzalez. Si.
    Mr. Young. The rules apply to everyone.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Si.
    Mr. Young. I have rules that apply to everybody, too. 
Everybody is asked to testify, consent to the same form. That 
is the rules of the House, as you have rules in your House. 
Don't question my rules.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Senor Presidente, este pueblo y los 
representantes de este pueblo tenemos el perfecto derecho a 
cuestionar los procedimientos, por cuanto durante cien anos, 
hemos estado divididos y ahora en cinco minutos quiere que 
hagamos una expresion a los efectos de decidir una cuestion tan 
importante como es el status de este pais. Tenemos el perfecto 
derecho como hombres libres y mujeres libres, a cuestionar los 
procedimientos con mucho respeto.
    Mr. Young. I haven't asked you a question.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No more questions. That is the rules. 
No more questions.
    Mr. Lopez. La democracia est coartada entonces.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No, that--that's the rules.
    Mr. Lopez. Exacto.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No more questions.
    Mr. Lopez. No, porque deberiamos reaccionar a las 
expresiones que usted hizo. La democracia esta coartada 
entonces.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. That's what--you would say, that's your 
freedom to say it.
    Mr. Lopez. Una vez mas.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I will call the next panel, Luis Vega 
Ramos, Ramon Velasco, Hector Borges, Julio Cezar Lopez Gerena, 
Gonzalo Fernos-Lopez, and Angel Ortiz-Guzman.

  STATEMENT OF LUIS VEGA RAMOS, PRESIDENT, PROELA, SAN JUAN, 
                          PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Ramos. Good afternoon.
    We come before this Committee for the third time in as many 
years to ask you to enact legislation for the Puerto Rican 
Nation to self-determine its sovereignty.
    We sincerely hope we have reached a stage where we have 
more congressional appearances behind us than ahead of us. Last 
year we testified on H.R. 34, on that time which claim to fair 
place and today, refer to H.R. 856, we add the following.
    Goodwill requires to refrain from offering any territorial 
status. If you mean what you say, when you claim you want to 
decolonize, you cannot offered unincorporated territory or the 
incorporated one, not even as an option to another status. The 
options are independence, statehood, and free associated state, 
or ``Estado Libre Asociado,'' in Spanish. That is what us and 
international law provide for. The options should be clearly 
defined in terms of economic and political consequences.
    This is particularly important in the case of statehood, 
because we are a distinct Spanish speaking nationality that 
won't assimilate easily into the American body politic. 
Certainly it forbids that two options have the same definition. 
That would be highly misleading to the electorate. Each of the 
three options should have its own valid text. All Puerto Ricans 
must be allowed to vote. Self-determination applies to nations 
and not to random groups. Puerto Rico, as you have seen in 
these hearings, is a nation, so all of us have a say in this 
decision.
    Finally, both fair play and goodwill demand a quicker 
response and implementation mechanisms. We shouldn't have to 
wait for decades and new votes so our grandchildren finally 
know if Congress is going to implement our will.
    We congratulate the administration and Chairman Miller for 
your stand on this issue. We refer you to notes that have been 
filed by another witness in this panel, the attorney, Angel 
Ortiz. We said last year, let us be totally clear, Estado Libre 
Asociado has to be one of the options, but not as it is today, 
because in fact nobody is asking for that. Instead, it must be 
included as it should be, sovereign, clearly outside the 
territorial clause and associated to the United States only by 
means of bilateral compact.
    We said our proposal represented the majority of the pro-
Commonwealth forces. Recent events have confirmed this. On 
March 15th, the youth organization of the Popular Democratic 
Party sponsored a definition that was endorsed by prominent 
leaders of that party. It is the acceptable minimum for all of 
the organizations, and in fact, many of the leaders who have 
been here today support that definition. It should be the 
building block for an offer of bilateral association to Puerto 
Rico.
    This definition, which we include in our statement, 
establishes Estado Libre Asociado, as a formula based solely on 
Puerto Rican sovereignty. This has clear implications for H.R. 
856 for the kinds of options it includes.
    Let there be no mistake about it; the consensus in the 
Popular Democratic Party in Puerto Rico, the consensus of which 
is a proud part of, is for the unadulterated Puerto Rican 
sovereignty. That means full, free, association.
    Much has been argued by the implement of this option by the 
retention of citizenship for Puerto Ricans and their offspring. 
Even the former Ambassador has expressed an opinion. We did our 
homework and found no constitutional impediment for the 
inclusion in the compact of U.S. citizenship for new 
generations of Puerto Ricans.
    I repeat, there is no constitutional impediment for the 
inclusion in the compact of U.S. citizenship guarantees for 
these and new generations of Puerto Ricans.
    Furthermore, two are alternatives for the long-standing 
U.S. presence. We submitted a letter to the chairman recently 
prepared by our experts that explains in detail our citizenship 
proposal. After seeing it, members of the Committee, you will 
agree that Puerto Rican sovereignty and U.S. citizenship are 
compatible. It is simply a question of political will.
    We urge Congress to adopt a policy that is sound and that 
is right. The United States has the duty to act. H.R. 856 can 
be another drummer in an endless march of follies, or it could 
still be the beginning of a beautiful friendship and 
partnership between both our Nations. The choice, Members of 
Congress, is all yours.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Young. Thank you, Luis.
    Mr. Velasco.

STATEMENT OF RAMON L. VELASCO, ASSOCIATION OF PRO-COMMONWEALTH 
                ATTORNEYS, BAYAMON, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Velasco. Good afternoon, members of the Committee. I 
represent the Association of Pro-Commonwealth Attorneys. The 
Association of Pro-Commonwealth Attorneys appears before the 
Committee today in order to participate in this congressional 
hearing on H.R. 856.
    We believe it is important to point out to this Committee 
that there are several basic findings included in the bill 
that, in our opinion, are incorrect or inconsistent with the 
law as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and other Federal 
court decisions.
    In 1950, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 600, which 
enabled the people of Puerto Rico to make a constitution to 
cover its internal affairs consistent with the American 
democratic tradition of government by the consent of the 
governed. The act itself was submitted to and approved by the 
people of Puerto Rico.
    Public Law 600 declared that when the Constitution was 
approved, the organic provisions of the Jones Act would be 
automatically repealed. The Constitution was approved by Public 
Law 447 as a pact between Congress and the people of Puerto 
Rico. Through this process, the people of Puerto Rico achieved 
full self-government. The Federal Government's relations with 
Puerto Rico changed from being bounded by merely the 
territorial clause and the rights of a people the Puerto Rico 
as United States citizens, to being bounded by the United 
States and Puerto Rico Constitutions, Public Law 600, the 
Federal Relations Act, and the rights of the people of Puerto 
Rico as United States citizens.
    Federal statutes, U.S. Government official positions, and 
judicial interpretations provide a clear picture of 
Commonwealth. It is a political status that created a body 
politic, with autonomy and sovereignty over local matters of a 
nature equal to a state. This authority has recognized a 
compact that cannot be change unilaterally, because the term 
``compact'' implies or presupposes a bilateral agreement.
    In view of this history of judicial interpretations and 
U.S. Government official positions, we think it should be clear 
that Puerto Rico has achieved self-government and that its 
autonomy and sovereignty are equal to those normally attributed 
to a State. It is therefore a mistake to base this bill on the 
assumption that the only alternative to full self-government is 
the ones included in the bill.
    The Commonwealth created in 1952 is an alternative. It is 
not perfect, and can be expanded and modernized. The definition 
exalted by the Popular Democratic Party appealed to the goal of 
and opens the process of negotiation to clarify, and or expand, 
the present relationship.
    The concept of self-determination applies to the process of 
presenting the alternatives itself. The way this bill is 
enacted does not comply with that rule. The bill disqualifies 
the present state of the law without any participation of 
Puerto Rico.
    The final arbiter of these matters is the Supreme Court, as 
was announced to the United Nations. When Public Law 600 was 
approved by the Congress, the requirement of its acceptance was 
dictated to the people by Congress. That same procedure must be 
used now.
    There is another aspect that should worry us all. The 
United States has been consistent, year after year in the 
United Nations, in its positions that Puerto Rico's case is 
closed. The future development and greater autonomy of Puerto 
Rico is both necessary and desirable in a modern and changing 
world. However, it is a private matter between two sovereigns 
that are associated by a compact.
    The United Nations Resolutions Number 1514 and 1541 and 
other resolutions require, among other things, the 
demilitarization of the territory. This applies to territories 
that have not achieved full self-government and are still under 
the jurisdiction of the United States. Puerto Rico is not such 
a territory and arguing that it is does not serve the best 
interests of either the United States or Puerto Rico. It is 
unnecessary and can be ill advised and risky.
    The enemies of the United States and Puerto Rico may try to 
influence this Congress to fall into that mistake. The 
presentation of alternatives present under this bill does not 
satisfy a majority of the potential voters in a plebiscite. The 
existing relationship may devote the need for the court's 
intervention to adjudicate the authorities by the premises 
included in it.
    Statehood is not good for the United States and Puerto 
Rico. And neither is it good for our desire to be a distinct 
people and your need to be a cohesive natural body. These 
things have been pronounced by the Supreme Court on several 
occasions.
    Puerto Rico is associated with the United States, 
permanently bounded by our many common interests. Any bill 
should take this into consideration. The Congress should follow 
suit since, after all, this is a matter of political will. It 
is not foreclosed by legality. We are confident we will win a 
fair and just plebiscite. Let us create a fair and 
modernization of the compact that would make the next 
generation of Americans and Puerto Ricans proud of this 
generation.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Young. Thank you, Hector.

 STATEMENT OF HECTOR QUIJANO BORGES, ASSOCIATION OF STATEHOOD 
                ATTORNEYS, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Borges. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, distinguished 
Members of Congress. Welcome to Puerto Rico.
    My name is Hector Quijano Borges, and I come before you on 
behalf of the Attorneys for Statehood, an organization that 
represents thousands of attorneys who believe in the democratic 
system of the United States as well as in the permanent union 
with the same Nation.
    It is a fact that in Puerto Rico, the vast majority of 
attorneys, especially the younger generations, treasure our 
U.S. citizenship. We also represent the new generations of job 
professionals who decide a new future of security, progress, 
equality, for our families, our children.
    I would like to begin by commending the Committee on 
Resources for its contribution in providing a process that 
would put an end to the colonial dilemma of Puerto Rico. This 
bill reflects the effort of the U.S. Congress to respond to the 
aspiration of our 3.7 million U.S. citizens eager to become 
Americans.
    The Association of Attorneys for Statehood endorses the 
seven-point definitions of the statehood contained in this 
bill. And in this hearing you have heard the statement of those 
who oppose that Puerto Rico should become federated State of 
the Union. They argue that statehood represents three basic 
problems for the United States.
    First, they allege that if Puerto Rico became the 51st 
State, it would be dependent State; second, that both our 
language and culture are now not compatible with becoming a 
State; third, that statehood for Puerto Rico would be extremely 
costly for the U.S.
    Obviously, those are arguments that only pretend to 
manipulate your conscience as well as that of the Puerto Rican 
people. Let's take those arguments and discuss them one by one.
    I must be clear that, in the ELA, dependency of Puerto 
Ricans to work for our problems increase every day. We are much 
more dependent proportionally than all 50 States. The so-called 
new defi-

nition of ELA proposes equal treatment in Federal programs with 
our contribution, a penny, for the Federal Treasury.
    Could there be a better example of the dependency than 
asking for benefits without assuming any duties? It is a fact 
that this definition does not fit in the fair and 
constitutional system of the United States. In legal, 
constitutional, and practical terms, this definition is not 
acceptable.
    Furthermore, the perpetration of a colonial status for 
Puerto Rico is in clear violation of the basic principles of 
international law. History reveals that no one State has become 
poorer after joining the Union. On the contrary, experience 
tells us that economy of all territories after becoming State 
has strongly developed.
    Far from becoming a dependent state, Puerto Rico with the 
advantage of becoming a bilingual State, and with the assets of 
its hard-working people, will become the commercial bridge 
between the Spanish-speaking world and the United States. Our 
economic development as a State will be notorious.
    To say that Puerto Rico as a State will be a problem for 
the United States for speaking both Spanish and English 
contravenes the constitutional principles that all men are 
created equal. Far from being a problem, our bilingualism 
enriches our U.S. Nation. So that everyone clearly understands 
this point, allow me to continue my statement in Spanish.
    Esto lo hago, para que quede tambien meridianamente claro 
que no hay incompatibilidad en creer en la estadidad, ser 
estadista y ser Puertorriqueno, atesorar el idioma Espanol, 
nuestra cultura, tradiciones y religion. Estados Unidos es un 
vitral de etnias y culturas, unida por unas mismas creencias, 
por unos mismos principios de convivencia humana y democracia, 
sin importar el lugar de origen, la raza y el color. Y nosotros 
anadimos, sin importar si se hablan o no, uno o mas idiomas.
    El hecho de que en Puerto Rico tengamos el Espanol y el 
Ingles como idiomas oficiales, en nada afecta a la nacion. Por 
el contrario, la enriquece y le da la versatilidad deseada en 
un mundo donde las comunicaciones y la computacion han 
eliminado las barreras de las distancias entre las naciones. 
Estamos en la era de la globalizacion. Los pueblos no pueden ni 
deben colocar barreras entre unos y otros. Lo que deben colocar 
son puentes de entendimiento y de amistad. Ese es el nuevo 
mundo, al cual aspiramos los jovenes profesionales de esta 
bendita tierra, las mismas personas que le dicen ustedes que su 
formula incluye paridad de fondos Federales sin la obligacion 
de contribuciones Federales, son aquellas que insinuan que 
Puerto Rico no puede ser estado porque la cantidad de fondos 
que recibiria seria muy grande y constituiria una carga para el 
presupuesto de los Estados Unidos, como si el problema del 
status se tratara de un asunto de dolares y centavos. El 
problema colonial de Puerto Rico es un asunto de dignidad 
humana. No es, y repito, no es un asunto de dinero o de 
negocios. La nacion que ustedes representan, los Estados Unidos 
de Norteamerica, siempre se ha distinguido por ser la nacion 
mas generosa del mundo.
    Nos preguntamos ahora, oes que ese sentimiento de 
generosidad, ese sentimiento magnanimo se puede perder? El 
permitirle a los Puertorriquenos decidir su destino politico, 
final, con formulas realmente descolonizadoras y 
constitucionalmente aceptables, incluyendo la estadidad, 
tampoco puede ser un asunto de dolares y centavos para los 
Estados Unidos de Norteamerica.
    Finalmente, queremos llamar la atencion a este Comite sobre 
las expresiones vertidas aqui por lo que presentan la nueva 
definicion del ELA. Segun ellos, el proceso tiene que ser uno 
de consenso, donde la formula que concursen segun aprobadas por 
el Congreso, sean aceptables para los proponentes de las 
formulas. Sin embargo, nos preguntamos, ocomo se puede 
complacer a los proponentes del ELA si la definicion que 
proponen es totalmente irreal e inconstitucional?
    Mr. Young. Puerto Rico is like Alaska. Just a little more.
    Mr. Borges. Definitely.
    We believe that statehood is the first commission to the 
colonial problem. We want to preserve, protect and make our 
U.S. citizenship be permanent, equal to that of Puerto Rico's 
brothers and sisters in the United States. We find that can 
only be achieved within the framework of sovereignty shared 
with the other 50 States of the American Nation. Thank you very 
much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Borges follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.139
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.140
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.141
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.142
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.143
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.144
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.145
    
    Mr. Young. I love America and I love the process. I have 
two opposing views side-by-side.

 STATEMENT OF HON. JULIO CESAR LOPEZ GERENA, MAYOR OF HUACAO, 
                      HUMACAO, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Gerena. Good afternoon. We are going to request that 
you take our statement in English for the record, but this 
afternoon we would like to present it in Spanish.
    Mr. Young. Without objection.
    Mr. Gerena. Chairman Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, 
members of the Committee on Resources, my name is Julio Cesar 
Lopez Gerena. I am the mayor of the city of Humacao, located in 
the eastern coast of our Island, with a population of 
approximately 60,000. Last November I had the privilege of 
being reelected to a second 4-year term, albeit with a 
municipal assembly controlled by the same party, the pro-
statehood New Progressive Party.
    I take much pride in this electoral achievement, as Humacao 
had always been a stronghold of the Popular Democratic Party. 
Certainly our city has undergone significant changes as well as 
many other municipalities around the Island. Throughout the 
1970's and 1980's, conventional wisdom was that in order for 
the pro-statehood New Progressive Party to win a general 
election it had to depend on a strong showing in the 
municipalities encompassing the metropolitan area. Since there 
were over two dozen municipalities on the rest of the Island, 
the pro-commonwealth party had never lost an election. That was 
the case of our city in Humacao.
    The logic was supposedly that statehood appealed as a 
status option to those Puerto Ricans with the mainstream; in 
other words, the upper and middle classes that had ready access 
to cable TV and the opportunity to study in the mainland in the 
United States. Therefore, following this same logic, the pro-
commonwealth party was the party that appealed to the working 
classes and the rural poor, as it supposedly continued its 
original quest for social justice using the party slogan of 
``bread, land and liberty."
    Yet a silent and irreversible transformation has been 
underway. As the general elections of 1982 and 1996 show, the 
pro-statehood New Progress Party, which advocates statehood, 
has shown incredible strength in every region of our Island, 
garnering 54 out of the 78 municipalities in the elections, 14 
out of the 16 district Senators and 30 out of the 40 district 
Representatives in 1992, as well as 13 district Senators and 31 
district Representatives in 1996.
    For many years the economic model for the pro-commonwealth 
Popular Democratic Party depended exclusively on section 936. 
This incentive showed many limitations. While the pro-
commonwealth Popular Democratic Party was the power between 
1985 and 1993, it did not show any effort to nourish the 
development of other sectors of our economy and then avoid an 
overdependence in the sector of manufacturing.
    Still, the extent of such a myopic vision did not end 
there, as there was no significant massive infrastructure 
development during these years. That is why prosperity could 
only go so far, failing to reach in a significant manner many 
regions of our Island, including our eastern coast.
    As an example, according to the statistics of the U.S. 
Census Bureau in 1990, our city of Humacao had a per capita 
yearly income of $3,955. To me, the most surprising and 
regrettable fact about the figures is that Humacao ranked the 
16th highest among the Island's 78 municipalities.
    In 1993, the pro-commonwealth party had the slogan of ``the 
best of two worlds.'' How can they say that when in 1991, 58.9 
percent of all Puerto Ricans lived below the poverty line and 
when the gap between Puerto Rico and the per capita income in 
Mississippi was even becoming wider?
    The efforts of the Rossello administration were health and 
education, which allowed us to be fair and to empower even the 
poorest of our citizens. As the mayor of a middle sized city, I 
know the benefits that statehood would bring to my citizens, 
both individually as well as collectively. Our city would 
receive the benefit of an increase in assistance to be able to 
improve the services provided in housing, health, education, 
solid waste disposal, as well as many others.
    As a firm believer in the American dream, we know that to 
be able to provide real social justice, we need to become the 
51st State of the Union. I want to make it clear that I also 
favor statehood for Puerto Rico, as it is the only option that 
would allow us to stand on our feet. We are statehooders 
because we have dignity and we have complete confidence in our 
people. We know for sure that we will be contributors for the 
future well-being in this great Nation of ours.
    Finally, I want to stress to this Committee the importance 
of making it clear that under the territorial definition of 
Commonwealth, Congress has disciplinary powers over Puerto Rico 
as it has over any other territory. Let us proclaim this in the 
clearest and least ambiguous terminology and language.
    As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said in 
the case of U.S. vs. Sanchez of 1993, ``Congress may 
unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican constitution of the Puerto 
Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules or 
regulations of its choice.''
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez-Gerena follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.146
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.147
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.148
    
    Mr. Young. Thank you, Julio. With your indulgence, I hope 
to come to your city someday. It is the east side I have not 
seen, so I want to do that.
    Mr. Gerena. You will be very welcome.
    Mr. Young. Thank you.
    Mr. Fernos-Lopez.

 STATEMENT OF GONZALO FERNOS-LOPEZ, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO; AND 
          ANGEL J. ORTIZ-GUZMAN, GUAYNABO, PUERTO RICO

    Mr. Fernos-Lopez.  Mr. Chairman, before my time comes, if I 
may, I want to make some logistical remarks which I believe are 
important for the record of this hearing.
    Mr. Young. Without objection, as long as it does not take 
too long.
    Mr. Fernos-Lopez. No, it is very short. On May 16 and 17 of 
1963, the Territorial and Insular Affairs Subcommittee of the 
House conducted hearings on certain bills, about eight bills, 
all with the same purpose, and the title was ``To establish a 
procedure for the prompt settlement in a democratic manner of 
the political status of Puerto Rico.''
    That was 34 years ago. A commission was created resulting 
from these hearings and some recommendations were made and 
filed away, and the whole thing remained in oblivion until the 
1967 plebiscite in Puerto Rico.
    Now, on March 21st I sent to Your Honor the request to 
testify in this hearing, and the reply came on April 9th and I 
was given 8 days to submit my statement or testimony with 100 
copies, and that was quite a lot to write in that short period. 
So I must ask Your Honor the indulgence of the Committee for 
all the mistakes I may have committed in my statement, my full 
statement.
    I want to thank you for letting me start, and now you can 
start counting my time.
    Mr. Young. For your information, we forgive all mistakes 
because we make many ourselves. But go ahead.
    Mr. Fernos-Lopez. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of 
the Committee, I respectfully submit the following verbal 
summary of my written testimony. I perceive that the 
controversy arising from the definition of commonwealth status 
in the bill H.R. 856 is the main disagreement threatening to 
create a stalemate situation and thus preventing this bill from 
being carried by both congressional Chambers.
    It follows that if the House Committee on Resources does 
not cede to the already presented Popular Democratic Party's 
definition of the new commonwealth, the bill will be dead 
before it reaches the House floor for a vote. In that case, we 
commonwealth advocates may be compelled to seek redress in an 
international forum for an impartial, independent ruling to 
resolve the controversy.
    First, the Treaty of Paris of 1898 is of doubtful 
international validity, because after having been challenged 
and sustained in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals of the U.S. 
on the grounds that Spain had granted Puerto Rico an autonomic 
charter in 1897, the challenge was never raised before the U.S. 
Supreme Court, the United Nations nor the International Court 
of the Hague for a final ruling.
    Second, the U.S. Congress and previous military rule of 
Puerto Rico have been reluctant to release the power over the 
Island. Mild concessions leaning toward self-government were 
granted to Puerto Rico by the Foraker Act of 1900 and the Jones 
Act of 1917, yet the Island continued under the ironclad power 
of the U.S. Congress until 1952.
    Third, in 1950 to 1952, the U.S. Congress legislated to 
grant Puerto Rico an irrevocable autonomous self-government 
status through a mutually binding covenant, which now seems it 
wishes to repeal through bill H.R. 856.
    Fourth, in 1953, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 
Henry Cabot Lodge, appeared before the United Nations General 
Assembly to reaffirm Puerto Rico's colonized status since 1952, 
and to request the United Nations to exempt the U.S. from 
continuing to transmit yearly information to the United Nations 
under article 73(e) of the United Nations Charter.
    To that effect, on November 27, 1953, the United Nations 
General Assembly in plenary session approved resolution 748. 
Thus, the U.S. has assumed an ambivalent position concerning 
the decolonization of Puerto Rico by granting full self-
government under Public Law 447 and is now disclaiming such 
granting through the filing of House bill H.R. 856.
    Fifth, I submit that the plebiscite process, if it ever 
takes place, should be monitored by a United Nations mission.
    Sixth, since U.S. Supreme Court decisions have not 
clarified to date the Puerto Rico commonwealth status, a ruling 
clarifying the controversy from the U.S. Supreme Court itself, 
the United Nations General Assembly, through its Decolonization 
Committee, or the International Court of the Hague should be 
obtained.
    Seventh, I maintain that the territorial clause of the U.S. 
Constitution has been erroneously applied to the case of Puerto 
Rico.
    Eighth, I am proposing a substitute definition of the new 
commonwealth to replace the one spelled out in the House bill 
H.R. 856, notwithstanding that the Popular Democratic Party has 
already submitted its official definition of new commonwealth 
status.
    Ninth, for nearly a century three separate juridical 
entities have been debating to see which one will prevail. All 
the while U.S. Congressmen sit back smiling at all the 
bickering. I propose that all three entities could be 
geographically implemented by proportionately dividing the 
Island among the three political parties according to the 
percentage of votes obtained in the plebiscite.
    This is, of course, a conceptual basis. It is not real. 
While this may sound absurd on a geopolitical basis, 
conceptually it is very feasible through the sui generis 
formula of the new commonwealth status, which would include at 
once all the advantages of statehood, independence and 
commonwealth, but very few of their disadvantages.
    Tenth, I am suggesting a formula or method to determine the 
voting rights of the people in a plebiscite.
    Eleventh, I am touting the language issued by labeling the 
``English only'' posture as xenophobic.
    Twelfth, I maintain that U.S. citizenship, once granted, 
cannot be taken away.
    Thirteenth, in my final statement I emphasize the need to 
arbitrate as an independent, impartial forum the controversy of 
whether Puerto Rico has attained autonomous self-government 
under the covenant of 1952 or still is under the plenary power 
of the U.S. Congress pursuant to the territorial clause of the 
U.S. Constitution.
    Last, I submit that the controversy must be resolved before 
proceeding to consider any further House bill H.R. 856. Thank 
you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fernos-Lopez follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.149
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.150
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.151
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.152
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.153
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.154
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.155
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.156
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.157
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.158
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.159
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.160
    
    Mr. Young. Angel Ortiz-Guzman.

               STATEMENT OF ANGEL J. ORTIZ-GUZMAN

    Mr. Ortiz-Guzman. Good afternoon, members of the Committee. 
My name is Angel Ortiz-Guzman, and I testify on behalf of a new 
generation of Puerto Ricans who firmly believe in the 
sovereignty of Puerto Rico in association with the United 
States through the status known as Free Association.
    I would like to suggest a definition of Free Association 
that will help this Committee to achieve the goal of H.R. 856 
of decolonizing and disposing of the Territory of Puerto Rico.
    It is time for Congress to act honestly in this matter. 
Congress must offer status options valid under international 
law. Those options are statehood, independence and Free 
Association, which you may call a free associated state. It is 
my judgment that an option of Free Association according to 
international law must be included in H.R. 856 if Congress 
really wants to decolonize Puerto Rico.
    In that sense, I suggest the following: There must be a 
final disposition of congressional powers over Puerto Rico. 
Congress must dispose in a final and irrevocable manner of any 
and all remaining power or authority over Puerto Rico under the 
terms of Article IV, section 3, of the United States 
Constitution.
    It is necessary to clarify the nature of the association 
between Puerto Rico and the United States. The options of Free 
Association and independence should be separated and have their 
own definitions.
    A Free Associated State must be defined as a sovereign 
nation in full free association with the United States by means 
of a bilateral compact which can only be amended by mutual 
agreement.
    The Free Associated State option must be sovereign, clearly 
outside the territorial clause, with full authority and 
responsibility for its internal and external affairs. The name 
of the option is not important, but the substance is.
    It is necessary that Congress recognize the full power of 
Puerto Rico's government with respect to its territory and 
population, language and culture, determining its own relations 
and participation in the community of nations and exercising 
all the attributes of a sovereign political entity, except 
those especially delegated to the Government of the United 
States in the text of the bilateral compact.
    Congress shall recognize Puerto Rico's power to determine 
and control its own nationality and citizenship.
    Congress shall recognize, as it did in the Compact of Free 
Association of 1986 with the Marshall Islands, that a United 
States citizen who becomes a citizen of the Free Associated 
State of Puerto Rican and who does not voluntarily renounce his 
United States citizenship will retain his United States 
citizenship and continue entitled to the same rights and 
privileges as any other United States citizen.
    Congress must guarantee that the terms of the bilateral 
Compact of the Free Associated State can only be determined or 
amended by mutual agreement and that the people of Puerto Rico 
will give their consent or agreement in accordance with the 
terms of the compact and the applicable constitutional process.
    Congress shall recognize Puerto Rico's eligibility for 
United States assistance to be provided in a block grant 
government-to-government basis, including foreign aid or 
programmatic assistance, at a level similar, but never 
superior, to the present ones.
    I also suggest that in the event none of the three options 
get a majority by itself but the sum of the votes for Puerto 
Rican sovereignty options--Free Association and Independence--
does produce a majority, the process to decolonize and to 
dispose of the Territory of Puerto Rico may go forward.
    Finally, I urge this Committee to strike out the present 
Commonwealth definition included in H.R. 856 and offer a 
sovereign Free Associate State or Commonwealth in full free 
association by means of a bilateral compact between the United 
States and Puerto Rico.
    In considering our suggestions, we invite this Committee to 
study a series of amendments drafted by PROELA, an organization 
in which I am vice president, that will comply with the 
applicable criteria for Free Association and self-
determination.
    Members of this Committee, there are answers to 
colonialism. The United States and the people of Puerto Rico 
deserve an opportunity to choose between non-colonial and non-
territorial options in their referendum scheduled for 1998. It 
only takes the will to do it.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Young. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz-Guzman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.161
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.162
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.163
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.164
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.165
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.166
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.167
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.168
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.169
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.170
    
    Mr. Young. I want to thank the panel.
    Carlos, do you have questions?
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Yes, I have a couple of questions.
    I want to ask Mr. Velasco, if the Congress today would pass 
a banking law, can they make it applicable for Puerto Rico 
without Puerto Rico's previous consent?
    Mr. Velasco. A banking law, yes.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And fair trade laws?
    Mr. Velasco. And fair trade laws, yes.
    Just to answer your whole question, the only laws that are 
not applicable to Puerto Rico made by the U.S. Congress are 
those that are locally inapplicable because of geographic or 
that kind of laws and also those that do not address the 
compact.
    Now, what is the compact? The compact is Public Law 600, 
the Federal Relations Act, the Constitution of Puerto Rico. 
Those are the laws--and 447, of course.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Can Congress pass income tax laws 
taxing income produced in Puerto Rico?
    Mr. Velasco. Income tax laws?
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Taxing income produced in Puerto Rico. 
Can they not pass laws?
    Mr. Velasco. No, they cannot.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Why are they taxing the companies that 
are here in Puerto Rico for their income produced in Puerto 
Rico now, what used to be section 936? Why are those taxing the 
income produced here if you say they cannot?
    Mr. Velasco. Mr. Romero, those companies that were under 
936 are U.S. companies.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No, they are subsidiaries.
    Mr. Velasco. Excuse me, the subsidiaries are U.S. 
subsidiaries that are doing business in Puerto Rico; so, 
therefore, those subsidiaries, because they are citizens of the 
States where they were incorporated, are under the Internal 
Revenue Code; and that is why you can do it.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. But they are taxed here for the income 
produced in Puerto Rico.
    Mr. Velasco. But they are taxed because they are citizens 
of other States, not because they are citizens of Puerto Rico.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And when a Puerto Rican earns income 
outside of Puerto Rico, they are also taxed by the United 
States, right?
    Mr. Velasco. Because that income is derived outside of 
Puerto Rico. But the income derived inside of Puerto Rico is 
not taxable under the Internal Revenue Code. And it is not 
taxable, first, because they are not in the Internal Revenue 
code; and, second, because it is part of the compact.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. An excise tax, they cannot impose 
excise taxes on Puerto Rico?
    Mr. Velasco. Excise taxes? Puerto Rico imposes excise 
taxes, not the United States. The United States imposes custom 
duties.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. How about the rum excise tax?
    Mr. Velasco. The rum excise tax--the problem with the rum 
excise tax is the Puerto Rico government did not do anything at 
the time.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Why didn't they do it afterwards?
    Mr. Velasco. They haven't done it.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. They have had 8 years for the Popular 
Party Administration, and they didn't go to court.
    Mr. Velasco. That is besides the point. The point is, Mr. 
Romero, that independent of what they did or didn't, you can't 
impose it; and if the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico goes to 
court, that is another matter. They didn't do that.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Why don't you file a claim? Why don't 
you file a claim and have them return the money?
    Mr. Velasco. They didn't do it at the time.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. You can do it now. If you have the law 
with you, you can file a claim to have the money returned?
    Mr. Velasco. I can't speak for the commonwealthers of 
Puerto Rico, Mr. Romero.
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. You can speak for the taxpayers.
    Mr. Velasco. That is something to be studied at this time. 
We are not going to do that now.
    Mr. Young. I don't want to cut the gentleman short, but we 
are about ready to run out of time, and the gentleman from Guam 
is all excited about Free Association, so he is allowed to ask 
questions.
    Mr. Underwood. I just want to offer some observation since 
I know we are at the end of the line. I just wanted to point 
out as, obviously, a vitally interested observer of this 
process because of the impact it may have on Guam as well as 
being a member of the Committee, it strikes me that there are 
many fingers being pointed in this process.
    All along and throughout the day we have heard about the 
status of Estado Libre Asociado has misled the people, we have 
heard that statehood status is being offered but it is not 
being guaranteed, and many people that are advocates of 
independence are saying that people have been made to be afraid 
of independence.
    And then we hear in the written testimony, at least there 
are many references to court cases, some involving Guam, some 
involving the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. We have 
heard references to the Compacts of Free Association. Yet that 
brings to mind a whole series of other issues that are 
attendant to it.
    Again, even in the process of seeing that or hearing it, I 
recognize that some of those things, while not entirely being 
inaccurate, they are not entirely accurate as well. The 
Compacts of Free Association and the Covenant of the Northern 
Marianas are very different from each other. The reference to 
continuing citizenship applies to a very small group of people 
who happened to be U.S. citizens before the implementation of 
the compacts, and that is a very different process coming in.
    I just want to point out that it seems to me--and I hate to 
go back to this very, very basic point. It seems to me that, of 
the entire political status process, at least as we did it on 
Guam, is we understood what we were trying to do. I think we 
understood what we were trying to do, and we tried to argue it 
from what we wanted, and then we are going to Congress and see 
what we can get.
    Now, if Congress doesn't want to do it, then Congress will 
own up to us at that time and make it clear what it wants to do 
and what it does not want to do. I submit that, subsequent to 
that, the people of Guam are still free to engage in a lot of 
things, because I think the right of self-determination is not 
extinguished, because people will have that right.
    But I do think that making these very glib comparisons, I 
always want to know, what happened to the old ELA that we need 
a new ELA?
    Mr. Ramos. Mr. Underwood, if you would permit a brief 
comment on my part, I would agree with you the Marianas 
arrangement and Compact of Free Association Agreement are two 
different things. The Marianas arrangement is under the 
sovereignty of the U.S. We don't want that. The people of 
Puerto Rico have said, at least the people who are supporting 
the Estado Libre Asociado today, want a relationship with the 
United States based on sovereignty for Puerto Rico. That leaves 
only the space for a Free Associated State relationship.
    With regards to what Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero 
was talking about, we can argue about what laws apply and what 
laws don't apply today. But under our proposal, it would be 
clear that the only Federal laws that would apply would be 
those included in the terms of the bilateral compact.
    So what we are basically doing here is trying to put some 
things back into the discussion of the autonomy formula by 
saying, here is a relationship that it is open to negotiation, 
and you have political will, and you get some things, and 
others don't.
    Mr. Underwood. Luis, with all due respect--and I am one 
seeking a status that has many similarities to what you already 
have, and I fully recognize that--but I really am torn on the 
horns of a dilemma in trying to understand all the vague terms 
that are being used. I sometimes wonder whether we would be 
better off, Mr. Chairman, holding a contest like they used to 
hold for various products: Send us your description of 
political status in 25 words or less. And then, once we do 
that, then you make a choice on that.
    Because a statement of political aspirations is not a 
statement of a status. It is a statement of a political 
program, and that will be part of the discussion and the 
campaign. I clearly understand that. I just can't understand 
why that has to be part of the definition.
    Mr. Ramos. I would have a one-sentence comment. Everything 
in our proposal, everything, is validated by previous 
precedents in U.S. law and international obligations. Then it 
is an issue of political will.
    Mr. Underwood. It should not be a matter phrased as a issue 
of political will or political aspirations. It should be 
phrased as a description.
    Mr. Young. The gentleman's time has expired.
    We could argue this point. I would like to--before I 
dismiss the panel, I would like to suggest two things.
    Mr. Fernos-Lopez. I would like to, before you begin, to 
mention something.
    Mr. Young. I recognize maturity and gray beards, so go 
ahead. But don't take too long. We have to catch a helicopter.
    Mr. Fernos-Lopez. I am concerned that I have not heard any 
testimony here which has stressed the point that the U.S. 
Congress under the U.S. Constitution has the plenary power to 
grant Puerto Rico anything they want to.
    Mr. Young. And you hit a very valid point. I was just going 
to come to that.
    Mr. Fernos-Lopez. The point is the Constitution itself, and 
particularly the territorial clause, when it says that you 
could dispose in the way you wish, is so ample that you were 
not to be parsimonious, you would be giving Puerto Rico 
anything under Commonwealth that could be attained through 
statehood or independence.
    Mr. Young. We will not disagree with that. The problem we 
have is the political reality and what can sell and what cannot 
sell in the Congress.
    I have made a commitment, I will say this right up front, 
that I do not believe that we can have a territory today in 
this arena and still be the United States of America. What we 
are trying to do is reach some kind of solution to the problem.
    I am not going to tolerate the status quo; and I am not, 
very frankly, going to use a--no, don't applaud. I am not going 
to let someone use a method to go back to where we were before.
    One of the things that bothered me is some of the 
testimony, and I will tell you I do have a bad back. As you 
know, I got rid of one chair today. Gardner threw it off the 
wall. But I do not like to be impugned for my motives. This 
disturbs me a great deal.
    Because this--as Chairman Miller said, this is a very 
serious question that affects all Americans, and affects mostly 
the Puerto Rican people, but affects all Americans. This is a 
chance, I believe, for America to show its great leadership, as 
it has in the past; and we are going to continue to pursue a 
solution.
    Before I do close this and I will ask Carlos to say a few 
words, I am going to ask unanimous consent to submit the 
statements for the record of the Governor of Puerto Rico, the 
Mayor of San Juan, the Mayor of Biyamon and Hernandez-Arana.
    [The statements follow:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.171
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.172
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.173
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.174
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.175
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.176
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.177
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.178
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.179
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.180
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.181
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.182
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.183
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.184
    
    Mr. Young. And, in closing, let me thank the University of 
Mayaguez for hosting this congressional hearing. I hope all of 
you appreciate this. The University did an extremely good job, 
especially the president of the University, the chancellor, the 
dean, President Maldonahdo, Chancellor Stuart Ramos and Dean 
Antonio Santos. I think this was one of the better hearings.
    I would like to thank the Puerto Rican Department of 
State--they did an excellent job--the Puerto Rican National 
Guard, the Puerto Rican State Police, Commissioner Pedro 
Tolaydo, for the tremendous support in both Mayaguez and San 
Juan.
    Let me also thank the Puerto Rican Senate for the 
hospitality last night and the cooperation of the three 
political witnesses and the participation of all the witnesses 
in Mayaguez and San Juan.
    And I say this with all sincerity, this has been a good 3 
days. I want to compliment all the people here in this great 
city and the people who are in the audience that had 
differences of opinion, because our job is to listen and to 
learn and to make decisions. I am very pleased to say I believe 
we have been able to do that.
    We will be reviewing all comments and all statements, all 
written presentations; and we will deliberate on this, as Mr. 
Miller said, for a great deal of time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.185
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.186
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.187
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.188
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.189
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.190
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.191
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.192
    
    Mr. Young. Mr. Carlos, Mr. Commissioner, you represent this 
great, I was going to say Nation, Commonwealth, State, but I 
would say he represents the Puerto Rican people very, very 
well. If you have a closing statement?
    Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    On behalf of the people of Puerto Rico, I want to thank you 
and Mr. Miller and Mr. Underwood for having taken the time out 
from your recess. I want everybody to realize now, Congress is 
on a recess until Tuesday; and they have taken their time out 
of the recess to come to Puerto Rico because of their interest.
    As the Chairman has stated, it is not only for the people 
of Puerto Rico. He recognizes, as does everyone else now, and 
every day more and more people in Congress are recognizing, 
this is important for the United States. This is important for 
all of the people of the United States, because the example and 
inspiration of democracy throughout the world cannot continue 
to have a territory or a colony or have 3.8 million U.S. 
citizens disenfranchised. This is impossible in this day and 
age.
    As we end this century and go into the new millennium, I am 
sure the Nation wants to solve the problem as we do. So they 
are taking their time and are very serious about it. I am very 
confident we will get this bill through the House and be 
working toward getting it approved in the Senate.
    I want to thank every one of you also for being here with 
us today and the panel for their testimony and each one of you 
for the wonderful way you approved today. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Young. This meeting is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                ------                                


  Due to the costs of printing, additional testimony received for the 
                record will be kept in Committee files.

    Hon. Pedro Rossello, Governor of Puerto Rico
    Hon. Sila M. Calderon, Mayor of the city of San Juan
    Hon. Ramon Luis Rivera, Mayor of the city of Bayamon
    Hector O'Neill, President, Federation of Municipalities of 
Puerto Rico
    Enrique Vazquez-Quintana, M.D., Party for Free Associated 
Nation
    Arturo J. Guzman, Chairman, I.D.E.A. of Puerto Rico
    Dr. Luis Nieves Falcon, Coordinator, and Jan Susler, 
Attorney at Law
    Fermin L. Arraiza Navas and Fermin B. Arraiza Miranda
    Eduardo Gonzalez
    Juan G. Muriel Figueras
    Jose Garriga Pico
    Efrain Hernandez-Arana
