    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             H.R. 900, PUERTO RICO
                            DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2007;
                          AND H.R. 1230, PUERTO RICO
                            SELF-DETERMINATION ACT
                                    OF 2007

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

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                       March 22, 2007 and April 25, 2007

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 110-8

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html
                                       or
             Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    34-236                      WASHINGTON : 2007
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                   NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
                  DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member

    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan             Jim Saxton, New Jersey
    Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American      Elton Gallegly, California
        Samoa                            John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
    Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii             Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
    Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas              Ken Calvert, California
    Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey       Chris Cannon, Utah
    Donna M. Christensen, Virgin         Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
        Islands                          Jeff Flake, Arizona
    Grace F. Napolitano, California      Rick Renzi, Arizona
    Rush D. Holt, New Jersey             Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
    Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam              Carolina
    Jim Costa, California                Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
    Dan Boren, Oklahoma                  Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
    John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
    George Miller, California            Louie Gohmert, Texas
    Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts      Tom Cole, Oklahoma
    Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon             Rob Bishop, Utah
    Maurice D. Hinchey, New York         Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
    Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island     Dean Heller, Nevada
    Ron Kind, Wisconsin                  Bill Sali, Idaho
    Lois Capps, California               Doug Lamborn, Colorado
    Jay Inslee, Washington
    Mark Udall, Colorado
    Joe Baca, California
    Hilda L. Solis, California
    Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
    Heath Shuler, North Carolina

                         James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
                       Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
                     Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
                     Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS

                DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Chairwoman
            LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico, Ranking Republican Member

    Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American      Elton Gallegly, California
        Samoa                            Jeff Flake, Arizona
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
    Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
    Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
        ex officio
                                     ------
                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

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

    Statement of Members:
        Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
          Virgin Islands.............................................     2
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Fortuno, Luis G., the Resident Commissioner in Congress from
          Puerto Rico................................................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
        Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
          the State of West Virginia.................................     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Serrano, Hon. Jose, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New York..........................................    13
        Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of New York......................................    16
            Prepared statement of....................................    18
        Weller, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Illinois..........................................    15
            Prepared statement of....................................    15
        Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Alaska..................................................    12
            Prepared statement of....................................    12

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Baquero, Enrique, President, Puerto Rico Foundation for
          Democratic Action..........................................    76
            Prepared statement of....................................    78
        Diaz, Aida, President, Puerto Rico Teachers Association......   110
            Prepared statement of....................................   111
        Fernandez, Jose Luis, President, Inter-American Entrepreneurs
          Association................................................    79
            Prepared statement of....................................    81
        Ferraiuoli, Veronica, President, Puerto Rico Chapter of the
          Federal Bar Association....................................   101
            Prepared statement of....................................   103
        Goldstein, Thomas C., Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
          Feld, LLP..................................................    45
            Prepared statement of....................................    46
        Gorrin-Peralta, Carlos I., Professor, Puerto Rico's Inter-
          American University School of Law..........................    27
            Prepared statement of....................................    28
        Mejia, Manuel A., Chairman of the Board, Puerto Rico Chamber
          of Commerce................................................    69
            Prepared statement of....................................    71
        Nieves, Ramon Luis, Executive Director, Movimiento
          Autonomista Socialdemocrata................................    32
            Prepared statement of....................................    34
        Pedroza, Jorge E., President, Vietnam Veterans of America,
          Council of Puerto Rico.....................................    95
            Prepared statement of....................................    97
        Pildes, Richard H., Professor, New York University School of
          Law........................................................    38
            Prepared statement of....................................    40
        Romany-Siaca, Celina, President, Puerto Rico Bar Association.   107
            Prepared statement of....................................   109
        Thomas, Kenneth R., Legislative Attorney, American Law
          Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of
          Congress...................................................    19
            Prepared statement of....................................    21
        Vales, Luis E. Gonzalez, Official Historian of Puerto Rico...    98
            Prepared statement of....................................    99

    Additional materials supplied:
        List of individuals and organizations submitting information
          for the record.............................................    19

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

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

    Statement of Members:
        Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
          Virgin Islands.............................................   126
            Prepared statement of....................................   127
        Fortuno, Luis G., the Resident Commissioner in Congress from
          Puerto Rico................................................   139
            Prepared statement of....................................   141
        Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of New York, Statement submitted for the record..   235
        Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Alaska, Statement submitted for the record..............   162

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Acevedo-Vila, Hon. Anibal, Governor, Commonwealth of Puerto
          Rico, Former Member of U.S. Congress, President, Popular
          Democratic Party (PDP).....................................   163
            Prepared statement of....................................   165
        Aponte-Hernandez, Hon. Jose, Speaker of the House of
          Representatives of Puerto Rico.............................   196
            Prepared statement of....................................   197
        Berrios-Martinez, Ruben, President, Puerto Rican Independence
          Party (PIP)................................................   168
            Prepared statement of....................................   170
        Dalmau-Santiago, Hon. Jose L., Senate Minority Leader,
          Popular Democratic Party...................................   208
            Prepared statement of....................................   210
        Duprey, Nestor, Spokesman, Puerto Ricans for Free Association
          and Social Justice (MAS)...................................   225
            Prepared statement of....................................   226
        Ferrer Rios, Hon. Hector, Minority Leader of the House of
          Representatives of Puerto Rico, Popular Democratic Party...   211
            Prepared statement of....................................   213
        Marshall, Hon. C. Kevin, Co-Chair of the President's Task
          Force on Puerto Rico's Political Status, Deputy Assistant
          Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department
          of Justice.................................................   129
            Prepared statement of....................................   131
        Martin, Fernando, Executive President, Puerto Rican
          Independence Party.........................................   222
            Prepared statement of....................................   223
        McClintock, Hon. Kenneth D., President, Senate of Puerto Rico   188
            Prepared statement of....................................   190
        Passalacqua, Juan Manuel Garcia, Lawyer, Writer, Political
          Analyst....................................................   228
            Prepared statement of....................................   229
        Romero Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, Former Governor, Commonwealth of
          Puerto Rico, Former Member of U.S. Congress................   205
            Prepared statement of....................................   207
        Rossello, Hon. Pedro, Former Governor and current Senator,
          Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, President, New Progressive
          Party (NNP)................................................   172
            Prepared statement of....................................   175

    Additional materials supplied:
        Engel, Hon. Eliot L., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New York, Statement submitted for the record......   233
        Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Wisconsin, Statement submitted for the record...........   234
        Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Califonnia, Statement submitted for the record....   234
        List of individuals and organizations submitting information
          for the record.............................................   128

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 900, TO PROVIDE FOR A FEDERALLY SANCTIONED
     SELF-DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO (PUERTO RICO
     DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2007); AND H.R. 1230, TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF THE
    PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO TO CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION THROUGH WHICH
     THE PEOPLE WOULD EXERCISE THEIR NATURAL RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION,
     AND TO ESTABLISH A MECHANISM FOR CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF SUCH
             DECISION (PUERTO RICO SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2007)

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, March 22, 2007

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                        Subcommittee on Insular Affairs

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Donna M.
    Christensen [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Christensen, Faleomavaega,
    Grijalva, Bordallo, Rahall, Fortuno, Gallegly, Flake, and
    Young.
        Ms. Christensen. Good morning. The legislative hearing by
    the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs will now come to order.
        I ask unanimous consent that Members of the full committee
    wishing to participate in the proceedings of the Subcommittee
    be allowed to sit on the dais. Hearing no objection, so
    ordered.
        I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New
    York, Mr. Serrano, the gentlewoman from New York, Ms.
    Velazquez, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, be
    allowed to sit on the dais and participate in the hearing.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        Under Committee Rule 4(g), the Chairman and Ranking
    Minority Member can make opening statements. At this time I
    also ask unanimous consent that in lieu of the authors of the
    two bills before us appearing as witnesses, Mr. Serrano and Ms.
    Velazquez, be extended the opportunity to make an opening
    statement. If any other Members have statements, they can be
    included in the hearing record under unanimous consent. Hearing
    no objection, so ordered.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R.
    900 and H.R. 1230. H.R. 900, sponsored by Mr. Serrano, will
    provide for a Federally sanctioned self-determination process
    for the people of Puerto Rico.
        H.R. 1230, sponsored by Ms. Velazquez, will recognize the
    right of the people of Puerto Rico to call a Constitutional
    Convention to which the people would exercise their natural
    right to self-determination, and to establish a mechanism for
    Congressional consideration of such decision.
        I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

        Ms. Christensen. As a co-sponsor of H.R. 1230, it is clear
    that I favor a bottoms-up approach to resolving Puerto Rico's
    long-unresolved political status question, one that empowers
    the people of Puerto Rico to translate their hopes and
    aspirations into a new and even possibly unique political
    relationship with the mother country, instead of one that
    dictates what their choices can and cannot be.
        But above any support for one bill over the other, I
    support the right of the people of Puerto Rico to be fully
    informed, to have a fair process, and to have all of the
    possible status options clearly and accurately defined and
    placed before them.
        Keeping this in mind, I want to thank Chairman Rahall for
    reestablishing the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs. It is well
    known that Chairman Rahall has been a long-time friend of
    Puerto Rico, most notably leading the effort in Congress for
    the funding of Trans Urbano. His presence this morning
    underscores his continuing interest in Puerto Rico, its people,
    and his desire to see progress on the status issue.
        We will also be joined by the committee's Ranking Member,
    Mr. Young, as well. As a sole representative of Alaska, one of
    the last U.S. territories to become a state, he knows political
    status issues. As we all know, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the
    Committee, was the main sponsor of the legislation to resolve
    Puerto Rico's political status in 1998. His leadership and
    efforts resulted in the House approval of legislation providing
    for a process to resolve that status.
        During today's hearing, all sides of the Puerto Rican
    status debate will be heard through an ambitious agenda, which
    includes some four panels consisting of 13 witnesses, all of
    whom understand the issue and its history well, and the
    overwhelming majority of whom are full-time residents of the
    Commonwealth. And we welcome all of you.
        Because of the large number of requests to participate in
    the deliberations on these bills, we found that it was not
    possible to have a full hearing on the issues involved today.
    So in approximately one month from today we will convene a
    second hearing on the bills, at which time we will hear from
    the leadership of the political parties, as well as from the
    Commonwealth, government, and legislature.
        I have to say, though, that I am very disappointed that
    after such a harsh evaluation of Puerto Rico's current status
    and such a strong statement on the process they feel should be
    adopted, the Administration is not here with us this morning. I
    hope that this does not mean that their intention is to drop
    that bombshell and disappear, but that the Administration will
    see fit to testify at the second hearing.
        It has been more than 108 years since the United States
    acquired the island of Puerto Rico along with Guam in the
    Philippines at the end of the Spanish-American War. Since that
    time, the people of Puerto Rico have been seeking to have their
    relationship to the United States resolved according to their
    wishes. It is high time that this occurs, and it is my fervent
    hope that beginning with this hearing today, we will all see
    this happen in short order.
        I look forward to the testimony we will receive both in
    person and in writing. And before I conclude and yield to my
    Ranking Member for his opening statement, I want to say two
    last things.
        First, as I made reference to last year, I do hear
    dissatisfaction from the people of Puerto Rico with the status
    quo. But on the socioeconomic issues--housing, education,
    healthcare, crime, even the politics--and also corruption
    inside and outside of government. I cannot see, but I stand
    ready to be educated on how changing political status will
    improve the conditions that the Puerto Ricans care most deeply
    about.
        I see them as not necessarily being connected, and I also
    see a danger in tying too closely together as we move through
    this process.
        Second, your neighbors and fellow non-state areas are
    watching. What happens here, and similarly what happens today
    with the District of Columbia, while they are not exactly
    similar, having bearing on us and our process of self-
    determination.
        So let us be mindful, as we pronounce what can and cannot
    be under the Constitution, that such limitations will have a
    far greater impact on those of us whose choices are far more
    limited than our larger cousin, the Commonwealth of Puerto
    Rico.
        I now yield for an opening statement to my colleague and
    friend, the resident commissioner, Mr. Fortuno.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]

         Statement of The Honorable Donna M. Christensen, Chairwoman,
                        Subcommittee on Insular Affairs

        As a cosponsor of H.R. 1230, it is clear that I favor a bottom-up
    approach to resolving Puerto Rico long unresolved political status
    question; one that empowers the people of Puerto Rico to translate
    their hopes and aspirations into a new and even possibly unique
    political relationship with their mother country instead of one that
    dictates what their choices can and cannot be.
        But above any support for one bill over the other, I support the
    right of the people of Puerto Rico to be fully informed, to have a fair
    process, and to have all of the possible status options clearly and
    accurately defined and placed before them.
        Keeping this in mind, I want to thank Chairman Rahall for
    reestablishing the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs. It is well-known
    that Chairman Rahall has been a long-time friend of Puerto Rico, most
    notably leading the effort in Congress for the funding of Tran Urbano.
    His presence this morning underscores his continuing interest in Puerto
    Rico, its people, and his desire to see progress on the status issue.
        It is also a pleasure to have the Committee's Ranking Member Mr.
    Young here as well. As the sole Representative of Alaska, one of the
    last U.S. territories to become a State, he knows political status
    issues. As we all know, Mr. Young, as Chairman of this Committee, was
    the main sponsor of legislation to resolve Puerto Rico's political
    status in 1998. His leadership and efforts resulted in the House
    approval of legislation providing for a process to resolve Puerto
    Rico's status.
        I think the presence of Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young
    sends a clear signal that the Committee looks forward to having
    progress made on this issue in the 110th Congress. I believe that the
    proceedings of this Subcommittee will help in that effort; and give the
    Full Committee a better appreciation of both the complexity of this
    issue and the desire by the people of Puerto Rico for the process to
    begin.
        During today's hearing, all sides of the Puerto Rican status debate
    will be heard from through an ambitious agenda which includes some four
    panels consisting of 13 witnesses--all of whom understand this issue
    and its history well and the overwhelming majority of whom are full
    time residents of Commonwealth.
        Because of the large number of requests to participate in the
    deliberations on these bills, we found that it was not possible to have
    a full hearing of the issues involved in one day.
        So in approximately one month from today we will convene a second
    day of hearings on the bills at which time we will hear from the
    leadership of the political parties from Puerto Rico as well as from
    the Commonwealth government and legislature
        I have to say that am very disappointed that after such a harsh
    evaluation of Puerto Rico's current status and such a strong statement
    on the process they feel should be adopted, the Administration is not
    here. I hope that this does not mean that their intention is to drop
    that bombshell and disappear, but that the Administration will see fit
    to testify at the second hearing.
        It has been more than 108 years since the United States acquired
    the island of Puerto Rico, along with Guam and the Philippines at the
    end of the Spanish American War. Since that time, the people of Puerto
    Rico have been have been seeking to have their relationship to the
    United States resolved according to their wishes. It is high time that
    this occurs and it is my fervent hope that beginning with this hearing
    today we will all see this happen in short order.
        I look forward to the testimony we will receive both in person and
    in writing and to the answers to some questions that the Committee will
    have. They will all be taken into consideration as we move to the full
    committee and seek to move this process to fruition.
        Before I conclude and yield to my Ranking member for his opening
    statement, I want to say two things:
        First, as I made reference to last year, I do hear dissatisfaction
    from the people of Puerto Rico with the status quo--but on the socio-
    economic issues--housing, education, healthcare, crime, even the
    politics and corruption in and outside of government. I cannot see, but
    stand ready to be educated on how changing political status will
    improve the conditions that Puerto Ricans care most deeply about. I see
    them as two different things and I also see a danger in tying the two
    too closely together as you move through this process.
        Secondly, your neighbors and fellow non-state areas are watching!
        What happens here, and similarly what happens tomorrow with the
    District of Columbia--while they are not exactly similar--have bearing
    on us and our process of self determination.
        For example, any attempt to ``clarify'' or make clear that the only
    two options available to Puerto Rico constitutionally are statehood or
    independence, automatically limits the options for the Virgin Islands
    as well as for the other smaller territories to just one; independence
    or its cousin Free Association--a choice which is not now supported by
    a majority of constituents.
        Commonwealth or some other status under the sovereignty of the
    U.S., is all that those of us who want to remain part of the United
    States but are too small to become a state is all that we can aspire
    to.
        So let us be mindful, as we pronounce what can and cannot be under
    the constitution, that such limitations will have far a greater impact
    on those of us whose choices are much more limited that our larger
    cousin, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
        I now yield for an opening statement to my colleague and friend,
    the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, Mr. Fortuno.
                                     ______

          STATEMENT OF THE HON. LUIS G. FORTUNO, THE RESIDENT
           COMMISSIONER FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you, Madame Chair. Madame Chair, I want
    to take this opportunity to thank you for holding this very
    important hearing today. It has certainly been a pleasure
    serving with you in the Subcommittee, and I look forward to
    continuing to work with you in a bipartisan manner to address
    the current inequities in the way our nation treats U.S.
    citizens and nationals, not only in Puerto Rico, but in all of
    its territories.
        I also want to commend Chairman Nick Rahall and Ranking
    Member Don Young for their longstanding leadership and
    commitment in ensuring that my constituents, the four million
    U.S. citizens that reside in Puerto Rico, are granted the
    opportunity to participate in the truly decolonizing and fair
    self-determination process.
        Furthermore, I want to thank my fellow Subcommittee Members
    that are here or will join us today, and extend a warm welcome
    to our other colleagues present in the hearing who are not
    Members of this Subcommittee, but have taken time from their
    busy schedules because of their keen interest in this very
    important matter.
        In particular I want to thank my three fellow Puerto Ricans
    in Congress: Jose Serrano, Luis Gutierrez, and Nydia Velazquez.
    During my two years in Congress they have provided me with
    invaluable insights, but most of all with their friendship.
        Last, but not least, I want to welcome all of our
    witnesses, most of whom have traveled from the island to be
    with us today to provide the Subcommittee with their views on
    this vitally important issue.
        In our political affairs, consensus is beneficial when it
    can be achieved. But the fact is that in a democracy, we are
    based on majority rule.
        Today we do not have majority rule in Puerto Rico on the
    question of a permanent, non-territorial, and fully democratic
    future political status, even though this is clearly the most
    critical issue we face as a people. Instead, we have polarity
    or minority rule because no defined political status option has
    received a majority in the last two locally sponsored status
    votes.
        Against this backdrop, you may wonder how it is that I can
    come before you today and tell you that we have a consensus in
    Puerto Rico on what Congress must do about the political status
    question. Yet that is exactly what I am here to tell you.
        We have an overall consensus in Puerto Rico that our
    current relation with the U.S. is territorial in nature, not
    fully democratic, not fully self-governing, not based on equal
    rights and duties of citizenship, and does not fully implement
    the principle of government by consent of the governed.
        We have an overall consensus that our current political
    relationship with the United States no longer serves either
    Puerto Rico or the U.S. well. We have an overall consensus that
    the time for change into a permanent, non-territorial
    relationship with the United States is not only long overdue,
    but urgently needed. The reality is that the island's current
    status does not enable the people of Puerto Rico to fulfill
    their potential for social, economic, and political
    development.
        It is not only a political problem; it is also money
    invested in Puerto Rico's chronic economic under-performance.
    This includes the local economic recession, even in the midst
    of our national economic growth and expansion, as well as high
    unemployment, while national unemployment is at record lows.
    This economic reality translates into human discouragement and
    unrealized dreams, and have forced many of my constituents--
    some people say about 6,000 per month--to move to the mainland
    in search for better opportunities and equality.
        We have a sacred duty to our children and future
    generations to stop this cycle of unfulfilled human potential.
    That is why there is a consensus in Puerto Rico that the
    current status must be changed to a new status that is
    permanent and non-territorial; one that redeems the promise of
    democracy and opportunity for our people.
        To be sure, the political parties in Puerto Rico still have
    the most profound differences on what permanent non-territorial
    status we prefer. We also disagree on the procedure to achieve
    majority rule and status issue.
        In other words, we agree that there is a problem, but are
    at odds as to what the solution and the process to reach that
    solution should be.
        But I believe we have a consensus that calls upon Congress
    to recognize a democratic referendum process, grounded in self-
    determination by the people, based on options compatible with
    the Constitution, but formulated with local participation.
        In this regard, while I strongly believe that H.R. 900
    offers a much better approach and process to resolving once and
    for all Puerto Rico's status dilemma, I have to admit that H.R.
    1230 is more realistic than its previous version in the sense
    that it recognizes the need for a new status that is non-
    territorial and permanent. That mere recognition in itself
    constitutes one step in the right direction.
        We, however, still have major differences about how to
    ensure that the people have a direct vote at each stage of the
    process and that Constitutionally valid options are proposed
    instead of options that are legally impossible. Those issues
    are clearly addressed in H.R. 900 but not so in H.R. 1230.
        For example, Governor Acevedo's proposal for enhanced
    commonwealth, as included in his party's 2004 platform,
    provides, among other things, number one, that Puerto Rico
    would be a sovereign nation but in permanent union with the
    U.S. as part of a covenant to which the United States will be
    permanently bound.
        Two. That Puerto Rico would be able to veto most Federal
    laws.
        Three. That Puerto Rico would be able to invalidate Federal
    court jurisdictions.
        Four. That Puerto Rico would be able to enter into trade
    and other agreements with foreign nations and join
    international organizations separate from the U.S.
        Five. That the U.S. would continue all current assistance
    programs to Puerto Rico, plus a new annual block grant for
    socioeconomic development.
        Six. That the U.S. would provide new incentives for
    investment in Puerto Rico.
        Seven. That the U.S. would continue to grant free entry to
    any goods shipped from Puerto Rico.
        Eight. That the U.S. would continue to grant U.S.
    citizenship to persons born in Puerto Rico.
        And nine. That residents of Puerto Rico would not have to
    pay Federal taxes.
        Anyone who objectively reviews the Governor's enhanced
    commonwealth wish list and is honest about it will have to
    conclude that the definition that he is trying to sell in
    Puerto Rico and to some of our colleagues here is
    unconstitutional and thus not acceptable to the Congress. As a
    matter of fact, similar proposals have been rejected by this
    very same committee and the Federal Executive Branch in the
    past.
        My friends, the best of two worlds, as labeled by the
    Governor's party, does not exist. If it did, I have no doubts
    that we in Congress would immediately receive 50 other requests
    for the same deal.
        This, quite honestly, is one of my biggest concerns with
    the Constitutional Assembly approach, where a select and
    limited group of delegates will be entitled to unilaterally
    come up with a status proposal that we in the House, in this
    House, all know would not be acceptable to the U.S. Congress. A
    Trojan Horse, if you will.
        That being said, I firmly believe that most of the issues
    where we currently lack consensus could be resolved through the
    very deliberative process we commence today. The success of
    these hearings and other future proceedings before Congress on
    this issue will rest on whether or not we are able to advance
    the goal of Federal sponsorship of a limited status resolution
    process; one that will enable the issues, and which there is no
    consensus to resolve by self-determination, majority rule, and
    government by consent of the governed, selecting by their
    direct vote their status preference.
        It is in this spirit of seeking solutions based on
    inclusion of all ideas from those with a legitimate interest in
    this question that I literally welcome and encourage the
    contributions to this discourse by Representatives Serrano,
    Velazquez, and Gutierrez, as well as all sectors on the island.
    Together with all our colleagues in the House and the Senate,
    we are seized with a solemn and sacred duty, and with God's
    help, I trust we will acquit ourselves in a way that honors our
    people and our nation.
        Madame Chair, as you know, just a few weeks ago we
    celebrated the 90th anniversary of the granting of U.S.
    citizenship by Congress to Puerto Ricans. The final resolution
    of Puerto Rico's status dilemma has been stalled for too long.
    Let us work together to unlock this process and bring a final
    solution to Puerto Rico's century-old colonial predicament.
    Thank you again.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fortuno follows:]

                  Statement of The Honorable Luis G. Fortuno,
                        Subcommittee on Insular Affairs

        Madame Chair, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for
    holding this very important hearing today. It has certainly been a
    pleasure serving with you in the subcommittee, and I look forward to
    continuing to work with you in a bipartisan manner to address the
    current inequities in the way our Nation treats U.S. citizens and
    nationals, not only in Puerto Rico, but in all of its territories.
        I also want to commend Chairman Nick Rahall and Ranking Member Don
    Young for their long-standing leadership and commitment in ensuring
    that my constituents, the 4 million U.S. citizens that reside in Puerto
    Rico, are granted the opportunity to participate in a truly
    decolonizing and fair self-determination process.
        Furthermore, I want to thank my fellow subcommittee members that
    are here or will join us today, and extend a warm welcome to our other
    colleagues present in the hearing, who, while not members of this
    subcommittee, have taken time from their busy schedules because of
    their keen interest in this very important matter. In particular, I
    want to thank my three fellow Puerto Ricans in Congress: Jose Serrano,
    Luis Gutierrez and Nydia Velazquez. During my two years in Congress,
    they have provided me with invaluable insights, but most of all, with
    their friendship. Last, but not least, I want to welcome all of our
    witnesses, most of whom traveled from the Island to be with us today to
    provide the subcommittee with their views on this vitally important
    issue.
        In our political affairs, consensus is beneficial when it can be
    achieved, but the fact is that, in a democracy, we govern based on
    majority rule.
        Today we do not have majority rule in Puerto Rico on the question
    of a permanent, non territorial and fully democratic future political
    status, even though this is clearly the most critical issue we face as
    a people. Instead, we have plurality or minority rule, because no
    defined political status option has received a majority vote in the
    last two locally sponsored status votes.
        Against this backdrop, you may wonder how it is that I can come
    before you today and tell you that we have a consensus in Puerto Rico
    on what Congress must do about the political status question. Yet, that
    is exactly what I am here to tell you.
        We have an overall consensus in Puerto Rico that our current
    relation with the U.S. is territorial in nature, not fully democratic,
    not fully self-governing, not based on equal rights and duties of
    citizenship, and does not fully implement the principle of government
    by consent of the governed. We have an overall consensus that our
    current political relationship with the United States no longer serves
    either Puerto Rico or the U.S. well. We have an overall consensus that
    the time for change into a permanent and non-territorial relationship
    with the United States is, not only long overdue, but urgently needed.
        The reality is that the Island's current status does not enable the
    people of Puerto Rico to fulfill their potential for social, economic
    and political development. This is not only a political problem, it is
    also manifested in Puerto Rico's chronic economic underperformance.
        This includes a local economic recession even in the midst of a
    national economic growth and expansion, as well as high unemployment
    while national unemployment is at record lows. These economic realities
    translate into human discouragement and unrealized dreams, and have
    forced many of my constituents--about 6,000 per month--to move to the
    mainland in search for better opportunities and equality. We have a
    sacred duty to our children and future generations to stop this cycle
    of unfulfilled human potential.
        That is why there is a consensus in Puerto Rico that the current
    status must be changed to a new status that is permanent and not
    territorial, one that redeems the promise of democracy and opportunity
    for our people.
        To be sure, the political parties in Puerto Rico still have the
    most profound differences on what permanent non-territory status we
    prefer. We also disagree on the procedure to achieve majority rule on
    the status issue. In other words, we agree that there is a problem, but
    are at odds as to what the solution and the process to reach that
    solution should be.
        But I believe we have a consensus that calls upon Congress to
    recognize a democratic referendum process grounded in self-
    determination by the people, based on options compatible with the
    federal constitution but formulated with local participation.
        In this regard, while I strongly believe that H.R. 900 offers a
    much better approach and process to resolving, once and for all, Puerto
    Rico's status dilemma, I have to admit that H.R. 1230 is more realistic
    than its previous version in the sense that it recognizes the need for
    a new status that is non territorial and permanent. That mere
    recognition, in itself, constitutes an important step in the right
    direction.
        We, however, still have major differences about how to ensure that
    the people have a direct vote at each stage of the process, and that
    constitutionally valid options are proposed instead of options that are
    legally impossible. Those issues are clearly addressed in H.R. 900, but
    not so in H.R. 1230. For example, Governor Acevedo's proposal for
    Enhanced Commonwealth, as included in his party's 2004 Platform,
    provides, among other things:
        1. That Puerto Rico would be a sovereign nation, but in permanent
    union with the U.S., as part of a covenant to which the United States
    would be permanently bound;
        2. That Puerto Rico would be able to veto most Federal laws;
        3. That Puerto Rico would be able to invalidate Federal court
    jurisdiction;
        4. That Puerto Rico would be able to enter into trade and other
    agreements with foreign nations and join international organizations,
    separate from the U.S.;
        5. That the U.S. would continue all current assistance programs to
    Puerto Rico, plus a new annual block grant for social and economic
    development;
        6. That the U.S. would provide new incentives for investment in
    Puerto Rico;
        7. That the U.S. would continue to grant free entry to any goods
    shipped from Puerto Rico;
        8. That the U.S. would continue to grant U.S. citizenship to
    persons born in Puerto Rico, and;
        9. That residents of Puerto Rico would not have to pay Federal
    income taxes.
        Anyone who objectively reviews the Governor's Enhanced Commonwealth
    wish list, and is honest about it, will have to conclude that the
    definition that he is trying to sell in Puerto Rico and to some of our
    colleagues here is unconstitutional and thus, not acceptable to the
    Congress. As a matter of fact, similar proposals have been rejected by
    this very same Committee and the Federal Executive Branch in the past.
    My friends, the ``best of two worlds'', as traditionally labeled by the
    Governor's party, does not exist. If it did, I have no doubts that we
    in Congress would immediately receive 50 other requests for the same
    deal.
        This, quite honestly, is one of my biggest concerns with the
    Constitutional Assembly approach, where a select and limited group of
    delegates would be entitled to unilaterally come up with a status
    proposal that we, in this House, all know would not be acceptable to
    the United States Congress. A Trojan horse, if you will.
        That being said, I firmly believe that most of the issues where we
    currently lack consensus could be resolved through the very
    deliberative process we commence today.
        The success of these hearings and all other future proceedings
    before Congress on this issue will rest on whether or not we are able
    to advance the goal of federal sponsorship of a legitimate status
    resolution process, one that will enable the issues on which there is
    no consensus to be resolved by self-determination, majority rule and
    government by consent of the governed, selecting by their direct vote
    their status preference.
        It is in this spirit of seeking solutions based on inclusion of all
    ideas from those with a legitimate interest in this question that I not
    only welcome, but encourage, the contributions to this discourse by
    Representatives Serrano, Velazquez and Gutierrez, as well as all
    sectors on the Island. Together with all our colleagues in this House
    and the Senate, we are seized with a solemn and sacred duty, and with
    God's help I trust that we will acquit ourselves in a way that honors
    our people and our nation.
        Madame Chair, as you know, just a few weeks ago, we celebrated the
    90th anniversary of the granting of U.S. citizenship by Congress to
    Puerto Ricans. The final resolution of Puerto Rico's status dilemma has
    been stalled for too long. Let's work together to unlock this process
    and bring final solution to Puerto Rico's century old colonial
    predicament.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Fortuno. I also recognize
    and welcome at this time again the distinguished gentleman from
    West Virginia, and the Chairman of the Natural Resources
    Committee, Mr. Rahall, and recognize him for any statement that
    he might make.

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

        Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Madame Chair. I appreciate very much
    your recognition, as well as your calling this hearing today
    before the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs on two legislative
    proposals--H.R. 900, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, and H.R.
    1230, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act.
        When I was honored to be named Chairman of the Committee on
    Natural Resources earlier this year, I issued an agenda of
    American values to guide the committee in its consideration of
    the many pressing issues we face within our broad jurisdiction.
    One part of that agenda stated, in reference to the territorial
    possessions of the U.S., that we must recognize that there is
    an inherent right of political self-determination.
        The document noted, and I quote, ``For a majority of our
    territories, circumstances of history and acquisition are
    similar. However, timelines to establish any other political
    status will vary. When appropriate, we should work toward
    providing clear direction to achieve political status
    consistent with the U.S. Constitution.''
        Since the establishment of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
    in 1952, four popular votes have been held on the status issue
    in three plebiscites and one referendum.
        In going back just to the 1970s, at least 40 separate
    measures have been introduced in Congress to resolve or clarify
    Puerto Rico's political status. In addition, Congress has held
    at least 10 hearings, and four measures have received either
    House or Senate action.
        Further, we have the report by the President's Task Force
    on Puerto Rico's Status, released last year, which was the
    subject of a hearing by the committee.
        With all this background, it does appear to me that among
    all of the territorial possessions of the United States, this
    is indeed the time when we should work toward providing clear
    direction to Puerto Rico to resolve its political status in a
    manner consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
        As such, we are meeting today to examine a simple
    proposition that nonetheless does elicit complex responses. The
    proposition is whether or not the people of Puerto Rico are
    satisfied with the status quo in terms of their political
    status. The responses are extremely complex, and often tinged
    with heated political rhetoric and deep-seated emotions.
        I believe that this Subcommittee's responsibility is to be
    an honest broker with the people of Puerto Rico as this issue
    moves forward. At the same time, I would submit that it would
    be misleading to ignore the recommendations of the report by
    the President's Task Force, the positions of previous
    Administrations, our committee's own record, international law,
    and indeed, our country's Constitution.
        So I conclude by thanking again the distinguished
    gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Chairman Donna Christensen,
    as well as the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, the
    gentleman from Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, for holding this
    hearing. I commend my Ranking Member of the full committee,
    Chairman Don Young, as well as other Members of Congress that
    have joined us today or will join us for debate on this issue,
    and listening to those who have come to testify.
        Thank you, Madame Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]

             Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, Chairman,
                         Committee on Natural Resources

        Thank you, Madame Chair. Nearly a year ago, when the Full Committee
    convened a Oversight Hearing to receive testimony on the Report by the
    President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status, I saluted the twenty-
    one Puerto Rican families who had lost a loved one in our war with
    Iraq.
        Since then, three more soldiers who call Puerto Rico home have made
    the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country free. To the Rodriguez,
    Montalvo, and Soto-Pinedo families; we regret your loss and honor your
    loved ones, along with the twenty-one other patriotic families in
    Puerto Rico with a brief moment of silence.
        Madame Chair, we are here today because the people of Puerto Rico
    have been suffering from political status injustice for more than a
    century. In 1898, when we first raised our stars and stripes beyond our
    continental borders, did we unwittingly lower the promise of freedom,
    representation, and democracy upon which we had built our country? If
    time has been our judge, then the clock seems to favor injustice
    because more than one-hundred years of disenfranchisement and inequity
    remain.
        This is not to say that the issue has not been raised before this
    Congress. Everyone in this room, along with the millions in Puerto Rico
    listening to our proceedings know that Congress has tried to find a way
    to resolve the status issue. We realize how important the issue of
    status is for the people of Puerto Rico; it is debated daily, written
    about often, and divides friends and families.
        In going back just to the 1970's, at least forty separate measures
    have been introduced in Congress to resolve or clarify Puerto Rico's
    future status. Congress has held at least ten hearings and only four
    measures have received either House or Senate action. It seems that a
    lot has been done and very little has been accomplished.
        This may hold true in Puerto Rico as well.
        In the past century, three plebiscites have gauged the people's
    desires to advance their current political status in the American
    family as a U.S. territory. It has become clearer that with each
    completed plebiscite, all has become vague, with a choice of ``None of
    the Above'' garnering more votes than any other political status option
    on the ballot in the 1998 plebiscite.
        Madame Chair, it seems the adage; ``the more things change the more
    they remain the same;'' holds true.
        I am more optimistic today with the re-establishment of this
    Insular Affairs Subcommittee and with Ms. Christensen as its
    chairwoman. She is a thoughtful leader and I trust that she will
    conduct this proceeding in a fair and balanced manner. In fact, I
    applaud her for reaching out into the Puerto Rican community to hear
    from those who may not have been heard in prior proceedings.
        Some have criticized this decision, which has in part left the
    leaders of Puerto Rico's political parties in the gallery; all of whom
    have appeared before us in prior years, and at least one have served
    with us. This Committee knows where you stand and we appreciate you
    coming to give your support for others in the Puerto Rican community
    wanting to add their voices to the debate. I welcome all of you.
        The two bills before us offer very different approaches to resolve
    the future political status of Puerto Rico. To be clear, I support only
    one; H.R. 900. It reflects the recommendations of President Bush's Task
    Force on Puerto Rico's status. It has historical precedence; affording
    the people of Puerto Rico the same opportunity afforded to every other
    U.S. territory or protectorate. Status options that have been deemed
    constitutional and which also have international recognition.
        I realize that there are realities for residents of U.S.
    territories that confront them daily. The application of Federal laws
    that do not make sense. Being a part of the U.S. sometimes, and not all
    the time. Enjoying U.S. citizenship, yet having a unique cultural
    identity that sets you apart from your fellow Americans on the U.S.
    mainland.
        So, it is no surprise that one would want to support a proposed
    arrangement that recognizes all those feelings of inequality and
    disenfranchisement and then empowers you to be in control.
        However, we cannot tailor that sort of arrangement. To do so, sends
    a wrong message not only to our other U.S. territories who have yet to
    walk down the same path that the people of Puerto Rico are on; but also
    to the States of our Union.
        California is one of the largest economies in the world.
    Mississippi is one of the poorest States in the Nation. How could
    either one not ponder what it would be like to independently negotiate
    a trade deal; or have their legislature be able to annul Federal law?
        Madame Chair, I feel that this Subcommittee's hearing is important
    so that the people of Puerto Rico are dealt with honestly. For decades,
    we have allowed for the realm of possibilities and it is now time for
    the realm of reality. We need to give them a process steeped in both
    historical and constitutional precedence.
                                     ______

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

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

        Mr. Young. Thank you, Madame Chairman, and I will submit
    for the record my total statement, because much of what is in
    my statement has already been said by Luis Fortuno.
        I am a proud sponsor of H.R. 900. As you know, this is not
    new to me. We passed this out of the committee very nearly
    unanimously. We had a margin of about 50 votes on the Floor
    until the morning we had the vote, and the English first group
    came out in droves, and they ended up passing it by one vote.
        I don't believe that will happen this time. I am very
    excited about this bill in the sense it is very similar to the
    one we passed before. I will say that the counter-proposal
    causes me great concern, because I do believe in my heart of
    hearts that bill is dead on arrival.
        We might work out something a little different than 900,
    but what was asked by the Governor is an impossibility, and
    there will be no action in this Congress.
        So my goal is to continue to go forth, try to solve this I
    think long-overdue challenge for the people of Puerto Rico. And
    I want to thank the people of Puerto Rico. As you know, I have
    been down there many times, and it is an area which I truly
    love, and the people.
        We had our 45th wedding anniversary in Puerto Rico. And I
    couldn't think of a better person. And whoever has got that
    cell phone, they had better shut it off.
        I really, really appreciate the passion the Puerto Rican
    people have on this issue and other issues. If you have never
    been to a horse race or a cockfight in Puerto Rico, you haven't
    really experienced excitement.
        So Madame Chair, with that, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

           Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Ranking Republican,
                         Committee on Natural Resources

        Madame Chairwoman, thank you for holding this hearing today and for
    a balanced line-up of witnesses.
        First off, let me say I'm a proud cosponsor of H.R. 900, a bill
    authored by my good friend, Mr. Fortuno, the Ranking Republican of this
    Subcommittee, and Congressman Serrano.
        Many in the room today are familiar with my experience dealing with
    this issue. In the 105th Congress, I sponsored a bill, H.R. 856, to
    resolve the political status of Puerto Rico. My principle aim was to
    consider the status question in a manner that complied with the
    Constitution and that bore in mind the aspirations of the people of
    Puerto Rico to determine their future.
        After three committee hearings, including two in Puerto Rico, the
    Committee passed the bill, and so did the House.
        While H.R. 900 is somewhat different from the bill I sponsored in
    1997, it conforms to my basic goal, which is to enable the people of
    Puerto Rico to determine their status in a manner that is democratic
    and consistent with historic, legal, and constitutional precedents.
        This is not really a ``statehood bill,'' or an ``independence
    bill,'' or a ``status quo'' bill per se. This is a procedural bill, one
    that allows for a transparent, democratic process to resolve the status
    question.
        I recognize and respect the aims of those who support H.R. 1230.
    But I have some fundamental problems with the bill.
        First, it contemplates an outcome which may be unconstitutional. It
    would give Puerto Rico a chance to have a ``new Commonwealth'' status
    that gives it all the benefits of statehood but without the same
    application of federal law as all other states must bear.
        And aside from the constitutional problem, I don't believe the
    House would pass a bill allowing for this arrangement.
        Another problem is that the bill seems to avoid the open,
    democratic process set forth under H.R. 900. This may tend to create
    confusion among residents of Puerto Rico who want to settle the status
    question in a directly democratic fashion.
        I applaud Chairwoman Christensen for holding a hearing to focus on
    some of these academic and constitutional questions surrounding these
    bills.
        I would urge my colleagues to carefully consider what process to
    use and focus first and foremost on which bill conforms most closely to
    the Constitution.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Ranking Member Young. The Chair
    now recognizes the author of H.R. 900, Representative Serrano,
    for any statement he may have.

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

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. I really appreciate this
    opportunity to participate in this hearing. And you would be
    interested to know that both Ms. Velazquez and I left SBA
    hearings. She is Chairman of the SBA Committee, and I on
    Appropriations overseeing SBA's budget. So SBA took second to
    Puerto Rico today, as it should on any given day.
        Let me just comment on the fact that I may be a member, the
    leader of a group that only has one member: me. And that is
    anything but the colonial status of Puerto Rico. I know that
    one of the favorite pastimes in Puerto Rico is trying to figure
    out whether I support statehood or independence.
        I think that is the problem; that for so many years we
    Puerto Ricans have been asked to be in favor of something, when
    in fact we should have organized ourselves to be against the
    colonial status. Get rid of the colony, move it out of the way,
    and then roll the dice on what comes later and deal as brothers
    and sisters on the island and in Congress.
        And it is with that in mind that I joined Mr. Fortuno. I
    have always proposed the idea that Puerto Rico first must
    decide whether it wants to remain in this relationship, or
    change.
        And so H.R. 900 gives us an opportunity to make that
    decision. And then it puts forth either integration or
    separation from the American Union as the true alternative.
        Now, why do I believe that that is correct? I believe that
    there are things in life that border, or are, in fact, issues
    of morality. And I believe as a legislator of 33 years that
    there is such a thing as legislative morality. So I believe
    that it is legislatively immoral to present to the people of
    Puerto Rico a colonial option as one of its choices.
        You cannot, in the true American, democratic,
    constitutional tradition say I give you the choice of joining
    the Union as a full partner; I give you the choice of becoming
    a member of the world community as an independent nation; but I
    also give you the choice of becoming even a stronger colony.
    Such a thing doesn't exist, and that is why I have always
    proposed.
        Now, I have to tell you that we make compromises when we
    want to get something done. So I am not happy with the opening
    statement of H.R. 900 that says that you wish to remain the
    same. But I know I can't move to step two if we don't ask that
    question first. Given a choice, I would never ask that
    question. I would simply say statehood or independence, and
    that is the choice.
        Now, a comment that was made by our Chairwoman I think
    merits a comment from me. You say that you like a process that
    starts from the bottom up. That makes the assumption that the
    people of Puerto Rico will decide their political future.
        It wasn't Puerto Rico that invaded the United States in
    1898. It was the United States that invaded Puerto Rico. We
    have been holding the colony for 109 years. We have to
    determine whether we want to integrate the colony, or dispose
    of the colony.
        But the U.S. Congress first has to make the determination
    that this can't continue, and it has to make that change.
        Now, as well was said by Mr. Fortuno, which is interesting,
    no one in Puerto Rico supports the present status. When they
    say they support commonwealth, they support a new commonwealth,
    which I call a letter to the Three Kings or a letter to Santa
    Claus. Because it says let me be a state, but let me be an
    independent nation; let me change, but not change.
        Does Puerto Rico deserve that after 109 years of
    colonialism? Absolutely. And I would vote for it. Can any
    Member of Congress outside of three or four of us vote for
    that? Absolutely not. Because as it was said here, if you go
    back to your district, somebody is going to ask you that Sunday
    morning in church, what was it that you gave Puerto Rico that
    you can't give my district. And that is the problem, that it is
    not realistic.
        Now, also it was said that nothing may change the economics
    of Puerto Rico. Well, tomorrow we are voting to give the
    District of Columbia a vote. I will vote for that. Because we
    know what that integration means. We are also promoting
    democracy throughout the world, which is good. We know what
    that means. That is an independent nation, right?
        Well, let us face it. Both of those do guarantee certain
    strong futures. It is the colonial status that guarantees no
    future at all.
        We still live in this Congress in a situation that is sad.
    I keep bringing up the fact that people have told me at times
    can I get them stamps for their collection from Puerto Rico.
    And I still tell the story of the Member of Congress, who is
    still a Member of Congress, who asked me for currency from
    Puerto Rico from his collection. So I took a dollar bill from
    my pocket and gave it to him. And I think that person got the
    message.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Serrano. In order for us to move ahead, we have to
    determine whether we are serious or not. I really would beg
    those who support the commonwealth to accept the reality that
    there is such a thing as an enhanced commonwealth; it is called
    free association. You have to move toward that if you truly
    believe in an enhanced commonwealth.
        But to continue to ask for a commonwealth that is colonial
    in nature is a disservice to the people of Puerto Rico, is a
    disservice to this country, and it is a disservice to democracy
    throughout the world.
        I will not rest until the colony is gone. It served a
    purpose for a long time perhaps, and I give credit to those who
    took it from where it was to where it is. But it was never the
    intention of the founders of the commonwealth to keep it as a
    permanent condition, and it is a condition.
        And so I find myself today in a unique situation, a
    situation similar or identical to what Nydia finds herself in.
    We were both born in the colony, and now we serve in the
    Congress of the power that holds the colony. As a Puerto Rican,
    I don't want my birthplace to be a colony. As an American
    Congressman, I think it is indecent that my country has
    colonies in 2007. And this must end.
        For that reason I proposed this bill. For this reason I
    think that the American family will resolve this problem
    jointly, and the Puerto Rican family will do the same.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. Before I move to
    the author of H.R. 1230, I ask unanimous consent that the
    gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Weller, be allowed to sit on the
    dais and participate in the hearing. Hearing no objections, so
    ordered.
        I also understand, Mr. Weller, that you need to leave us in
    a few minutes? And we are limiting our opening statements, but
    I will allow you to acknowledge the witnesses that have
    traveled today.

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

        Mr. Weller. Madame Chair, let me just thank you for the
    courtesy of being able to join you and our colleagues on this
    very, very important Subcommittee.
        I come here today both to support H.R. 900, as well as to
    echo the comments of the lead sponsors of H.R. 900, my friend,
    Jose Serrano, as well as Luis Fortuno, the elected
    representative of the people of Puerto Rico on behalf of H.R.
    900.
        I believe Congress has a role to play, and I also believe
    that H.R. 900 puts into place the appropriate response. I have
    been a witness as well as a participant in this process over
    the last 12 years. For some it has been frustrating, but I
    believe H.R. 900 provides the true answer.
        I have a much longer statement I would like to submit for
    the record. But again, I am here to support H.R. 900. And
    Madame Chairman, thank you very much for the courtesy of
    allowing me to present my very brief comments, as well as to
    express my support. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Weller follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Jerry Weller, a Representative in Congress
                           from the State of Illinois

        Madam Chairwoman, I am here today to support H.R. 900, the Serrano-
    Fortuno bill, because I believe Congress has a role to play and a
    responsibility to enable a process to achieve democratic majority rule
    in Puerto Rico on the status issue.
        The history of frustrating and disagreeable locally sponsored
    status votes teaches us that a three way choice among options that
    include a commonwealth definition already repeatedly rejected by
    Congress virtually ensures minority rule in the form of indecisive
    plurality votes.
        We need to sponsor a vote with a ballot that enables a majority to
    vote to continue the current status as defined by federal law, or to
    seek change. Only if a majority vote to seek a new status would there
    ever be a vote on statehood or some form of nationhood, either
    independence or free association. So who is afraid of majority rule,
    and how is it unfair?
        I have heard all the hype about exclusion of commonwealth as an
    option, and it is just not true. This bill is fair to commonwealth as
    it really is under current federal law, and may even give it an
    advantage by asking voters to choose between the known and the unknown.
        What is not fair is to return to the practice of asking voters to
    choose among unattainable options defined in the ideological hot house
    of local politics, without any federally sponsored process of
    legitimate and informed self-determination based on constitutionally
    defined options.
        H.R. 1230 will invite yet another agonizing debate and inconclusive
    process focused on an option that is not legally possible or
    politically realistic. That does not empower people, that disempowers
    people.
        We should not waste any more time on the notion of a bilateral
    compact to make Puerto Rico a separate nation under the American flag.
    I agree with those who believe this is just a delaying tactic to
    preserve the status quo. The only way the status quo should be
    preserved any longer is if the majority consent to it in a democratic
    process, and that is what H.R. 900 ensures.
        So we need to shift the focus away from flawed ideology and delay
    tactics embodied in H.R. 1230, and focus on the real issue and
    legitimate self-determination as proposed by H.R. 900.
        I know there are economic and political arguments that can be made
    for and against statehood. Personally, I think statehood is probably he
    best way to ensure that Puerto Rico will develop economically, so that
    the current $15 billion federal subsidy of commonwealth status ends,
    and Puerto Rico can prosper enough to afford to pay its own way in the
    union. Every territory that has become a state has developed and risen
    to and with the level of the national economy.
        I also think it is silly to try to predict whether Puerto Rico will
    send more Democrats or Republicans to Congress if it becomes a state,
    because they elect both Republicans and Democrats now, and they are not
    different than the rest of the U.S. politically. What really matters is
    whether they have full democratic participation, because what we know
    is that both parties are competitive in Puerto Rico and will thrive
    when Americans in Puerto Rico not only attend the national party
    conventions, but vote in the elections that follow.
        However, I don't think the economic and political arguments are as
    important as the constitutional and moral issues. The territorial
    clause in Article IV of the Constitution was never intended to result
    in a century of territorial status for what is now close to 4 million
    U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico.
        How can 4 million U.S. citizens be represented by one non-voting
    member of the House?
        Madame Chairwoman--thank you for the opportunity to share my
    thoughts and testimony here today.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Weller. The Chairman now
    recognizes the author of H.R. 1230, Representative Velazquez,
    for any statement she may have.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
        Ms. Christensen. And my Chairwoman of the Small Business
    Committee.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Chairwoman Christensen and
    Minority Ranking Member Fortuno, for holding this important
    hearing today.
        I appreciate the opportunity to be here and offer my views
    on H.R. 1230, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2007.
        My friends, here we are today debating on the House Floor a
    supplemental regarding the war in Iraq. And we, the U.S.
    Congress, we are in Iraq because we want to empower the people
    of Iraq.
        Well, I am here to empower the people of Puerto Rico. And
    we should not be afraid to provide for a political vehicle that
    will allow the people of Puerto Rico, who live in Puerto Rico,
    come to terms regarding their political destiny.
        I am a Puerto Rican Member of the U.S. Congress, and I will
    not go to Puerto Rico to tell the people of Puerto Rico what is
    the best political option for them. That is a decision that
    they have to make.
        The path to self-determination for the people of Puerto
    Rico has been a long, difficult one. It is full of complex
    factors that warrant thorough discussion in order to make an
    informed decision.
        Previous Congressional initiatives have focused on defining
    what the options should be for the people of Puerto Rico, but
    the truth is Puerto Ricans themselves should decide what their
    options are. That is why I introduced H.R. 1230, the Puerto
    Rico Self-Determination Act, along with Congressman Gutierrez--
    that by the way is not here at this moment because he is
    holding a press conference to announce legislation on
    immigration--and Congressman Wicker, to recognize that it is
    the people of Puerto Rico who are best suited to determine
    their political future.
        The residents of the island need to examine the factors
    themselves, the economic, legal, and social issues that are
    coming into play. Most importantly, it must be done in a way
    that allows their opinions to be both heard and considered.
        Puerto Rico has not only a natural right to self-
    determination, but it is also entitled to a process that allows
    an informed use of that right. You cannot ask or even expect
    people to choose their future without debating what their
    options are, and what consequences may arise.
        A democratic self-determination process ensures that people
    are able to debate their ideas and reach consensus themselves
    on how to proceed. Plebiscites or referendums do not lend
    themselves to a comprehensive and thoughtful process.
    Arbitrarily defined Federal concepts that require the Puerto
    Rican people to choose in a yes-or-no format are not consistent
    with the practices of self-determination.
        I want to take a moment to remind the Committee today that
    this process will impact eight million Puerto Ricans living in
    our states and on the island. Congressmen Gutierrez, Serrano,
    and myself have a significant number of Puerto Rican
    constituents in our districts, as well as family and friends
    still living on the island. We must make sure that all of their
    opinions are taken into account during this vital discussion.
        It is for this reason that I am strongly encouraging that
    this Subcommittee hold hearings on this issue in Puerto Rico,
    New York, Chicago, and Orlando, so that local community leaders
    and the general public have an opportunity to participate in
    this historic process. These discussions cannot take place on
    Capitol Hill alone, and needs to be seen in the light of day
    for the Puerto Rican community to see and participate.
        Chairwoman Christensen, I appreciate the time you have
    granted me today to share my thoughts on this important issue.
    I am hopeful that under your leadership, this hearing will lead
    to consensus, dialogue, and a fair process for the people of
    Puerto Rico. They simply cannot afford to spend time watching
    yet another round of hearings that in the end only compound the
    already-existing divisions among groups in Puerto Rico.
        This is a complicated issue which draws many emotions from
    the people in Puerto Rico and those Puerto Ricans living in the
    States that feel passionately about their future. We have an
    opportunity before us to address this issue in a comprehensive,
    fair, and transparent manner.
        I look forward to working with you and the Members of the
    Subcommittee in providing the people of Puerto Rico with an
    unbiased approach that guarantees a true expression of the
    right to self-determination and their aspirations.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Velazquez follows:]

      Statement of The Honorable Nydia M. Velazquez, a Representative in
                      Congress from the State of New York

        Thank you, Chairwoman Christensen, for holding this hearing today.
    I appreciate the opportunity to be here and offer my views on H.R.
    1230, The Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2007.
        The path to self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico has
    been a long, difficult one. It is full of complex factors that warrant
    thorough discussion in order to make an informed decision. Previous
    congressional initiatives have focused on defining what the options
    should be for the people of Puerto Rico. But the truth is--Puerto
    Ricans themselves should decide what their options are.
        That is why I introduced, H.R. 1230, ``The Puerto Rico Self-
    Determination Act'', along with Congressmen Gutierrez and Wicker, to
    recognize that it is the people of Puerto Rico who are best suited to
    determine their political future. The residents of the island need to
    reexamine the factors themselves--the economic, legal and social
    issues--that are coming into play. Most importantly, it must be done in
    a way that allows their opinions to be both heard and considered.
        Puerto Rico has not only an inalienable right to self-
    determination, but it is also entitled to a process that allows an
    informed use of that right. You cannot ask, or even expect, people to
    choose their future without debating what their options are and what
    consequences may arise.
        A democratic self-determination process ensures that people are
    able to debate the ideas and reach consensus themselves on how to
    proceed. Plebiscites or referendums do not lend themselves to a
    comprehensive and thoughtful process. Arbitrarily defined federal
    concepts that require the Puerto Rican people to choose in a yes or no
    format are not consistent with the practices of self-determination.
        I want to take a moment to remind the committee today that this
    process will impact 8 million Puerto Ricans living in our states and on
    the island. Congressman Gutierrez, Serrano and myself have a
    significant number of Puerto Rican constituents in our districts, as
    well as family and friends still living on the island. We must make
    sure that all of their opinions are taken into account during this
    vital discussion.
        It is for this reason that I am strongly encouraging that this sub-
    committee hold field hearings on this issue--in New York, Chicago,
    Orlando and of course, in Puerto Rico; so that local community leaders
    and the general public have an opportunity to participate in this
    historic process. These discussions cannot take place on Capitol Hill
    alone. It needs to be seen in the light of day for the Puerto Rican
    community to see and participate.
        Chairwoman Christensen, I appreciate the time you have granted me
    today to share my thoughts on this important issue. I am hopeful, that
    under your leadership, these hearings will lead to consensus, dialogue
    and a fair process for the people of Puerto Rico. They simply cannot
    afford to spend time watching yet another round of hearings that, in
    the end, only compound the already existing divisions among groups in
    Puerto Rico.
        This is a complicated issue which draws many emotions from the
    people in Puerto Rico, and those Puerto Ricans living in the states,
    that feel passionately about their future. We have an opportunity
    before us today to address this issue in a comprehensive, fair and
    transparent manner.
        I look forward to working with you and the Members of the Sub-
    committee on Insular Affairs in providing the people of Puerto Rico
    with an unbiased approach that guarantees a true expression of their
    right to self-determination, and their aspirations.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Congresswoman Velazquez.
        I want to welcome also to the hearing today my fellow
    delegates, Congressman Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa; Ms.
    Madeleine Bordallo, Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of Guam;
    and Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island.
        I would now like to thank those who responded to the
    Subcommittee's call to hear from organizations that may not
    have had the opportunity to be heard by Congress in the past.
        We received a great number of requests to appear before us,
    and we were not able to accommodate all requests.
        However, if there are no objections, I would like to take
    this opportunity to enter into the record the statements of the
    following people:
        Mr. Ricardo Alvarado; Mr. Carlos Chardon; Mr. Jose Julio
    Diaz,, President of the New Statehood Movement; Lieutenant-
    Colonel Freytes; Mr. Arturo Guzman, Chairman of the Institute
    for the Development, Equality, and Advancement of Puerto Rico;
    The League of United Latin American Citizens; Mr. Joaquin
    Marquez, President of the Puerto Rican-American Foundation; Mr.
    Juan Manuel Garcia Passalacqua; Juan Jose Nola Acosta; Ms. Luz
    E. Cuadrado Pitterson; Mr. Mario Porrata; Mr. Dennis Simmons;
    and Dr. Marissel Velazquez-Vicente, President of the Puerto
    Rico Association of Physicians and Surgeons.
        And hearing no objections, so ordered.
        [NOTE: The statements submitted for the record have been
    retained in the Committee's official files.]
        Ms. Christensen. I would now like to call up the first
    panel. Mr. Kenneth Thomas of the Congressional Research
    Service; Professor Carlos I. Gorrin-Peralta of Puerto Rico's
    Inter-American University School of Law; Mr. Ramon Luis Nieves,
    the Executive Director of Movimiento Autonomista
    Socialdemocrata; Professor Richard Pildes of New York
    University School of Law; and Thomas C. Goldstein, a lawyer
    with the firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Thomas to testify for five
    minutes. The timing lights on the table will indicate when your
    time is concluded, and all witness statements will be
    submitted, the full statements will be submitted for the
    hearing record.
        Mr. Thomas.

    STATEMENT OF KENNETH R. THOMAS, LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY, AMERICAN
              LAW DIVISION, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

        Mr. Thomas. Madame Chairwoman and Members of the committee.
    My name is Ken Thomas, and I am a legislative attorney with the
    American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service at
    the Library of Congress.
        I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify today
    regarding the committee's consideration of H.R. 900, the Puerto
    Rico Democracy Act of 2007, and H.R. 1230, the Puerto Rico
    Self-Determination Act of 2007. I would also like to thank
    Johnny Killian, Sam Garrett, and Keith Bee of my office who
    helped me in preparation for this hearing.
        I would like to start my discussion with H.R. 900. H.R. 900
    is based on the recommendations of the President's Task Force
    on Puerto Rico's Status. That task force report states that
    there are three constitutionally valid options available to the
    island: independence, statehood, or the continuation of the
    commonwealth status, subject to the territorial clause of the
    U.S. Constitution.
        Under H.R. 900 there would be a plebiscite to ask voters to
    choose between the current commonwealth status or a permanent
    non-territorial status. If a majority of voters chose the
    second options, then a second plebiscite would be held to
    choose between statehood or independence, the latter of which
    would include free association.
        The second bill, H.R. 1230, contemplates convening a Puerto
    Rican Constitutional Convention, which would formulate a status
    option to be voted on in a public referendum. If approved, that
    option would be presented to Congress to be passed as a joint
    resolution.
        There are several aspects of H.R. 1230 that are of special
    note. While a Constitutional Convention could formulate any one
    of there options--again, statehood, independence, or
    commonwealth--any commonwealth status proposed would need to be
    new or modified. Under H.R. 1230 this appears to mean that a
    commonwealth status would be ``based upon the sovereignty of
    the people of Puerto Rico, and not subject to the plenary
    powers of the territorial clause of the Constitution of the
    United States.''
        Now, the territorial clause, found in Article IV, Section
    3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, provides that the Congress
    shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules
    and regulations respecting the territory or other property
    belonging to the United States.
        Now, the Supreme Court has held that Congress's power under
    the territorial clause is extremely broad, and can be exercised
    even after the authority to govern has been delegated to a
    territorial government. So the question which needs to be asked
    is what is this new or modified commonwealth option which could
    be proposed by the convention, under H.R. 1230?
        While I would first like to suggest that the language under
    H.R. 1230 is ambiguous to exactly how this commonwealth status
    would be formulated--for instance, this bill, unlike previous
    recommendations, seeks to withdraw Federal jurisdiction over
    Puerto Rico in order to achieve the goal of a new commonwealth.
        Now, it is not clear how far this withdrawal of Federal
    jurisdiction is intended to go. For instance, one could argue
    that this language means that if the Constitutional Convention
    approves a particular definition of new commonwealth or a
    particular governmental structure, and Congress approves it,
    then it is that definition that could not be changed by the
    Federal government.
        In other words, the convention could adopt something like
    the current commonwealth, where there is both an existing
    Puerto Rican self-government, but there is also Federal
    jurisdiction, there are Federal criminal laws, Federal civil
    laws applicable. That is one interpretation. And this I would
    refer to as locking in the commonwealth.
        Now, another possible interpretation would be that
    commonwealth status cannot be considered unless it eliminates
    all Federal jurisdiction over the territory of Puerto Rico;
    again, a very different possible type of commonwealth.
        Now let me briefly address the idea of locking in
    commonwealth status. Now, I should first say that it is
    perfectly consistent with the Constitution for the Congress to
    commit itself not to exercise Federal jurisdiction over the
    commonwealth, and it is certainly perfectly constitutional for
    the Congress to act consistently with that pledge.
        The question is whether the Congress can, by statute, bind
    a further Congress so that such a statute cannot be repealed or
    altered.
        Now, some commentators had argued that perhaps the Fifth
    Amendment due process clause would be relevant here, in that
    you could have vested political rights that cannot be
    withdrawn.
        Now, without addressing these arguments in particular, let
    me just note that H.R. 1230 does not appear to be based on the
    enforcement of Federal rights, but instead on the elimination
    of Federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the vested political
    right argument may not be relevant to this bill.
        Now, one might also consider the alternative
    interpretation, where passage of a newer enhanced commonwealth
    would not just lock in commonwealth status, but it would also
    remove all Federal jurisdiction over the island of Puerto Rico.
    This interpretation also raises constitutional issues.
        The portion of the Constitution which appears to be most
    relevant here is, of course, Article IV, Section 3, which
    addresses both the power to grant statehood and the power to
    regulate or dispose of territories.
        Now, these powers are consistent with three possible
    options: statehood, territorial status such as commonwealth, or
    independence.
        However, 1230 does not specify an alternative
    constitutional authority under which Congress could act to
    create a commonwealth which is not subject to the territorial
    clause.
        You will hear--excuse me.
        Ms. Christensen. You have a few seconds to wrap up.
        Mr. Thomas. Madame Chairwoman, that concludes my prepared
    statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or
    other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:]

      Statement of Kenneth R. Thomas, Legislative Attorney, American Law
         Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress

        Madame Chairwoman and members of the Committee:
        My name is Ken Thomas. I am a Legislative Attorney with the
    American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service at the
    Library of Congress. I'd like to thank you for inviting me to testify
    today regarding the Committee's consideration of H.R. 900, the ``Puerto
    Rico Democracy Act of 2007'' and H.R. 1230, the ``Puerto Rico Self-
    Determination Act of 2007.'' I'd also like to thank Sam Garrett, an
    analyst with our Government and Finance Division, who helped me in my
    preparation for this hearing.
        Today, I would like to discuss the specifics of these two bills,
    including how they might be interpreted by a court and how they would
    interact with United States Constitution. Let me start with H.R. 900,
    which would authorize various plebiscites to be held in Puerto Rico on
    the issue of status. Under H.R. 900, a plebiscite would be held to ask
    voters to choose between two different status options, both of which
    are specified in the bill. The first option would be to continue ``the
    existing form of territorial status as defined by the Constitution,
    basic laws, and policies of the United States.'' The second option
    would be to pursue ``a path toward a constitutionally viable permanent
    nonterritorial status.'' If a majority of voters in this first
    plebiscite were to choose the option of maintaining the status quo,
    H.R. 900 would then call for additional plebiscites to be held every
    eight years to reexamine the voters' status preferences. On the other
    hand, if a majority of voters chose the second option, ``a path toward
    a constitutionally viable permanent nonterritorial status,'' H.R. 900
    would authorize a second plebiscite. In this second plebiscite, voters
    would be asked to choose between:
        (1) statehood or (2) becoming a ``sovereign nation.'' The second
    option would include either complete independence or entering into a
    ``free association'' relationship with the United States. 1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ A ``free association'' relationship generally entails
    negotiated legal and economic ties, severable by either side, between
    sovereign nations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The process contemplated by H.R. 900 is based on the
    recommendations of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status
    (Task Force). 2 The Task Force was established by President
    Clinton in 2000 to, among other things, identify options for the
    territory's future political status and suggest a process for realizing
    such options. 3 In December of 2005, the Task Force issued a
    report on Puerto Rico's relationship with the federal government. The
    report asserted that there are only three constitutionally valid
    options available to the island: (1) independence; (2) statehood; or
    (3) continuation as a U.S. territory subject to the Territorial Clause
    of the U.S. Constitution. The provisions of H.R. 900 were drafted to be
    consistent with this finding.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See U.S. President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status, Report
    by the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status (2005) (Task
    Force Report).
        \3\ Executive Order No. 13183, 65 FR 82889 (2000).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By contrast, H.R. 1230 appears to contemplate a method for
    addressing the status relationship between Puerto Rico and the federal
    government that differs significantly from both the process and the
    status options suggested by the Task Force. One significant difference
    is that H.R. 1230 contemplates the convening of a Puerto Rican
    constitutional convention, which would formulate a status option to be
    considered by the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress. The convening
    of the convention, however, would be one part of a multi-step process.
    First, the Puerto Rican government would approve legislation
    establishing the number of delegates to the convention. Then, an
    election would be held in Puerto Rico to select those delegates. Once
    the constitutional convention was convened, the convention delegates
    would be asked to agree on a proposed ``Self-Determination Option'' for
    Puerto Rico. The convention's proposal would then be presented to ``the
    People of Puerto Rico'' in a referendum. Finally, if a majority of
    referendum voters approved the proposed status option, it would become
    a ``Self-Determination Proposal,'' which would then be presented to
    Congress to be passed as a joint resolution.
        The process suggested by H.R. 1230, however, would not necessarily
    end if the ``Self-Determination Proposal'' is passed or rejected by
    Congress. If Congress were to make any changes to the proposal before
    passage, then Sec. 4(a)(1) of the bill provides that these changes
    would be submitted to the Puerto Rican voters for approval in another
    referendum before the proposal could take took effect. On the other
    hand, if Congress rejected the proposed status option outright,
    Sec. 4(a)(2) provides that the constitutional convention may reconvene
    to develop a new proposal.
        There are several aspects of H.R. 1230 that are of special note.
    First, a ``Self-Determination Option'' can involve Commonwealth status,
    statehood or independence. However, if the Commonwealth status is
    chosen, it must be a ``new or modified'' Commonwealth. This language
    appears to be related to the further requirement that, whatever status
    is chosen--Commonwealth, statehood or independence options--it must be
    ``based on the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico and not subject
    to the plenary powers of the territorial clause of the Constitution of
    the United States.'' This language stands in contrast to the Task Force
    report, which suggests that at least one of the status options,
    Commonwealth, cannot be formulated in a way that is not subject to
    Congress' power under Territorial Clause.
        Of additional interest is the process to be followed by the
    Congress in the event that a ``Self-Determination Proposal'' is sent to
    the Congress by the convention. H.R. 1230 provides that if such option
    is submitted to Congress, then a joint resolution ``shall'' be enacted
    approving both the terms of the proposal and any necessary implementing
    language. At first impression, the use of the term ``shall'' would
    appear to contemplate that Congress would be required, under the bill,
    to accept the status option submitted by the convention. As will be
    discussed later, such an interpretation of this language may raise
    constitutional concerns.
        One thing that the two bills do have in common is that they would
    both allow Puerto Ricans living off the island to participate in the
    proposed status decision-making. H.R. 900 would allow ``all United
    States citizens born in Puerto Rico'' who satisfy eligibility
    requirements set by the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission to
    participate in the plebiscites. The bill would thus allow Puerto Ricans
    born on the island, but not living there today, to participate in the
    plebiscites. H.R. 1230, on the other hand, appears to allow even
    broader suffrage. Although ``voter eligibility'' is not as explicitly
    addressed as it is in H.R. 900, the bill specifies that the ``People of
    Puerto Rico'' would participate in electing constitutional convention
    delegates and in the referendum on the convention's self-determination
    proposal. The ``People of Puerto Rico'' is defined to include resident
    Puerto Ricans and nonresidents ``who are either born in Puerto Rico or
    have one parent born in Puerto Rico.''
        At this point, I would like to briefly give some background on the
    political status of Puerto Rico. After the end of the Spanish-American
    War, the United States and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris, which
    resulted in Spain relinquishing its claims to various holdings in the
    Caribbean, including Puerto Rico. The island was then governed by a
    U.S. military governor from 1898 through1900.
        In 1900, the Congress passed the Foraker Act, under which Puerto
    Rico became an organized territory of the United States. 4
    This Act included numerous provisions to raise revenue, and it provided
    Puerto Rican citizenship for inhabitants of the island who chose not to
    remain Spanish citizens. The Act also established a civilian government
    in Puerto Rico, and provided for a non-voting Resident Commissioner to
    act as the island's representative in Congress.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Foraker Act of April 12, 1900, ch. 191, 31 Stat. 77 (1900).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Soon thereafter, the Supreme Court began a consideration of the
    island's constitutional status in what have become know as the Insular
    Cases. 5 For instance, in the case of Downes v. Bidwell,
    6 the Court considered whether the constitutional
    requirement that duties, excises and imposts were to be uniform
    throughout the United States 7 applied to Puerto Rico.
    Justice White, in concurrence, established the territorial
    incorporation doctrine, which was ultimately used in the other Insular
    Cases. Under this doctrine, incorporated territories would enjoy all of
    the Constitution's protections, but unincorporated territories, such as
    Puerto Rico, would only enjoy fundamental constitutional rights and
    those additional civil rights that Congress provided by statute.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See, e.g., Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Dorr v.
    United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298
    (1922).
        \6\ 182 U.S. 244 (1901).
        \7\ U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 1917, Congress passed an Organic Act for Puerto Rico, which is
    popularly known as the Jones Act. 8 Among other things, the
    Act granted a bill of rights and statutory citizenship to the people of
    Puerto Rico. In 1950, the Congress passed the Puerto Rican Federal
    Relations Act, 9 giving Puerto Rico the right to establish a
    government and a constitution. This law is considered to be the basis
    for the modern Commonwealth relationship. In 1951, a referendum was
    held which approved the provisions of this Act, and the island's
    electorate subsequently approved a new Puerto Rican constitution. The
    constitution was then amended and approved by Congress. Since that
    time, a series of local referendums and plebiscites have been held on
    the status issue, but no significant change in political status has
    occurred.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Jones Act of March 2, 1917, ch. 145, 39 Stat. 951 (1917).
        \9\ Public Law 81-600, ch. 446, 64 Stat. 319 (1950).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The nature of the existing Commonwealth relationship between Puerto
    Rico and the United States has long been controversial. It is clear
    that the creation of the Commonwealth was intended to establish a
    significant level of self-government for Puerto Rico. However,
    disagreement exists about whether this relationship, which was
    established in the ``nature of a compact,'' 10 was intended
    to be binding on both parties, so that changes to that relationship
    could only be made by mutual consent. A further question is whether,
    regardless of the intent of the parties, Congress can be
    constitutionally bound to observe such an agreement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ The preamble to the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act
    provides that: ``the Act is now adopted in the nature of a compact so
    that the people of Puerto Rico may organize a government pursuant to a
    constitution of their own adoption.'' Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This debate is also important to the consideration of the status
    options provided for in the bills before the Committee. As noted, the
    Task Force has asserted that the only three constitutionally-recognized
    options available to the island are independence, statehood or
    continuation as a U.S. territory subject to the Territorial Clause.
    While H.R. 1230 also provides for three status options--independence,
    statehood or Commonwealth--it specifies that none of the status options
    shall be subject to the Territorial Clause. Assuming for the moment
    that the current Commonwealth status is subject to the Congress' power
    over territories, H.R. 1230 directly raises the issue of whether such a
    ``new or modified'' Commonwealth option not subject to the clause is
    constitutionally permissible.
        Article IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2, the Territorial Clause, provides that
    ``The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful
    rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property
    belonging to the United States....'' The Supreme Court has held that
    Congress's power under the Territorial Clause is extremely broad:
            In the Territories of the United States, Congress has the
            entire dominion and sovereignty, national and local, Federal
            and state, and has full legislative power over all subjects
            upon which the legislature of a State might legislate within
            the State; and may, at its discretion, intrust that power to
            the legislative assembly of a Territory. 11
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162, 168 (1899).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court has also held
    that the Congress has wide discretion in how it can provide for self-
    government in those territories:
            It must be remembered that Congress, in the government of the
            Territories as well as of the District of Columbia, has plenary
            power, save as controlled by the provisions of the
            Constitution, that the form of government it shall establish is
            not prescribed, and may not necessarily be the same in all the
            Territories. We are accustomed to that generally adopted for
            the Territories, of a quasi state government, with executive,
            legislative, and judicial officers, and a legislature endowed
            with the power of local taxation and local expenditures, but
            Congress is not limited to this form.... It may legislate
            directly in respect to the local affairs of a Territory or
            transfer the power of such legislation to a legislature elected
            by the citizens of the Territory. 12
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Binns v. United States, 194 U.S. 486, 491 (1904).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If Congress delegates authority to local authorities, however, this
    does not limit Congress' continuing power to act in that territory
    under the Territorial Clause. In First National Bank v. County of
    Yankton, 13 the Court said:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ 101 U.S. 129 (1879)(upholding congressional authority over
    issuance of bonds by counties under the authority of a territory).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States not
            included in any State must necessarily be governed by or under
            the authority of Congress. The territories are but political
            subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States. ...
            The organic law of a Territory takes the place of a
            constitution as the fundamental law of the local government. It
            is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but
            Congress is supreme, and for the purposes of this department of
            its governmental authority has all the powers of the people of
            the United States, except such as have been expressly or by
            implication reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution.
            14
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Id. at 132. See also Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cr. (10 U.S.) 332, 336
    (1810); American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. (26 U.S.) 511, 542
    (1828); Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 48 (1894).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Considering these parameters, the question arises as to how a court
    might interpret the language of H.R. 1230 which provides that all of
    the status options to be considered by the constitutional convention
    must ``be based on the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico and not
    subject to the plenary powers of the territorial clause of the
    Constitution of the United States.''
        A preliminary question with which a court might be concerned is
    just how broad an assertion of sovereignty is contemplated by the bill,
    as the quoted language may be seen as ambiguous. For instance, an
    argument might be made this language provides only that, once a status
    option is chosen and approved by Congress, it was the agreement itself
    which was no longer subject to Congress's power under the clause.
    Another interpretation would be that, whatever status option is chosen,
    that once that option is approved, the Congress would no longer be able
    to exercise its territorial power over Puerto Rico.
        If the first interpretation is correct, then this language would
    appear to be intended merely to ``lock in'' whatever status option was
    chosen by the Congress, by removing Congress' constitutional authority
    to amend the provisions of the enacted joint resolution. This
    interpretation would, of course, raise constitutional issues. In fact,
    it would appear to raise many of the same legal arguments that have
    been made over the course of years concerning the current Commonwealth
    status. In general, these arguments, while accepting the fact of
    continuing federal jurisdiction over the territory of Puerto Rico, have
    suggested that some essential portion of the existing political
    structure, such as the Puerto Rican Constitution, is beyond the
    Congress's power.
        The fundamental controversy in this regard appears to be whether
    the Congress can be bound by political status agreements. For two of
    the status options provided under H.R. 1230, this would not be a
    problem. There is little disagreement with the suggestion that, if
    Congress granted Puerto Rico statehood or independence, these decisions
    could not be reversed, and that under either of these options, Puerto
    Rico would no longer be subject to the Territorial Clause. Nor is there
    any question that Congress, after endorsing a Commonwealth status
    proposal, could refrain from modifying that decision, so that no issue
    of constitutional consequence would arise. Thus, the main point at
    issue is how the legislation as it is constructed is to be interpreted.
        It is not clear from H.R. 1230 what legal theory might be presented
    in this regard. Because of the similarity of the proposal to past
    theories regarding the Puerto Rican Commonwealth, one could postulate
    that some of the legal arguments made in that earlier context would be
    relevant. For instance, commentators have suggested that certain
    compacts granting self-governmental authority to a territory create
    ``vested political rights.'' Under the Fifth Amendment, once the United
    States has vested a property right, then Congress cannot deprive a
    person of that property without due process of law; nor can that
    private property be taken for public use without providing just
    compensation. Under a ``vested political rights'' theory, a compact
    granting self-governmental authority to a territory could create such
    vested property rights, so that a subsequent Congress could not revoke
    the compact unilaterally. 15
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ This theory of vested rights was apparently adopted by the
    Department of Justice in a 1963 legal opinion, and was reiterated as
    late as 1975. See Task Force Report, supra note 2 at 6. The Department
    of Justice apparently reconsidered this opinion after the 1986 Supreme
    Court decision in Bowen v. Agencies Opposed to Soc. Sec. Entrapment,
    477 U.S. 41, 54-56 (1986) (holding that a State's purported contractual
    right to withdraw its employees from Social Security was not a property
    right). Since that time, the Department of Justice has apparently held
    the opinion that a political compact cannot rise to the level of vested
    property rights. Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is not clear, however, how this argument could be applied to the
    situation contemplated by H.R. 1230. As noted, the ``vested political
    rights'' theory relies on precepts of due process and the takings
    doctrine, both of which are found in the Fifth Amendment. H.R. 1230,
    rather than invoking the application of these constitutional
    protections, focuses on diminishing the authority of Congress under the
    Territorial Clause. Arguably, the provisions of H.R. 1230 may even work
    against the strength of the ``vested political rights'' argument. As
    noted, the Insular Cases found that the degree to which constitutional
    rights were applicable in the territories was often to be determined by
    Congress under the Territorial Clause. However, to the extent that the
    Territorial Clause was deemed no longer applicable to the ``new or
    enhanced'' Commonwealth, then this would appear to diminish the
    argument that the constitutional prohibition against the deprivation of
    ``vested political rights'' was still applicable to Puerto Rico.
        Considering the constitutional problems with the ``vested political
    rights'' theory, one might consider an alternative interpretation of
    proposed language under H.R. 1230. Under this second interpretation,
    the passage of a ``new or enhanced'' Commonwealth would result, not
    just in a ``locking in'' of the status relationship, but also in a
    removal of all federal jurisdiction over the island of Puerto Rico.
    This interpretation, however, may raise more significant constitutional
    issues. As the Congress is limited to its enumerated powers, it must be
    determined under what authority the United States Congress could
    establish such a status relationship.
        The portion of the Constitution which is most relevant to political
    status relationships is Article IV, Sec. 3, which addresses three
    powers of Congress: the power to grant statehood, the power to regulate
    territories, and the power to dispose of territories. These three
    powers are consistent with the three status options of statehood,
    Commonwealth subject to the Territorial Clause, and independence. H.R.
    1230 does not specify under that what alternative constitutional
    authority Congress could act to create a Commonwealth not subject to
    the Territorial Clause, and as noted above, the ``vested political
    rights'' theory that has been suggested in the past may not be
    applicable to H.R. 1230.
        Further, this second interpretation would result in a significant
    change in the relationship between federal government and Puerto Rico.
    Currently, a significant number of criminal or civil federal laws are
    applicable to Puerto Rico. To the extent that a ``new or enhanced''
    Commonwealth would mean that there is a total loss of federal
    jurisdiction over Puerto Rico, this would suggest a more significant
    change in the existing Commonwealth relationship between Puerto Rico
    and the federal government than has generally been contemplated in the
    past. While it is certainly the case that the federal government could
    choose to amend federal laws to exclude their application to the Puerto
    Rico, this would not eliminate Congress's authority to reinstate such
    statutory provisions.
        Another issue is whether, under H.R. 1230, the Puerto Rican
    constitutional convention could evade some of these constitutional
    concerns by proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution.
    It seems clear that a constitutional amendment could be used to achieve
    the status option of a ``new or enhanced Commonwealth'' not subject to
    the plenary territorial powers of the Congress. Such a status is simply
    not achievable through a statutory route. Thus, to the extent that the
    constitutional convention were to provide a ``new or enhanced
    Commonwealth'' status option regarding Puerto Rico, it would appear
    likely that it would need to take the form of a constitutional
    amendment.
        On its face, H.R. 1230 does not specifically appear to limit a
    status option from being proposed as a constitutional amendment. There
    are certain aspects of the bill language which suggest that a proposed
    amendment to the Constitution would be appropriate. First, the bill
    provides that once a status proposal is submitted to Congress, that it
    shall be passed as a joint resolution, a legislative vehicle more
    commonly associated with special legislation such as constitutional
    amendments than with territorial legislation. Second, the bill itself
    speaks only in terms of Congressional approval of the joint resolution.
    16 Normally, a joint resolution requires the approval of the
    President to become law. Thus, despite the failure to specify
    presidential participation, an interpretation of the bill would require
    either presidential participation or ratification by the states.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ See, e.g., H.R. 1230, Sec. 4(a)(1)(``If Congress approves the
    Self-Determination Proposal with any changes or amendments, it shall be
    submitted in a referendum vote to the People of Puerto Rico for
    approval before it shall be effective.'')
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A final provision of H.R. 1230 that should be considered is the
    requirement that Congress ``shall,'' by joint resolution, pass any
    proposal submitted by the Puerto Rican constitutional convention. The
    Supreme Court has held that a statute cannot bind a future Congress so
    that such statute cannot be repealed or altered. 17 As the
    Court long ago stated:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ See Eule, Temporal Limits on the Legislative Mandate:
    Entrenchment and Retroactivity, 1987 Am. B. Found. Res. J. 379.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            The principle asserted is, that one legislature is competent to
            repeal any act which a former legislature was competent to
            pass; and that one legislature cannot abridge the powers of a
            succeeding legislature. The correctness of this principle, so
            far as respects general legislation, can never be controverted.
            18
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cr. (10 U.S.) 87, 135 (1810)(Chief Justice
    Marshall).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, Congress could not mandate that a future Congress take a
    specified action such as the passage of a particular proposal.
        Adding to the interpretational difficulties here is that, despite
    the requirement in H.R. 1230 that the Congress ``shall'' enact any
    status proposal, the bill specifically contemplates the possibility
    that Congress could either reject or modify (i.e., not pass) the status
    proposal. This brings into question whether the use of the term
    ``shall'' in this context is truly intended to be mandatory.
        On a final note, if the Congress does fail to consider, pass or
    reject a status proposal, this may lead to other problems with the
    interpretation of the bill. For instance, as noted above, H.R. 1230
    Sec. 4(a)(1) and (2) contemplates additional procedures that can be
    taken in the event that Congress either modifies or rejects a status
    proposal. No such provision is made, however, in the event that
    Congress merely chooses not to consider a joint resolution containing
    the status options. One might argue that such a situation is
    contemplated by Sec. 5 of the bill, which provides that the
    constitutional convention may remain in session until a self-
    determination proposal is enacted by Federal law. However, under the
    provisions of Sec. 4(a) cited above, the Puerto Rican convention is
    only authorized to reconvene to propose another status option if
    Congress rejects the last one. If the Congress never considers the
    proposal, then it appears that the bill's language would not provide
    for the consideration of a second self-determination proposal by the
    convention.
        Madam Chairwoman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would be
    happy to answer any questions that you or other Members of the
    Subcommittee may have, and I look forward to working with all Members
    and the staff of the Subcommittee on this issue in the future.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. We will next
    recognize Professor Gorrin-Peralta.

        STATEMENT OF CARLOS I. GORRIN-PERALTA, PROFESSOR, INTER-
             AMERICAN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Gorrin-Peralta. Good morning, Madame Chairwoman and
    Members of this Subcommittee.
        Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. It has been
    an unincorporated territory since the relation began in 1898,
    109 years ago. Coincidentally, back in 1898 the Constitution
    was 109 years old.
        For 50 percent of its constitutional history, the United
    States has submitted the people of Puerto Rico to colonial
    rule, which is a subversion of the basic values on which the
    American Republic was founded.
        The Declaration of Independence says that governments are
    instituted among men deriving their just powers from the
    consent of the governed. Self-determination was reaffirmed when
    the people, through a constitutional convention, adopted the
    Constitution. Over the blood spilled on Gettysburg, Lincoln
    would renew the proposition that government of the people, by
    the people, and for the people should not perish from the
    earth.
        Yet, over the course of the 19th century, the nature of the
    Republic was transformed. What Jefferson had referred to as the
    republican ideal of an empire of liberty somehow mutated into a
    very unrepublican regime that claimed the liberty to rule an
    empire.
        As a result of the doctrine of territorial non-
    incorporation constitutionalizing the Insular Cases, everyone
    in Puerto Rico is daily subjected to the obligation of Federal
    laws from dawn to sundown, and even in our sleep, without our
    consent.
        You will surely hear happy colonials or their retained
    representatives say that in 1952, the people of Puerto Rico
    consented wholesale to the present relationship, but that is
    tantamount to saying that a slave owner may validly maintain a
    regime of involuntary servitude with the consent of the slaves.
    No individual may consent to slavery. No people may consent to
    colonialism.
        The world has changed. The day has come for the United
    States to finally solve the contradiction between colonial rule
    and fully democratic government. Even Justice White, the
    judicial artificer of the doctrine of territorial
    incorporation, spoke in his opinion in Downes v. Bidwell of,
    and I quote, ``obligations of honor and good faith which
    sacredly bind the United States to terminate the dominion and
    control when the situation is ripe. The presumption must be,''
    he added, ``that Congress will be faithful to its duty under
    the Constitution.''
        To comply with international law regarding the
    colonization, Congress ought to pass legislation that first and
    foremost declares the unequivocal intention of Congress to
    divest itself of the powers it has exercised under the
    territory clause.
        The process of self-determination should begin with the
    free expression of the people of the will to change the present
    territorial relation. The Congress ought to recognize the
    inherent constituent power of the people of Puerto Rico to call
    for the election of a constitutional assembly as depository of
    the sovereignty of the people to propose, negotiate, and agree
    to future relations with the United States.
        How do H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230 attempt to comply with these
    proposed standards? H.R. 900 proposes, as has been said, a
    series of plebiscites to solve the status issue with a clear
    Congressional purpose to renounce the territorial powers.
        In the first plebiscite, should the majority reject the
    existing territorial status, there would be a clear exercise of
    self-determination which would require a solution with all
    deliberate speed.
        The bill poses several problems, which I discuss in my
    written testimony. For example, the ballot language should be
    simplified and clarified to elicit a yes or no answer to the
    following proposition I suggest. Puerto Rico should no longer
    be subject to the powers of Congress under the territory clause
    of the Constitution of the United States.
        H.R. 1230 also has some positive and negative aspects. It
    would recognize the principle of sovereignty of the people of
    Puerto Rico, and its inherent authority to call a
    constitutional convention to propose a self-determination
    option not subject to the territory clause.
        However, H.R. 1230 does a little more. It contemplates that
    a future Congress will enact a joint resolution to approve the
    terms of the proposal. That, of course, is wishful thinking at
    best, since one Congress may not bind a future Congress.
        Both H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230 have positive aspects and
    pitfalls. Both could complement each other by drawing on the
    positive aspects of each other. What is of paramount importance
    at this point is that Congress act now to set the process of
    self-determination and decolonization in motion. H.R. 900 is a
    step in that direction.
        One hundred and nine years ago began a colonial regime
    which demeans both the colonized and the colonizer. The time
    has come to send a clear signal to the world that Justice John
    Marshall Harlan was right when he stated in his dissent in
    Downes v. Bidwell 106 years ago that, and I quote, ``the idea
    that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the
    earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or
    provinces, is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius,
    as well as with the words, of the Constitution.''
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gorrin-Peralta follows:]

              Statement of Carlos Ivan Gorrin-Peralta, Professor,
             Puerto Rico's Inter-American University School of Law

        Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of this Subcommittee.
        Thank you for the invitation to share with you my perspective
    regarding the two bills under consideration. I will first outline some
    historical and legal concepts regarding the relations between Puerto
    Rico and the United States, as necessary background for my analysis of
    the two measures.
        Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. It has been an
    unincorporated territory of the United States since the relation began
    as an act of war in 1898, one hundred and nine years ago.
    Coincidentally, in 1898 the Constitution of the United States was one
    hundred and nine years old. That means that for fifty percent of its
    constitutional history, the United States has submitted the people of
    Puerto Rico to the ignominy of colonial rule, which is a subversion of
    the basic values on which the American Republic was founded.
        The Declaration of Independence of 1776, which has been heard more
    clearly around the world than the shots fired at Lexington and Concord,
    states that ``governments are instituted among men deriving their just
    powers from the consent of the governed.--[I]t is the right of the
    people--to institute new government, laying its foundation on such
    principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
    seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'' That seminal
    act of self determination was reaffirmed when ``the people'', through a
    constitutional convention, as depositary of popular sovereignty, and
    through ratification of the proposed document, adopted the Constitution
    of the United States. Blood had been spilled to secure that right of
    self-determination, and has continued to spill since then throughout
    the world. Four score and seven years after independence, over the
    blood spilled on Gettysburg, Lincoln would renew the proposition that
    government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people should not
    perish from the earth.
        Yet, over the course of the 19th Century, the nature of the
    Republic was transformed. What Jefferson had referred to as the
    republican ideal of an empire of liberty somehow mutated into a very
    unrepublican regime that claimed the liberty to rule an empire.
    Constitutionally, the territory clause of the Constitution, which had
    been conceived as a mere property clause granting the federal
    government the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
    regulations respecting the Northwest territory and other property
    belonging to the United States, was reinterpreted as granting Congress
    the power to acquire new territories by purchase or by conquest, and to
    exercise sovereignty over them, even though their inhabitants were not
    allowed to participate in their own government.
        By the 1890's, dominant racist and imperialistic ideologies
    resulted in the infamous doctrine of ``separate but equal'' of Plessy
    v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), and in the colonial doctrine of
    territorial non incorporation, enacted into law in 1900, and judicially
    constitutionalized in the Insular Cases from 1901 onward. Since then,
    Congress has purported to exercise constitutional power indefinitely
    over the nonincorporated territories--Puerto Rico included--as
    possessions which are not part of, but merely appurtenant to the United
    States. Never mind that those possessions are not mere tracts of real
    estate, but are inhabited, as is Puerto Rico, by a distinct and
    separate people who, despite their inalienable right to self-
    determination and their inherent constituent power, have never been
    allowed to exercise their collective rights as a people.
        The federal government is not a government OF the people of Puerto
    Rico, nor is it in any way validated BY the people, nor does it rule
    FOR the people of Puerto Rico, but as it should be, for the interests
    of the people and institutions whom it represents. And yet, everyone in
    Puerto Rico is daily subjected to the application of federal laws, from
    dawn to sundown, and even in our sleep. Federal laws apply in Puerto
    Rico without our consent or real participation in the Congress which
    enacts them. The federal executive administers such laws in Puerto Rico
    despite the fact that we do not participate in its election. The
    federal judiciary interprets and applies the laws in Puerto Rico,
    despite the fact that the judges are designated by a President we do
    not elect, and are confirmed by a Senate in which we do not have even
    nominal participation.
        You will surely hear testimony of happy colonials or their retained
    representatives, to the effect that in 1950 to 1952 the people of
    Puerto Rico consented wholesale to the present relationship. But that
    is tantamount to saying that a slave owner may validly maintain a
    regime of involuntary servitude so long as he asks his slave whether
    she wants to adopt the rules for her household or whether she prefers
    that the master continue to dictate those domestic rules. Colonialism,
    like slavery, violates inalienable rights which may not be validly
    abrogated or renounced. No individual may consent to slavery; no people
    may consent to colonialism.
        The legislative record of Law 600 of 1950 is clear. The purpose of
    the enactment was to allow Puerto Rico a greater degree of local self
    government and to obtain acquiescence of the colonized to the existing
    territorial relationship. The nature of the relation was to remain
    intact, as were the legislative authority of this Congress, the
    executive power of the President, and the judicial jurisdiction of
    federal courts.
        The scheme was made possible by the territory clause and the
    doctrine of the Insular Cases, which have allowed the denial of the
    right to self determination, and present a grave inconsistency with the
    founding values of the Republic. The doctrine defers to the political
    branches of the federal government the governance of the territories on
    the basis of political expediency. At the end of the 19th Century
    colonialism was enthroned as the law of the land, and basic tenets of
    democracy, liberty and self-determination were set aside to serve the
    national self-interest through the acquisition of new unincorporated
    territories.
        The world has changed. The national interests that prompted the
    acquisition of Puerto Rico were strategic and economic. Puerto Rico no
    longer has the strategic value it once had. Economically, the colony
    has failed and our society is crumbling. The national self-interest is
    now best served by a new policy aimed at the disposition of the
    territory of Puerto Rico and the implementation of measures to promote
    the right to self-determination. Far from condemning the United States
    to continue an imperial policy of colonial rule, the doctrine of
    territorial incorporation leaves ample space for congressional action
    with respect to the territories. The day has come for the United States
    to finally solve the contradiction existing for too long between
    colonial rule and fully democratic government. Even Justice White, the
    judicial artificer of the doctrine of territorial incorporation, spoke
    in his opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), of
    ``obligations of honor and good faith which--sacredly bind the United
    States to terminate the dominion and control, when, in its political
    discretion, the situation is ripe to enable it to do so.'' Faced with
    the prospect that his theory could be used to hold an unincorporated
    territory indefinitely, he stated:
            [T]he presumption necessarily must be that [the legislative]
            department, which within its lawful sphere is but the
            expression of the political conscience of the people of the
            United States, will be faithful to its duty under the
            Constitution, and, therefore, when the unfitness of a
            particular territory for incorporation is demonstrated the
            occupation will terminate.... [No pledge is] more sacred than--
            that great pledge given by every member of every department of
            the government of the United States to support and defend the
            Constitution.
        This is the historical and legal background against which decisions
    are to be made to facilitate a truly meaningful process of
    decolonization, of disposition of the territory and the exercise of the
    right to self determination.
        The political process necessary to resolve the territorial
    conundrum is twofold. Substantively, what kind of relationship should
    exist between Puerto Rico and the United States? The four options
    mentioned in the Puerto Rican political discourse are: (1) the present
    territorial relationship under the sovereignty of the United States;
    (2) full sovereignty under independence as a basis for a new
    relationship established by treaty; (3) admission as a state of the
    Union; or (4) sovereignty limited by a compact of free association, as
    that concept is defined under international law. Of course, the first
    is not really an option; territoriality is the problem, so it cannot be
    the solution. The other three will depend on the final decision of the
    people, and in the case of statehood and free association, the approval
    by Congress.
        The other aspect of the process is procedural: how to reach the
    final substantive decision. H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230 suggest different
    approaches. Both have strengths and both have weaknesses. Neither, by
    itself, is an appropriate measure. But both have elements which could
    be combined in a new measure. Both pose many questions and raise issues
    which cannot be addressed in the limited time now available. I will
    focus on its fundamental design.
        In order to comply with international law regarding decolonization,
    the measure ought to, first and foremost, declare the unequivocal
    intention of Congress to dispose of the territory, and to divest itself
    of the powers it has exercised over Puerto Rico under the territory
    clause of the Constitution. Once Congress complies with its
    international and constitutional obligation, the process of self-
    determination should begin with a free expression of the people of the
    will to change the present territorial relation and to enter into a
    future relation whereby Puerto Rico shall not be subject to
    congressional power under the territory clause. In order to promote
    subsequent actions towards self-determination in Puerto Rico, Congress
    ought to recognize the inherent constituent power of the people of
    Puerto Rico to call, through its elected government, for the election
    of a constitutional assembly, as depositary of the sovereignty of the
    people, or any other decolonizing mechanism, to propose, negotiate and
    agree to future relations with the United States that will not be
    colonial or territorial in nature. Finally, the process of self-
    determination would culminate with the ratification by the people of
    the terms of the new relation.
        How do H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230 attempt to comply with these proposed
    standards?
        H.R. 900 proposes a series of plebiscites to solve the status
    issue. In a first plebiscite, the people would select between the
    existing territorial status and an alternative ``viable permanent
    nonterritorial status.'' The bill would allow for a valid exercise of
    self determination if the people were to claim a change in status on
    the first round of voting. Should a majority reject the existing
    territorial status, there would be a clear exercise of self
    determination which would require a solution with all deliberate speed.
        There are some problems with the first vote. The language of the
    ballot defines the alternative as ``a constitutionally viable permanent
    nonterritorial status.'' The concept of ``constitutional viability is
    ambiguous. It would invite subsequent controversies regarding what is
    viable or not, when the different political groups would begin
    specifying their status options for the second round of voting. In
    addition, the second plebiscite would require that the voter select
    between statehood and ``sovereign nation,'' grouping here both
    independence and free association, two distinct options. Free
    association is by definition not permanent, since any party to the
    relation may opt out at any time.
        The second round of voting presents another pitfall. A rejection of
    the current status and a demand for change in the first vote would
    automatically prompt a second plebiscite in which the voter would
    choose between statehood and another nonterritorial option. Experience
    shows that a significant number of Members of Congress would not
    support H.R. 900 because it would contain a self-executing provision
    that could result in a majority demand for statehood. No one here will
    come out and say it explicitly, but you know it is true; and that
    provision might hinder approval of the bill as it stands and stagnate
    the process. Nothing should stand in the way of congressional action at
    this time.
        On the other hand, if the majority were to select the existing
    territorial status in the first vote, then another plebiscite would be
    held eight years later. It could be interpreted that Congress would
    have implicitly decided to renounce to its territorial powers at some
    future indefinite date when the people so decide. But there is no
    explicit declaration to that effect, and furthermore, the bill
    contemplates the possibility of consent to territoriality for periods
    of eight years, an excessively long period of territorial government,
    which contradicts the true intention of the measure which is to end the
    territorial regime.
        The greatest problem with H.R. 900 lies in its absolute silence
    regarding the inherent constituent power of the people to determine
    their future. On the contrary, the bill would require that the
    permanent nonterritorial status be designed and submitted to Congress
    by the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status, in mere
    consultation with the Governor, the Resident Commissioner, the
    President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
    of Puerto Rico. That is a flagrant denial of self-determination and a
    usurpation of the constituent power that belongs to the people. Those
    four officials will not have been endowed, nor can they be endowed by
    this Congress, with constituent power, nor can they validly represent
    the people in this matter.
        H.R. 1230, on the other hand, also has some positive and negative
    aspects. First, on the positive side, the bill is premised on an
    implicit policy of disposition of the territory, that is, a
    congressional objective to renounce to its territorial powers. The
    definition of a ``self-determination option'' would recognize the
    principle of sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico and limit options
    for the future to alternatives not subject to the plenary powers of the
    territory clause of the Constitution. Some may argue, as they have in
    the past, that since 1952 this Congress does not exercise plenary
    powers. Therefore, they would probably argue, if the current language
    is enacted, that the existing relationship could be a self-
    determination option. That, of course, is contrary first to the
    understanding of probably all 535 Members of Congress regarding the
    plenary nature of all federal powers, as decided almost two hundred
    years ago in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). In any case,
    the ambiguity can be avoided by changing the phrase ``plenary powers''
    in Section 2 (2) of the bill, page 2, line 12, to the words ``any
    powers.''
        Section 3 of the bill would recognize ``the inherent authority of
    the people of Puerto Rico to call a constitutional convention--in
    accordance to legislation approved by the Commonwealth of Puerto
    Rico,'' which under Section 5 would remain in session until a definite
    self-determination proposal is finally adopted by the people in
    referendum and ``enacted by federal law.'' There is a major flaw in
    Section 5. Only a territorial status option or an admission to
    statehood would culminate in a federal law. Relations under both
    independence and free association would culminate with the signature
    and ratification of a treaty. I would suggest that the language be
    modified as follows: ``A constitutional convention--may remain in
    session until all legal instruments needed for transition to a new
    nonterritorial relation shall have come into effect.''
        Despite its positive recognition of the inherent authority of the
    people, H.R. 1230 does little more. Section 4 contains a non-binding
    desideratum that whenever the constitutional assembly submits a self-
    determination proposal to Congress, that future Congress will enact a
    joint resolution to approve the terms of the proposal. That, of course,
    is wishful thinking at best, since one Congress may not bind a future
    Congress. In any event, requiring congressional approval to implement
    independence would be illegal under international law because once a
    people select independence, the colonial power may only accede to the
    demand and facilitate by law, not the decision itself, but the
    transition to the new status.
        In conclusion, both H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, as I have said before,
    have positive aspects and pitfalls. By facilitating that the people
    demand a profound change through a plebiscite, now or eventually, H.R.
    900 clearly pursues a policy of disposing of the territory by
    congressional renunciation of the powers under the territory clause of
    the Constitution. On the other hand, H.R. 1230 would recognize the
    authority of the people of Puerto Rico to call for a constitutional
    convention as the procedural mechanism for the exercise of its right to
    self-determination.
        What is of paramount importance at this point is that Congress act
    now, to set the process of self-determination and decolonization in
    motion. H.R. 900 is a step in that direction. In the first plebiscite
    the people could decide that the time has come to demand a change in
    the fundamental nature of the relationship. The ballot submitted to the
    voter should elicit a Yes or No answer to the following proposition:
            Puerto Rico should no longer be subject to the powers of
            Congress under the territory clause of the Constitution of the
            United States of America.
        Congress has the legal and moral obligation to act. Unfortunately,
    disagreement among the different political sectors of Puerto Rican
    society has been used as an excuse for inaction in the past. The result
    has been congressional complicity during the one hundred and nine years
    of a colonial regime which demeans both the colonized and the
    colonizer. A radical transformation of the relationship is in order,
    now.
        The time has come for Congress to finally find it in the best
    interest of the United States to send a clear signal to the Supreme
    Court, to the Puerto Rican people and to the world to the effect that
    Justice John Marshall Harlan was right after all when he stated in his
    dissent in Downes v. Bidwell, one hundred and six years ago, that ``the
    idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth,
    by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces--is
    wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the
    words of the Constitution.''
        Thank you.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Next we will hear from Mr. Ramon Luis
    Nieves.

    STATEMENT OF RAMON LUIS NIEVES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MOVIMIENTO
                      AUTONOMISTA SOCIALDEMOCRATA

        Mr. Nieves. Thank you. I appear before you as Executive
    Director of Movimiento Autonomista Socialdemocrata, MAS.
        MAS is a political organization that advocates for the
    adoption of a Compact of Free Association between the United
    States and Puerto Rico.
        I also appear as a student of the status issue. As a result
    of such studies, I published a book titled ``Estado Libre
    Asociado del Siglo XXI,'' an argument for free association.
        MAS has decided not to state an official preference either
    for H.R. 900 nor H.R. 1230. Our goal is to share our thoughts
    as to both bills, in the hope that future action by Congress
    provides for an effective process of self-determination.
        The discussion of process must be based on two basic
    premises: fundamental fairness and expediency. Fundamental
    fairness requires that any bill approved by Congress provides a
    mechanism that does not play favorites with any status formula.
        The U.S. will violate international law if it fails to
    recognize on equal grounds the options of statehood,
    independence, and free association.
        The other premise is expediency. The economy of Puerto Rico
    is currently undergoing an historic crisis. MAS believes that
    resolution of the status problem is key to the acquisition of
    the tools required to implement solutions to our economic and
    social problems. The process to solve the status issue must
    begin sooner, rather than later.
        Our first comment on H.R. 900 is that there is no need to
    vote in order to express dissatisfaction with the current
    territorial status. The three political parties in Puerto Rico
    already advocate for a non-territorial status option.
        The proposed first plebiscite will be redundant, and it
    will delay resolution of the issue.
        MAS also objects to the sovereign pathway of the second
    plebiscite. As it is, H.R. 900 will contribute to play
    favorites with statehood by merging the association alternative
    with independence. This approach will certainly help those who
    have insisted on eliminating political association from any
    status process.
        Congress should not be confused by those who articulate the
    apparent value of assigning an artificial minority in favor of
    statehood.
        Hence, MAS proposes the following amendments to H.R. 900.
    Elimination of the first plebiscite and separate columns for
    statehood, independence, and free association in the remaining
    electoral event.
        Enter H.R. 1230. In Puerto Rico, the language of politics
    or the politics of language has electoral consequence. The
    combination of Puerto Rican sovereignty with the concept of new
    or modified commonwealth should be clarified.
        MAS will support the association option as long as it is
    non-territorial and sovereign in nature. It is clear and in
    compliance with international law and U.S. Constitutional
    practice.
        H.R. 1230 must be amended to establish a process to
    implement the association alternative. The complexities of
    political association require that the option be submitted to
    the electorate in the form of a statement of principles. MAS
    has already submitted to the Subcommittee a statement of
    principles for free association. A similar statement will be
    the type of proposal submitted to the voters, and then included
    as part of the joint resolution contemplated in H.R. 1230.
        MAS also proposes that Section 4 of H.R. 1230 be amended to
    provide that in the case of the approval of an association
    option, Congress instructs the Executive Branches of both the
    U.S. and Puerto Rico to designate representatives to a
    bilateral commission 60 days after approval of the joint
    resolution.
        This commission will be in charge of negotiating a compact
    of free association during a period of no more than two years,
    with a possibility of an additional one-year extension.
        The need for expediency leads MAS to propose that Section 3
    of H.R. 1230 be amended to express that the initial process of
    articulating a self-determination option be limited to two
    years, with an additional one-year extension declared by the
    convention itself.
        MAS believes that Puerto Rico needs the political and
    economical powers inherent to sovereign free association in
    order to maximize the opportunities available for our nation,
    Puerto Rico, in the global economy. We sincerely hope that this
    Congress agrees on a fair and expedient mechanism in
    furtherance of our self-determination, as well as the
    democratic ideals and international obligations of the United
    States.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nieves follows:]

           Statement of Ramon Luis Nieves, Esq., Executive Director,
                     Movimiento Autonomista Socialdemocrata

        My name is Ramon Luis Nieves. I am an attorney-at-law in the
    private sector. I appear before you as executive director of Movimiento
    Autonomista Socialdemocrata (MAS). MAS is a political organization that
    advocates for the adoption of a Compact of Free Association between the
    United States (U.S.) and Puerto Rico, and for diverse ideas of social
    justice and economic development. The option of free association
    advocated by MAS would be based in the U.S. constitutional experience
    in the Pacific, but also taking into account the important differences
    between Puerto Rico and the Micronesian nations, including U.S.
    citizenship; Puerto Rican national identity and; levels of economic
    assistance and integration with the U.S.
        I also appear as a person who has studied the U.S.-Puerto Rico
    relationship for half of my life. As result of such studies, I
    published a book titled ``Estado Libre Asociado del Siglo XXI'', whose
    second edition appeared in 2004. The abovementioned book, an argument
    for free association, contains a critical analysis of Commonwealth
    status, as well as a detailed analysis of the Compacts of Free
    Association between the United States, the Federated of Micronesia, the
    Marshall Islands and Palau. It also includes discussions about the
    negotiations for ``Compact II'', approved by the 108th Congress and
    President George W. Bush in 2003, a process which I followed closely.
        Let me begin by commending Chairwoman Donna M. Christensen, for
    convening hearings to discuss both H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. We are
    grateful for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to share
    our views on both bills.
        MAS has decided not to state an official preference either for H.R.
    900 nor H.R. 1230. Our goal is to share our thoughts as to both bills,
    in the hope that future action by Congress provides for an effective
    procedural mechanism in furtherance of self determination for the
    Puerto Rican nation.
    The Basic Premises: Fundamental Fairness and Expediency
        The discussion of process must be based on two (2) basic premises:
    fundamental fairness and expediency.
        The U.S. government must take into account that, since the 19th
    Century, the Puerto Rican nation has been debating its definitive
    political status. Three main currents of political thought or
    aspirations have emerged during the process: independence, statehood
    and an alternative of political association, which has prevailed in all
    the referenda held during the last part of the 20th Century.
        Fundamental fairness requires that any bill approved by Congress
    provides a mechanism that does not ``play favorites'' with any status
    formula. MAS submits that the U.S. would violate recognized principles
    of international law, such as the right of self determination, if it
    approves any process that fails to recognize, on equal grounds, the
    options of statehood, independence and political association.
    International law on the subject, as codified by United Nations
    Resolution 1541 (XV), recognizes integration, independence and free
    association as separate options of self government. American
    constitutional experience has also recognized such options when it
    granted independence to the Philippines; when it incorporated into the
    Union thirty seven (37) territories and; when Congress approved
    Compacts of Free Association with the former Strategic Trust
    Territories in the Pacific.
        In addition to the aforementioned legal and constitutional
    framework, Congress should take notice that no advancement has been
    made in previous congressional efforts where one or more status options
    have been excluded from the process. Three options, separated from each
    other, presented in a fair way for their evaluation and approval by the
    Puerto Rican nation: that is the fundamental fairness required for any
    real process to advance.
        The other premise of any status process is expediency. The economy
    of Puerto Rico is currently undergoing a historic crisis. The current
    crisis of the Puerto Rican economic model includes as factors the end
    of federal tax incentives (known as IRC Section 936 / 30A), which were
    an important element of the Puerto Rican economy during most part of
    the 20th Century; a self inflicted fiscal crisis; problems in
    governance of the Commonwealth government and social ills and basic
    inequality in Puerto Rican society, expressed by an increase in
    substance abuse, alienation, violence at all levels and an alarming
    decrease of general civility. The Puerto Rican crisis has caused the
    migration to the U.S. of thousands of well-educated professionals and
    workers, mostly to Florida, in search of the quality of life and
    material opportunities that they have not been able to find in our
    Islands.
        MAS believes that resolution of the status problem is key to the
    acquisition of the tools required to implement permanent solutions to
    the economic and social problems that affect the Puerto Rico. Hence,
    MAS submits that the process to solve the status problem must begin
    sooner rather than later.
        In accordance with the abovementioned premises, I hereby submit our
    comments to H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230.
    H.R. 900--``The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007''
        H.R. 900 provides for the calling of at least two plebiscites. The
    first of such plebiscites would be held in 2009. That first plebiscite
    would allow the Puerto Rican voters to decide if the current
    territorial status shall continue, or if they would prefer to pursue a
    path toward a so-called ``constitutionally viable permanent
    nonterritorial status''. If the majority of the voters agree with the
    continuation of territorial status, plebiscites would be held every
    eight (8) years, until the voters favor the other option.
        If voters choose the ``pathways'' option, a second plebiscite would
    be held between two (2) alternatives: a path towards statehood, or a
    path toward a ``sovereign nation'', either fully independent from or in
    free association to the U.S. This second plebiscite would be held
    during the 112th Congress, in 2011, four (4) years and two (2)
    subsequent terms of Congress later.
        If H.R. 900 has been conceived in furtherance of democratic
    principles for the Puerto Ricans, it would do so very late. Assuming
    that the voters approve the ``pathways'' option in 2009, they will not
    begin to walk towards their chosen ``path'' until 2011. The proponents
    of the bill apparently have figured that the process of self
    determination would be affected if it is debated on an election year
    for the Presidential election, the Puerto Rican general election, and
    future congressional elections. This appears to be the only reason for
    the proposed stalling of our self determination.
        However, MAS believes that such considerations are contrary to the
    urgent economic needs of the Puerto Rican nation. Moreover, the Puerto
    Rican electorate is more than ready to cast their votes. One hundred
    and nine (109) years of painful and costly political education is more
    than enough time. Puerto Ricans should not be required to wait another
    two, three, or even eight years to conclude the status issue.
        MAS also opposes the proposed first plebiscite. In our view, there
    is no need to vote in order to express dissatisfaction with the current
    territorial status. The vast majority of Puerto Ricans, and the three
    registered political parties in Puerto Rico, already have expressed
    their desire for a non-territorial status option. Even the Popular
    Democratic Party, which has advocated in the past for minor
    ``modifications'' to the current form of Commonwealth, now officially
    advocates on its platform and by mandate of its governing bodies, for
    an option of non-territorial political association based in the
    sovereignty of the Puerto Rican People.
        As to the U.S., the apparent consensus in the body politic since
    the early 1990's is that Puerto Rico remains a territory under the
    Constitution. Both Congress and the Executive branch have repeatedly
    referred to Puerto Rico as a ``territory''. The federal body politic
    has even described the creation of the Commonwealth during the 1950's
    as an ``arrangement'', as opposed to a legitimate political
    association. The apparent honesty in confessing the colonial nature of
    its relationship with Puerto Rico serves to explain why the U.S. has
    not vehemently opposed the annual resolutions passed by the United
    Nations Committee on Decolonization since the 1990's. The end, both of
    the Cold War and the strategic significance of the Puerto Rican
    Islands, accelerated the process whereby the U.S. has come out of its
    colonial closet.
        An additional argument to oppose the first plebiscite proposed on
    H.R. 900 is that it could severely damage the self determination
    process itself. If the electorate rejects the current territorial
    relationship by voting for the ``pathways'' option, Puerto Ricans would
    have effectively and directly ended the legitimacy of U.S. sovereignty
    over Puerto Rico. As argued above, the legitimacy of U.S. sovereignty
    has already been put into question by the majority of Puerto Ricans in
    the political discourse. However, a direct rejection of current
    territorial status through the ballot would place Puerto Rico in a
    state of pure and unadulterated colonial rule by the U.S. Puerto Rico
    would be back to 1949, all over again.
        MAS also objects to the ``sovereign pathway'' proposed as
    alternative in the second plebiscite contemplated on H.R. 900. This so-
    called ``pathway'' runs counter to the premise of fundamental fairness
    mentioned above. Instead of a sole pathway to sovereignty, MAS proposes
    separate columns for the independence and free association options.
        As it is, H.R. 900 will contribute to ``play favorites'' with the
    ``pathway'' toward statehood. Although some Puerto Ricans desire
    independence, advocates for statehood have historically claimed that
    free association, or even minor modifications to Commonwealth status,
    are really a backdoor to independence. These are precisely the type of
    political games that have been rejected and vehemently opposed by the
    Puerto Rican nation in the not so distant past. Congress should not be
    confused or impressed by those who articulate the apparent value of
    simplifying the status option in order to manufacture a fraudulent and
    artificial majority in favor of the ``pathway'' to statehood.
        MAS strongly considers urges you to consider that the option of
    political association is neither ``derivative'', nor dependent, on full
    independence. This position has been validated by U.S. constitutional
    practice and international law on the subject.
        Last, but not least, this Congress must respond a fundamental
    policy question: whether to allow non-resident persons who claim Puerto
    Rican descent to participate in the self determination process. H.R.
    900 would bar from the process persons who, although born outside of
    Puerto Rico, claim Puerto Rican descent. On the other hand, H.R. 1230
    would allow the vote of non-resident persons either born in Puerto
    Rico, or who have one parent born in the Islands. This policy question
    goes to the heart of the debate of national identity. The definition of
    who could be considered a member of the Puerto Rican nation is
    fundamental to our process of self determination.
        MAS agrees with the approach proposed on H.R. 1230 as to this
    important issue. The economics of colonialism are mostly responsible
    for the migration to the U.S. and the national identity issues of
    people of Puerto Rican descent living in the U.S. Hence, exclusion of
    persons who claim Puerto Rican descent from a self determination
    process would be a cruel and cynical position to assume.
    H.R. 1230--``The Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2007''
        H.R. 1230 provides for the recognition by Congress of ``the
    inherent authority of the People of Puerto Rico to call a
    Constitutional Convention'' for the purpose of proposing a ``Self-
    Determination Option'' to the People of Puerto Rico. The so-called
    ``Self-Determination Options'' are statehood, independence and a ``new
    or modified Commonwealth status''; all of which ``must be based on the
    sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico and not subject to the plenary
    powers of the territorial clause of the Constitution of the United
    States''.
        In Puerto Rico, the language of politics, or the politics of
    language, has electoral consequences. In all fairness, the combination
    of Puerto Rican sovereignty with the term ``new or modified
    Commonwealth status'' should be clarified. The explicit clarification
    of the non-territorial and sovereign nature of the association option
    is the paramount issue here. MAS would support the association option
    as long as its non-territorial and sovereign nature is clear and in
    compliance with applicable international and U.S. constitutional law.
        An important point has to be raised as to the process to consider
    free association (or the so-called new or improved ``sovereign''
    Commonwealth.) as a ``Self-Determination Option''. H.R. 1230 must be
    amended to establish an adequate and workable process to implement the
    ``sovereign association'' alternative. In the case of ``sovereign
    association'', the nature of the political process would require that
    the ``Self Determination Option'' that the Constitutional Convention
    would submit to the electorate be prepared in the form of a
    ``declaration of principles'' of association. The existing Compacts of
    Free Association, their Subsidiary Agreements, and even the CNMI
    Covenant, are complex documents which were the result of lengthy
    negotiations.
        MAS includes, as an Exhibit, a ``Statement of Principles for Free
    Association between the United States of America and Puerto Rico''. The
    enclosed ``Statement of Principles'' is based on the ``Hilo
    Principles'' agreed upon between the U.S. and Micronesia during a
    crucial stage of the Compact I negotiations, in the late 1970's. A
    similar ``statement of principles'' would be the type of proposal that,
    in reality, could be submitted to the electors, and then be included as
    part of the joint resolution contemplated in Section 4 of H.R. 1230.
        Considering the constitutional experience of the U.S. as to the
    negotiation of compacts of free association, MAS proposes that Section
    4 of H.R. 1230 be amended to provide that, in the case of the approval
    of a ``Self Determination Option'' named either as ``free association''
    or ``sovereign association'', the joint resolution to be passed by
    Congress instructs the executive branches of both the U.S. and Puerto
    Rico to designate representatives to a bilateral commission, sixty (60)
    days after its approval. This bilateral commission would be in charge
    of negotiating, drafting and agreeing on a Compact of Free Association,
    which would then be submitted both to the Puerto Rican electorate and
    the Congress. MAS also proposes that the joint resolution instructs the
    bilateral commission to conduct negotiations for a Compact and its
    Subsidiary Agreements on a period of no more than two (2) years, with
    the possibility of an additional one-year extension.
        It is proper to address the issue of uncertainty in the time-frame
    to start the process of self-determination proposed in H.R. 1230. This
    is a gray area. An instruction by Congress of a time-frame to conclude
    approval by a Constitutional Convention of a ``Self-Determination
    Option'' could be construed as an obstacle to our right of self-
    determination. However, the abovementioned need for expediency leads
    the MAS to propose that Section 3 of H.R. 1230 be amended to express
    that the initial process of proposing a ``Self-Determination Option''
    would not last more than two (2) years, counted from the moment the
    bill becomes Federal law, with an additional one-year extension, which
    would be approved by the Convention itself. MAS believes that two (2)
    years is a fair time-frame to call the Convention, elect the delegates,
    prepare the proposal, and submit it to the electorate. H.R. 1230
    already provides for the situation whereby the voters reject the
    proposal of the Convention, and such mechanism would not be affected by
    the proposed time-frame.
        Lastly, the Subcommittee must consider a political reality in
    Puerto Rico as to the procedural alternative of a constitutional
    convention. The Independence Party of Puerto Rico and the Popular
    Democratic Party, who favor independence and sovereign association,
    respectively, currently agree on a constitutional convention as the
    preferred process of self determination. Together, they represent more
    than half of the voters in Puerto Rico. However, the pro-statehood New
    Progressive Party officially opposes the alternative of a
    constitutional convention. The official objection of the party
    leadership is that a direct election through plebiscites is by nature
    more democratic than the People acting through delegates to a
    Convention. The real basis for their opposition is that the party
    suspects that pro-independence and pro-association advocates would
    create a political alliance in favor of sovereign free association.
        Sadly, the opposition of the New Progressive Party represents an
    important roadblock to the procedural mechanism contemplated by H.R.
    1230. The party represents almost half of the electorate. Furthermore,
    the New Progressive Party has a history of ignoring and, in fact,
    acting in opposition to the democratic wishes of the People. Such was
    the aftermath of pro-Commonwealth results in the 1967 and 1993
    plebiscites, which were not respected by the pro-statehood party. The
    history of non-compliance with the will of the People by the pro-
    statehood party presents an important challenge to the mechanism
    proposed in H.R. 1230.
    Conclusion
        MAS believes that Puerto Rico needs the political and economical
    powers inherent to sovereign free association, in order to maximize the
    opportunities available for our nation in the global economy.
        We sincerely hope that the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs takes
    our comments into consideration. The Puerto Rican nation also hopes
    that this Congress agrees on a fair and expedient mechanism in
    furtherance of our right of self determination, as well as the
    democratic ideals and international obligations of the United States of
    America.
                                     ______

    EXHIBIT

          ``Statement of Principles for Free Association between the
                   United States of America and Puerto Rico''

        1. The United States and the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico
    shall negotiate and enter into a Compact of Free Association, which
    could only be altered by mutual consent;
        2. The People of Puerto Rico shall retain all powers not
    specifically delegated in the Compact to the United States;
        3. The United Status will provide financial and technical
    assistance to the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico, in
    furtheranceof the economic advancement and self reliance of the People
    of Puerto Rico. Both nations shall identify target sectors to enhance
    the social and economic development of Puerto Rico (education, health,
    infrastructure, etc.), and will collaborate intensively in the design
    and implementation of strategies for the effective investment of
    federal funding in initiatives to promote job creation and business
    development;
        4. The Compact of Free Association will provide for the continued
    transmission of the United Status citizenship. The Constitution and
    laws of the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico shall provide for the
    recognition of Puerto Rican citizenship;
        5. Puerto Rico will continue to be eligible for U.S. federal grants
    and assistance, on a government-to-government basis. Individuals shall
    retain their economic entitlements as U.S. citizens, including their
    Social Security benefits, as well as other job-related entitlements (as
    federal employees and veterans);
        6. Free transit of goods, services, capitals and persons between
    the United States and the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico shall be
    maintained;
        7. The Free Associated State of Puerto Rico will have full capacity
    to conduct its foreign affairs; to enter into, in its own name and
    right, treaties and other international agreements with governments and
    regional and international organizations, including the U.N.
        8. The Constitution of Puerto Rico will remain in full force and
    effect, as well as the applicable laws of the U.S. pursuant to the
    Compact. Nevertheless, the Constitution of Puerto Rico shall be amended
    to incorporate the new governmental powers obtained through the Compact
    of Association;
        9. The United States and the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico
    will establish special areas of mutual assistance and cooperation to
    secure the well-being of both the Puerto Rican and American peoples,
    for example: law enforcement efforts against drug trafficking; illegal
    immigration; terrorism; natural disasters; environmental protection;
    labor protection and standards; communications and; technological
    advancement to secure the well being of the people and the Puerto Rican
    economy;
        10. The United Status shall maintain full authority and
    responsibility in security and defense matters of Puerto Rico, in
    accordance with the provisions of the Compact. The Free Associated
    State of Puerto Rico shall foreclose access to or use of its territory
    for the military or strategic purposes of any third country.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Nieves. Next we will hear
    from Professor Richard Pildes.

                STATEMENT OF RICHARD PILDES, PROFESSOR,
                   NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

        Mr. Pildes. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for holding this
    panel on the vital constitutional issues concerning the
    potential political status of Puerto Rico and other non-state
    areas. And thank you for inviting me to testify.
        I want to focus on one essential point. In my view, H.R.
    900 rests on an incorrect, deeply flawed, and inadequate
    constitutional analysis.
        Should the Congress of the United States and the President
    jointly, through legislation, along with the people of Puerto
    Rico, agree to legislation that provides greater autonomy for
    Puerto Rico on the basis of mutual consent, there is nothing in
    the U.S. Constitution that denies the U.S. Government the power
    to make this choice.
        H.R. 900's language and structure is based on the
    constitutional analysis in the 2005 Presidential Task Force
    report. That analysis consists largely of the repetition of a
    single platitude: one Congress cannot bind another.
        While that platitude is true for the run-of-the-mill
    legislation, in my view that constitutional analysis is deeply
    flawed for at least four reasons when it comes to matters of
    political status.
        First, the analysis completely ignores American
    constitutional history and past political practice. From the
    time of the Constitution's formation, Congress has enacted
    mutual consent clauses that permanently altered the political
    status of non-state areas. The famous Northwest Ordinance is
    the perfect example. That established the process by which
    Congress pledged to incorporate territories as states in a way
    that involved mutual consent, and it was permanently binding.
        Later Congresses followed the model of the Northwest
    Ordinance in enacting organic acts for the incorporation of
    future territories and their admission as states.
        The Task Force analysis requires the conclusion that the
    original Congress, many of whose Members formed the
    Constitution, and many subsequent Congresses, acted
    unconstitutionally in establishing this mutual consent process
    for changing the status of a territory into a state.
        Moreover, individual states of the United States have long
    enacted mutually binding compacts. The United States Supreme
    Court not only has recognized this practice, it has endorsed it
    and required that these compacts be enforced according to their
    terms; and that individual states not be permitted to
    unilaterally alter the terms of a compact that they have
    entered into.
        Second, the analysis ignores central constitutional
    doctrine that deals with the complex issues of the U.S.
    relationship to non-state areas. There are not a lot of cases
    directly on point, but those that are enforce pledges Congress
    has made to non-state areas.
        For example, once Congress pledges by law to incorporate an
    area as a state, the United States Supreme Court, in a series
    of cases, has held that that promise is binding on future
    Congresses. The Rasmussen case, which I describe in my
    testimony, is an example.
        Second, when it comes to alterations of the political
    status of individuals, when Congress legislates to change
    citizenship status, the U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized
    that that pledge binds subsequent Congresses, and Congress no
    longer has the power to change the citizenship status that has
    been granted by law.
        Moreover, under the territory clause itself, the United
    States Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has flexible,
    pragmatic, and expansive powers which implicate foreign policy
    matters to decide on the kind of relationship that best suits
    the United States' association with various non-state areas.
    After all, the original Constitution only refers by its terms
    to states and territories. But in the insular cases for better
    and worse in a complex act of political pragmatism and
    political morality, the United States Supreme Court recognized
    that clause empowers Congress to choose new forms of political
    relationship.
        Finally, the United States Justice Department has agreed
    with my position on the constitutional issue for nearly 40
    years. In 1963, when the U.S. Justice Department first took a
    position on mutual consent clauses involving Puerto Rico,
    reaffirmed in 1973, reaffirmed when the Northern Mariana
    Islands, mutual consent clause was adopted by Congress,
    reaffirmed in 1989 in the Guam Task Force report. Through all
    of this period, the Department of Justice recognized the
    constitutional power of the United States to enter into mutual
    consent clauses that are binding with respect to matters of
    political status.
        It is only in the early 1990s that the Justice Department
    made a 180-degree about-face on this issue, on the basis of
    reasons that I have to say I find constitutionally mysterious.
        The Justice Department referred to a Supreme Court case
    from the 1980s involving Congressional welfare programs, and
    decided, the Court's decision in that case fundamentally
    changed 200 years of American constitutional history on mutual
    consent clauses. For reasons I elaborate on in my written
    testimony, I find that analysis wholly unavailing and
    irrelevant to the kinds of issues involving political status to
    Puerto Rico.
        In sum, my view is that Congress's power to enter into
    mutual consent clauses regarding political status, when the
    United States determines its foreign policy and political
    interests are best served by doing so, is supported by
    longstanding political practice; it is supported by Supreme
    Court decisions involving the territory clause; it is supported
    by the longstanding position of the United States Justice
    Department; and it is supported in my view by sound
    constitutional analysis.
        None of this, in conclusion, is to articulate any position
    on the specific choices the Puerto Rican people face. My only
    concern is to eliminate lack of clarity and confusion of how
    the constitutional structure within those choices should be
    framed.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pildes follows:]

     Statement of Professor Richard H. Pildes, Sutler Family Professor of
             Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law

        Thank you for inviting me to testify. I specialize in
    constitutional issues concerning the structure of American government.
    The United States Supreme Court has cited my scholarship on these
    issues many times. I am also the co-author of a casebook entitled The
    Law of Democracy (2nd ed. 2001 and 2006 Supplement). I successfully
    represented the Puerto Rico Election Commission before the United
    States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the resolution of
    Puerto Rico's 2004 disputed gubernatorial election. I also successfully
    represented the government of Puerto Rico before the United States
    Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in litigation
    concerning the legal status of Puerto Rico under particular federal
    laws. I am here testifying in my own capacity, based on my academic
    study of the relevant issues and my knowledge developed during my legal
    representation.
        In my view, were the United States Congress and the people of
    Puerto Rico to prefer expanding the existing Commonwealth relationship,
    in a way that provides greater autonomy for Puerto Rico on the basis of
    mutual consent, it would be unfortunate, even tragic, for that option
    to disappear due to confusion or error about whether the Constitution
    permits Congress to adopt such an option. Yet one of the proposed
    bills, H.R. 900, rests on precisely such confusion about how the
    Constitution applies to the potential political status of Puerto Rico.
    H.R. 900 would artificially and wrongly limit a plebiscite to two, and
    only two, options. H.R. 900 would deny the people of Puerto Rico the
    right to express their preference for a mutually-binding covenant that
    would determine Puerto Rico's status to be that of an autonomous, self-
    governing Commonwealth. H.R. 900 eliminates this option due to a faulty
    constitutional analysis that assumes, incorrectly, that the
    Constitution denies Congress the power to enter into such a mutually-
    binding covenant.
        The plebiscite structure H.R. 900 would establish reflects the
    constitutional conclusions expressed in the December 22, 2005 report of
    President Bush's Presidential Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status (the
    Task Force). I would note that none of the members of the Task Force
    are academic authorities in constitutional law, particularly the
    exceptionally complex and arcane law that controls the relationship of
    the United States to various non-state entities, such as incorporated
    territories, unincorporated territories, the current Commonwealth of
    Puerto Rico, or entities of other political status with which the
    United States, for reasons of history and policy, might desire to form
    various types of political relationships. Perhaps for that reason, the
    Task Force's constitutional analysis is unpersuasive and inadequate.
    The analysis largely consists of the repetition of certain general
    platitudes that I believe to be wrong in the context of the United
    States' relationship to Puerto Rico. Time and time again, the United
    States Supreme Court has insisted that this relationship has ``no
    parallel in our history.'' Examining Bd. of Engineers v. Flores de
    Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 596 (1976); Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641,
    658 (1966) (discussing ``unique historic relationship between the
    Congress and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico''). Proper understanding
    and analysis of this unique relationship is only confused and obscured,
    rather than advanced, by the repetition of highly general legal
    platitudes not designed to address the specific, exceptional context of
    the United States-Puerto Rico relationship.
        The major platitude in the Task Force report, and which appears to
    be the basis for H.R. 900, is the notion that it ``is a general rule
    that one legislature cannot bind a subsequent one.'' Task Force Report,
    at 6. From this ``general rule'' it purportedly follows that Congress
    and Puerto Rico cannot enter into a mutually-binding covenant on Puerto
    Rico's status--even if both Congress and the people of Puerto Rico
    prefer that option. According to the Task Force report, the United
    States Constitution, as currently written, ``does not allow for such an
    arrangement.'' Id. The reason, allegedly, is that such a covenant would
    involve one Congress binding a later one. Thus, Congress and Puerto
    Rico could not enter into a mutually-binding covenant to guarantee
    Puerto Rico's status as an autonomous, non-State entity in permanent
    association with the United States. As a practical matter, there might
    be no realistic likelihood that the United States would violate such a
    solemn commitment, if Congress were to make that commitment.
    Nonetheless, the Task Force suggests that, as a matter of abstract
    constitutional theory, such an agreement would not, in principle, be
    valid.
        This superficial analysis is seriously defective. First,
    constitutional issues involving the political status of entities
    associated with the United States are too significant, unique, and
    complex to be addressed through general platitudes such as ``one
    Congress cannot bind another.'' Like most platitudes, this one is true
    in many routine contexts of lawmaking. Congress cannot, for example,
    pass a tax bill and deny a later Congress the power to amend, modify,
    or repeal that bill. But when it comes to far more fundamental issues
    involving the basic political status of individuals and entities,
    platitudes of this sort break down and lose their relevance. Congress'
    creation of a new political status, for individuals and entities, can
    be a legal act that transforms the status quo irrevocably, in a way
    that does bind later Congresses. Not only does the Constitution permit
    Congress to do so. The Constitution actually requires later Congresses
    to adhere to the change in political status that an earlier Congress
    has established.
        Thus, with respect to individuals, when one Congress grants
    statutory citizenship to a class of individuals, that statutory grant
    does bind later Congresses. When Congress changes the political status
    of individuals by making them citizens, the United States is bound,
    constitutionally, to honor this new political status. This commitment
    of one Congress binds the United States going forward. As the Supreme
    Court has said, Congress lacks a ``general power ... to take away an
    American citizen's citizenship without his assent.'' Afroyim v. Rusk,
    387 U.S. 253, 257 (1967). That is, once Congress enacts legislation
    signed by the President (or adopted over his veto), that legislation
    creates a new political status for individuals; the Constitution itself
    then denies later Congresses the power to change that status. Afroyim
    addressed naturalized citizens, who have become citizens only by virtue
    of legislation. Most commentators agree Afroyim applies in the same way
    to all statutory grants of citizenship. The United States Department of
    Justice agrees that it does. See Letter of Assistant Attorney General
    Robert Raben to The Honorable Frank H. Murkowski, January 18, 2001.
        With respect to territories associated with the United States, the
    constitutional principle is the same. The issue has directly arisen,
    however, in only one context of which I am aware. In that context, the
    Supreme Court similarly made clear that when one Congress changes the
    political status of a territory, later Congresses are bound by that
    change. Thus, it has long been bedrock constitutional law that, when
    Congress through legislation pledges to incorporate territory into the
    United States, that legislative commitment binds subsequent Congresses.
    See Rasmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516 (1905). The congressional
    pledge to incorporate transforms the legal status of a territory.
    Congress no longer has the ``plenary power'' under the Territory
    Clause, Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl.2, that it had before it enacted
    legislation to incorporate the territory. Rasmussen involved the Alaska
    Territory, which the United States had pledged originally, by treaty
    and statute, to incorporate into the United States. As a result of this
    statutory pledge, the Court held unconstitutional laws enacted by a
    later Congress that were inconsistent with the earlier Congress' legal
    commitment to treat the Alaska Territory as an incorporated territory.
    Rasmussen is just one of many cases in which the Supreme Court, early
    in the 20th century, established that a congressional statute
    committing the United States to eventual incorporation of territory
    into the United States creates an irrevocable commitment that later
    Congress are constitutionally required to honor. The President's Task
    Force does not indicate any awareness of Rasmussen or the many cases
    similar to it, let alone explain why those cases do not show the
    irrelevance of the ``one Congress cannot bind another'' platitude in
    the context of legal changes to the political status of territories.
        Of course, one Congress can also irrevocably bind another Congress
    to a change in political status of a former territory in other, obvious
    ways. As it did with the Philippines, Congress can enact a statute
    granting a former territory full political independence. No one would
    suggest that, as a matter of domestic law, a later Congress could
    simply pass a new law declaring the Philippines to once again be a mere
    territory of the United States. Similarly, Congress can transform a
    former territory into a State, as it did with Hawaii. Again, once one
    Congress does so, it irrevocably commits the United States to
    maintaining Hawaii as a state on an equal footing with all other
    States. See Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) (discussing equal-
    footing doctrine). Thus, the United States can act in numerous ways to
    change the political status of territories or non-state areas of the
    United States: it can pledge to incorporate them into the United
    States, it can admit them as a State, it can grant them independence.
    Any of these changes are irrevocable once made and bind later
    Congresses. The one thing the United States purportedly cannot do,
    however, according to the President's Task Force report, is to enter
    into a mutually-binding agreement to transform a territory into a
    Commonwealth, with guarantees of the self-governing autonomy of that
    entity. It would be exceedingly odd for the Constitution to single out,
    for no apparent reason, this one option as one that Congress does not
    have the discretion to choose. Surely some substantial explanation
    should be required before reading the Constitution to require such an
    odd result. Yet the Task Force report does not even attempt to provide
    such an explanation.
        Moreover, to read the Constitution as denying Congress power to
    decide what forms of political relationship best serve the interests of
    the United States would be odd for at least three further reasons.
    First, the United States has a long history of entering into mutual
    consent clauses. Section 14 of the famous Northwest Ordinance of 1787,
    for example, contained six ``articles of compact, between the original
    States and the people and States in the said territory, and [shall]
    forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent.'' Van Brocklin v.
    Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 159 (1886). Many early territorial organic
    acts that Congress enacted incorporated these mutual-consent clauses
    from the Northwest Ordinance, either expressly or by reference. Clinton
    v. Englebrecht, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 434, 442 (1872). If the
    constitutional analysis of the President's Task Force is correct,
    Congress has been acting unconstitutionally for over 200 years, and the
    fundamental legal structures through which Congress historically has
    incorporated territory into the United States has been
    unconstitutional.
        Second, individual States can enter into mutually-binding Compacts
    with other States. States can draft these Compacts so that they are
    binding absent mutual consent to a change by the other States in the
    Compact. As former Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court, the
    ``classic indicia of a compact'' between States is that once a State
    has entered into a Compact, it has no ability ``to modify or repeal ...
    [the Compact] unilaterally. ...'' Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Board of
    Governors, 472 U.S. 159, 175 (1985). Nothing in the Constitution denies
    States the power to further their interests through such arrangements.
    The platitude that ``one legislature cannot bind another'' does not
    apply to these Compacts. See, e.g., Jill Elaine Hasday, Interstate
    Compacts in a Democratic Society, 49 Fla. L. Rev. 1, 2 (1997) (``An
    interstate compact is an exception to the rule that one legislature may
    not restrict its successors.'').
        Far from being unconstitutional, these arrangements are
    constitutionally sanctioned, enforced, and protected. Once a State
    consents to such a Compact, that consent binds the State going forward.
    See, e.g., West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22, 28 (1951);
    Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 725 (1838); Green
    v. Biddle, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1, 92 (1823). Just as it is obviously
    advantageous for individuals to have the capacity to enter into binding
    contracts, it can be advantageous for a State to have the ability to
    enter into mutually-binding Compacts with other States. But unless the
    text of the Constitution expressly required it, why should the
    Constitution deny Congress the exact same power individual States have?
    If Congress and the President believe the interests of the United
    States, domestic and international, are best served by entering into a
    mutually-binding covenant with a non-state area or territory tied to
    the United States, under which the United States transforms that
    territory into a self-governing Commonwealth and pledges not to change
    the terms of that agreement absent mutual consent, is there anything in
    the Constitution that would preclude the United States from pursuing
    its interests in this way? If the text of the Constitution expressly
    forbid such an arrangement, that would be one thing. But the Task Force
    report does not claim that. There is nothing in constitutional history,
    precedent, or logical inference from the powers the Constitution grants
    Congress that requires such an odd and unlikely result.
        Third, even a brief history of American political practices under
    the Territory Clause refutes the simplicity of the Task Force's
    analysis. The Constitution itself only mentions two forms of political
    entity that the United States might govern: States and territories. If
    Congress' powers were constitutionally limited to forming political
    relationships between only ``States'' and ``territories,'' as the
    Constitution originally understood those categories, Congress would
    never have had the power to forge the relationships it did for many
    decades between the United States and Puerto Rico, the Philippines,
    Guam, and other places. But Congress did form these relationships, in
    the late 19th century, by creating the novel distinction between
    ``incorporated'' territories and ``unincorporated'' ones. The former
    are lands the United States has pledged eventually to incorporate as
    States; the latter entail no such pledge.
        Before Congress decided to create this novel distinction, it had
    long been thought, and widely understood, that a ``territory'' within
    the meaning of the Constitution was limited to land the United States
    possessed with a commitment to turn that land eventually into a State.
    Nonetheless, the Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution, through
    the Territory Clause, grants Congress the power and flexibility to
    create additional forms of political entities beyond the two originally
    conceived and expressly mentioned in the text. Congress has the power
    to establish distinct political relationships with these entities. The
    conclusion that the Constitution grants Congress flexibility to create
    novel forms of political relationship is, of course, the basis for the
    Insular Cases, such as Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). This
    constitutional principle is also the foundation for the relationship
    the United States has had with Puerto Rico. Whatever one thinks as a
    matter of policy or political morality about the desirability of the
    United States holding lands indefinitely in a status other than
    statehood, it is clear as a matter of constitutional law that Congress
    has the power and flexibility, as United States policy interests
    dictate, to forge new kinds of political relationships and associations
    with lands formerly held as territories. The Territory Clause has long
    been a source for expansive and creative congressional policymaking,
    not a rigid straitjacket. The Court has never invoked the Territory
    Clause to deny Congress the power to form new types of political
    relationships and associations. If Congress were to enter into a
    mutually-binding covenant with Puerto Rico to ensure Puerto Rico's
    expanded autonomy as a Commonwealth, this history strongly suggests the
    Court would acknowledge Congress' power to do so.
        Indeed, it would be perverse for the Constitution to permit
    Congress in the early 20th century the power to ``invent'' a new
    political status, that of unincorporated territory, that permitted the
    United States to possess territories in a colonial-like relationship,
    but then to deny Congress today the power to invent a new relationship,
    such as an amended and more autonomous Commonwealth, that promotes the
    self-governance and autonomy of places like Puerto Rico. I do not
    believe the Constitution, properly interpreted, requires such a
    perverse result.
        In my last remarks, I would like to address the shifting positions
    of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on these issues over the years. For
    most of the past 50 years, DOJ concluded that Congress did have the
    power, constitutionally, to enter into mutually-binding agreements with
    non-state areas, such as an agreement to respect Puerto Rico's status
    as a Commonwealth. In 1963, DOJ expressly took the position that such
    agreements were legally effective; DOJ concluded that Congress had the
    power to define the political status of a non-state area through a
    mutually-binding covenant that could not be revoked unilaterally. Once
    again, in 1973 DOJ confirmed this position--in a memorandum approved by
    then Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist--when Congress sought
    DOJ's advice in conjunction with pending negotiations over the status
    of Micronesia. Based on DOJ's constitutional analysis, Congress did
    insert a mutual-consent clause into Section 105 of the Covenant with
    the Northern Mariana Islands. Yet again, DOJ endorsed the
    constitutionality of mutual-consent clauses in connection with the
    First 1989 Task Force Report on the Guam Commonwealth Bill. This
    history of the DOJ's consistent position is set forth in the DOJ
    Memorandum, Mutual Consent Provisions in the Guam Commonwealth
    Legislation n.2 (July 28, 1994) (written by Teresa Wynn Roseborough,
    Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel).
        For reasons that remain difficult to understand, DOJ suddenly
    shifted its position in the early 1990s. That shift first occurred when
    then Attorney General Thornburg testified to Congress in 1991. U.S.
    Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Political
    Status of Puerto Rico: Hearings Before the S. Comm. on Energy and
    Natural Resources on S.244, 102 Cong. 210 (1991). The fullest
    explanation for that shift is in the Roseborough memorandum, above.
    According to that document, the Supreme Court's 1986 decision in Bowen
    v. Agencies Opposed to Soc. Sec. Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41 (1986),
    required this 180-degree change in DOJ's position. I find that position
    mysterious. Bowen dealt with the routine context of a State's
    participation in the Social Security system for its employees; in
    creating this system, Congress had initially permitted States to
    participate voluntarily and to terminate their participation at a later
    date. The Act also expressly reserved the right of Congress to amend
    these terms at any time. In the 1980s, Congress exercised this right to
    end the option of States to terminate their coverage. Bowen rejected a
    State's argument that in doing so, Congress had unconstitutionally
    ``taken'' the State's property.
        Bowen has nothing to do with mutual-consent clauses concerning the
    fundamental political status of non-state areas. Most obviously, in
    Bowen the statute expressly reserved Congress' right to amend it at any
    time. By contrast, the whole point of mutual-consent clauses is that
    Congress expressly relinquishes the power unilaterally to amend the
    terms of the agreement. Not surprisingly, Bowen concluded that there
    could be no ``vested right'' in an arrangement in which Congress had
    expressly reserved the right to change that arrangement at any time.
    See 477 U.S. at 55. That alone is enough to make Bowen irrelevant when
    Congress instead chooses to enter into a mutual-consent clause over
    political status. In addition, Congress' power to change, modify, or
    repeal routine regulatory programs is well-established. But
    congressional acts that distribute routine regulatory and welfare
    benefits and burdens are not of the same constitutional stature as
    those that address fundamental issues of political status. The latter
    are much more the analogue at the level of territories and non-state
    areas to what citizenship is at the level of the individual. And as
    Afroyim recognizes, once Congress changes the political status of
    individuals and confers citizenship on them, a later Congress no longer
    has the power unilaterally to revoke that status. One need not go as
    far as Afroyim to recognize the constitutionality of Congress' adoption
    of mutual-consent clauses over political status. Afroyim suggests it
    would be unconstitutional for Congress to attempt to change such an
    agreement over political status. Without going that far, the doctrine
    strongly suggests that, at the very least, the Constitution does not
    prohibit Congress from entering into such agreements.
        In sum, H.R. 900 is fundamentally flawed and misleading. It rests
    on a mistaken constitutional premise. That premise is central to the
    Task Force report, on which H.R. 900 is based. Congress does have the
    power, should it choose to use it, to enter into a mutual-consent
    agreement that would create and respect a more autonomous form of
    Commonwealth status for Puerto Rico, in which Congress would pledge not
    to alter the relationship unilaterally. Congress' power to do so is
    supported by longstanding historical practice, going back to the
    Northwest Ordinance and the period in which the Constitution was
    framed; it is supported by Supreme Court doctrine establishing the
    flexibility Congress has under the Territory Clause; it is supported by
    the longstanding position of the Department of Justice, before DOJ
    inexplicably changed positions; and it is supported, in my view, by
    sound constitutional analysis. H.R. 900 therefore does not give the
    people of Puerto Rico a full and informed choice of options concerning
    the potential future status of Puerto Rico. For that reason, Congress
    ought to reject H.R. 900.
        None of this is to state my own personal view on what future status
    for Puerto Rico would best serve the interests of the Puerto Rican
    people. That is an issue on which, I believe, the Puerto Rican people
    should first be permitted to express a free and informed opinion. Nor
    do any of my comments address questions concerning the current legal
    and constitutional status of Puerto Rico. But as I noted at the outset,
    it would be highly unfortunate, even tragic, for Congress to limit
    artificially the choices in any plebiscite of the Puerto Rican people
    based on confusion or mistakes about what options the Constitution
    would permit Congress to adopt. Because H.R. 900 does exactly that, I
    urge its rejection.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Professor Pildes. Our last
    speaker on this panel is Attorney Thomas E. Goldstein.

              STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. GOLDSTEIN, PARTNER,
                  AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP

        Mr. Goldstein. Madame Chairwoman and distinguished Members
    of the Subcommittee, my name is Thomas Goldstein.
        While I have written on matters of election law, even more
    relevant here my views are often sought on the question of how
    the Supreme Court will resolve difficult constitutional
    questions. And it is my view in that respect that H.R. 900 and
    its provision for a Federally defined status process is the
    better option before you. Better in the sense of it has a more
    realistic chance of surviving review in the Supreme Court of
    the United States.
        Puerto Rico is of course an annexed, but unincorporated,
    territory with sovereignty retained by Congress. And thus,
    contrary to the premise of H.R. 1230, the residents of Puerto
    Rico do not, in fact, exercise--and this is perhaps
    regrettable--the inherent power or the natural right to make a
    decision on their political status.
        The powers of the people of Puerto Rico, under Article I of
    the Territorial Constitution, do not reach matters of national
    sovereignty, including the political status of Puerto Rico.
    That power is reserved to Congress and constrained by the
    Constitution, unless and until democracy is actually restored
    in Puerto Rico.
        H.R. 900 is, of course, status-neutral. It favors no
    legally valid status over any other, and, unlike H.R. 1230,
    does not place on the ballot a status that is precluded by the
    Constitution. And that is the reason that I favor it.
        H.R. 1230, by contrast, makes a promise that you cannot
    keep, and that is permanency. Enhanced commonwealth status
    under the Constitution is most analogous not to the admission
    of a state or to a compact between states, but to a treaty. And
    it is firmly settled in the law, and this is not a platitude,
    that Congress, having entered into a treaty, can later change
    it by statute. And therefore, it is not the case that under
    H.R. 1230 there could be a promise of a permanent enhanced
    commonwealth status that could not be abrogated by Congress.
        For those reasons, as well as those set forth in my written
    statement, it is my conclusion that H.R. 900 provides the best
    means to redeem government by the consent of the people of
    Puerto Rico, based on legally valid options under the U.S.
    Constitution. Those who contend that H.R. 900 is incomplete for
    failing to include a provision for enhanced commonwealth status
    undoubtedly have the best interests of the citizenry in mind,
    but regrettably, such an option is simply not constitutionally
    available under our system of government.
        I would like again to thank you, Chairwoman Christensen and
    the Members of the Subcommittee, for taking so seriously your
    responsibility to ensure that essential American democratic
    values, such as equality and self-determination, are fulfilled
    in Puerto Rico.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:]

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

    I.  Puerto Rico and the Doctrine of Annexed but Unincorporated
            Territory
        Before addressing the constitutional and policy principles
    implicated by H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, I would like to direct the
    Subcommittee's attention to what I believe is at the heart of the
    Puerto Rico status issue. It is that the interpretation and application
    of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution (the
    ``Territorial Clause''), has resulted in the current problem in which a
    population of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico larger than that of half the
    states in the Union is being governed by Congress indefinitely without
    a full and equal national citizenship, or access to a democratic
    process to attain one. As such, the residents of Puerto Rico are, in
    effect, a disenfranchised subclass of American citizens, without, among
    other things, equal civil rights or legal status under law, a direct
    voice in U.S. policy, or voting rights in the election of U.S. national
    leaders.
        I believe this outcome would be a surprise to the Framers of our
    Constitution. The Framers, it must be recalled, were familiar only with
    the model of territorial incorporation embodied in the Northwest
    Ordinance of 1787. For this reason we would have to explain to the
    Framers that:
          Over the course of the 19th century the U.S. became a
    global power and by the dawn of the 20th century the U.S. had acquired
    sovereignty over remote island realms with large non-citizen
    populations; and
          In a series of decisions in the first quarter of the 20th
    century, referred to as the ``Insular Cases,'' the Supreme Court
    created the unincorporated territory doctrine and ruled that Congress
    could govern such overseas possessions under the Territorial Clause as
    it had all earlier American territories, but without following the
    historical model of political status resolution through incorporation
    and without applying the Constitution to the unincorporated territories
    in the same manner as it had with prior territories; and
          The unincorporated territory doctrine of the Insular
    Cases meant that the Constitution did not ``follow the flag'' to the
    annexed but unincorporated territories with non-citizen populations;
    and
          Consistent with the Insular Cases, U.S. citizenship was
    withheld from the citizens of the Philippines as a step toward that
    island nation's independence, and the conferral of U.S. citizenship for
    Alaska and Hawaii was part of the process of incorporation leading to
    statehood for those territories; and
          In contrast to those precedents, the Supreme Court's 1922
    decision in Balzac v. Porto Rico interpreted the conferral of U.S.
    citizenship on the residents of Puerto Rico as neither putting Puerto
    Rico on the path toward incorporation nor extending to its residents
    the rights and protections of the Constitution that came with
    citizenship in incorporated territories on the path to statehood.
        As a result of these and other events, Congress now presides over
    Puerto Rico as an annexed but unincorporated territory populated by
    four million disenfranchised U.S. citizens who possess, essentially,
    the same constitutional status as aliens under the original Insular
    Cases doctrine. As discussed below, certain ``fundamental rights'' have
    been extended on an ad hoc basis by statutory policy and court
    decisions, but not by direct application of the Constitution. This
    reality--over one hundred years after the annexation of Puerto Rico and
    approximately nine decades after U.S. citizenship was conferred on the
    residents of Puerto Rico--is, arguably, a byproduct of legislative
    inaction and would concern the Framers, just as it concerns, among
    others, the sponsors of H.R. 900, H.R. 1230, and the members of the
    Subcommittee.
    II.  The Importance of Resolving the Political Status of Puerto Rico
        It is in the historical context of the Insular Cases and the Balzac
    decision that this Subcommittee must address the constitutional and
    policy implications of H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230.
        In combination these two bills present a question to Congress--Can
    the present dilemma regarding Puerto Rico's political status be
    resolved through: (1) a status resolution process initiated at the
    local level like the one outlined in H.R. 1230; (2) a federally
    sponsored process based on status options and procedures defined by
    Congress as set forth in H.R. 900; or (3) a process that combines
    elements of (1) and (2)? It is my conclusion that the record on the
    Puerto Rico status question before the Natural Resources Committee is
    clear that Congress possesses the responsibility and exclusive
    constitutional power to determine the appropriate status resolution. I
    have further concluded that, although both bills raise important issues
    about the substance and process of status policy, H.R. 900 is the
    measure that can best accomplish the imperative of redeeming government
    by consent for the people of Puerto Rico based on legally valid options
    under applicable federal law and policy.
    A.  H.R. 1230--Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2007
        H.R. 1230 seeks to enact a resolution process initiated at the
    local level via local constitutional convention. Contrary to the
    language of H.R. 1230, as residents of an annexed but unincorporated
    territory under the Territory Clause, the people of Puerto Rico do not
    have ``inherent'' or ``natural'' rights of sovereignty recognized by
    Congress or the Supreme Court under the Constitution. Instead, Article
    I of the local territorial constitution, which empowers the local
    government of Puerto Rico to implement the will of the people, is
    limited to local territorial administration within the scope of powers
    of the territorial government instituted under federal law. While the
    considerable degree of self-government that the Puerto Rico territory
    has achieved under its local territorial constitution and the
    commonwealth system for administration of internal civil affairs of the
    territory is an impressive tribute to American democratization, the
    powers of the local government do not extend to affairs of national
    sovereignty or to the political status of Puerto Rico. Those powers are
    expressly reserved to and vested in Congress under the Territorial
    Clause, as expressly recognized in Article IX of the Treaty of Peace
    ceding Puerto Rico to the United States, which records that the ``civil
    rights and political status'' of Puerto Rico shall be determined by
    Congress.
        While I am convinced that only Congress has the authority to
    resolve the political status of Puerto Rico, I am not aware of any
    constitutional limitation that would preclude a local constitutional
    convention from being a part of a federally authorized status
    resolution process, particularly once Congress has defined the options
    and the procedural mechanism for status resolution. To the extent
    Congress elects to recognize such a convention within the status
    resolution process, I offer the following suggestions to minimize the
    risk of confusion and misinterpretation:
          The inclusion of any local constitutional convention
    should be predicated on a clear recognition that: (1) the current
    commonwealth system of local government in Puerto Rico, while also
    adopted at the local level, was created by federal powers as a form for
    territorial government; and (2) the commonwealth system does not define
    Puerto Rico's political status.
          To the extent a local constitutional convention is
    recognized as a means to facilitate local democratic participation in
    the status resolution process, the participants should recognize that
    any proposed changes to the local territorial constitution that would
    purport to change Puerto Rico's political status can be given legal
    meaning and effect only pursuant to federal statute, based on a federal
    status resolution policy and process, with options defined or accepted
    by Congress as compatible with federal law.
          Any provisions in an act of Congress relating to a local
    constitutional convention should be based on the understanding that
    such a convention will operate subject to the supremacy of federal law
    and may not impair the local constitutional process with respect to
    other initiatives and measures meant to address the political status
    issue.
          Unless otherwise explicitly agreed and intended, Congress
    should require that any such local convention operate in a manner
    compatible with the local territorial constitution and laws of Puerto
    Rico, so that the federal enabling act is not construed as a unilateral
    federal amendment of the local constitution as approved by Congress and
    the people in 1952.
        I suggest the foregoing caveats merely as a means to avoid creating
    any false expectation by the residents of Puerto Rico of congressional
    recognition of inherent rights or powers not granted to non-state
    territories by the Constitution or otherwise. Without similar
    protections, the inclusion of a local constitutional convention risks
    harming the status process from a political and constitutional
    perspective. A consequence of which would be to stymie the status
    process and invite re-submission to Congress of a proposal to give
    Puerto Rico a status combining features of statehood and sovereign
    independence--commonly referred to as enhanced commonwealth status--
    that does not exist under the Constitution and, notably, has never been
    endorsed by Congress as constitutionally or politically viable. In
    addition, the foregoing caveats will make clear that the adoption of
    the 1952 local territorial constitution simply created a system of
    limited local government and did not establish a constitutionally
    defined political status.
    B.  Congress is Obligated to Provide a Lawful Political Status
            Resolution
        As noted above, the power to resolve the political status of Puerto
    Rico is vested exclusively in Congress and the local constitutional
    process must operate within any framework created by Congress. By
    accepting the unincorporated territory doctrine of the Insular Cases,
    however, Congress has acquiesced in prolonging a political status for
    Puerto Rico in which the sovereignty of its people is held in abeyance
    and residual sovereignty is retained by Congress by operation of the
    Territorial Clause. Pursuant to the unincorporated territory doctrine,
    Congress and the federal courts can, and indeed have, extended
    fundamental rights by statute or court decision, but this is
    essentially permissive and/or discretionary and can be modified or even
    reversed through subsequent statutes or court rulings. For example, the
    federal court decisions in Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, Mora v.
    Mejias, and Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party appear to create a
    body of federal statutory policy and decisional jurisprudence that
    extend such fundamental rights as due process and equal protection to
    certain actions by the federal and local governments in Puerto Rico.
    The Supreme Court's ruling in Harris v. Rosario, however, confirms the
    power of wide ranging power of Congress under the Territorial Clause to
    alter its treatment of Puerto Rico. In addition, cases such as U.S. v.
    Quinones and U.S. v. Acosta-Martinez confirm that adoption of the local
    territorial constitution in 1952 did not change the status of Puerto
    Rico or carve out a zone of local sovereignty beyond the reach of the
    Territory Clause power of Congress. More importantly, the ``fundamental
    rights'' recognized under federal law in Puerto Rico are not part of a
    constitutionally defined citizenship equivalent to that secured through
    incorporation and statehood, or through separate nationhood, and, as
    such, are not part of a status leading to full and equal citizenship at
    the national level. Stated another way, the unincorporated territory
    doctrine has not enabled or empowered the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico
    to exercise many of the most fundamental rights of all, including the
    rights to self-determination and government by consent of the governed.
        Political status resolution is first and foremost a political
    question for Congress, and the Insular Cases and Balzac decision
    represent, if nothing else, a deferral by the federal courts to the
    political power of Congress under the Territorial Clause. However, like
    many legal decisions, the Insular Cases and Balzac decision venture
    into the realm of policy making. It is likely that that in deciding the
    Insular Cases or Balzac the Supreme Court felt a need not only to
    clarify the meaning of the territorial statutory policy at issue, but
    to fill a vacuum created by congressional inaction or ambiguities and
    inconsistencies created by congressional action.
        The organic acts and territorial policies adopted for Hawaii,
    Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Philippines after 1900 illustrate this
    ambiguity and congressional inconsistency. Moreover, the disparate
    treatment of each of those territories in some respects represents a
    departure from the historical practices and constitutional law of the
    United States governing territorial status resolution. With regard to
    the Philippines, Congress declared in 1916 a policy of withholding U.S.
    citizenship from the Philippines and, on that basis, adopted a policy
    leading to a local constitutional government as a step to independence.
    With regard to Puerto Rico, however, Congress in 1917, just months
    after adopting its policy for the Philippines, conferred U.S.
    citizenship on the residents of Puerto Rico and left unanswered the
    effect of citizenship on Puerto Rico's future political status.
        Instead of treating the grant of citizenship to the residents of
    Puerto Rico as a step toward incorporation as it had done with regard
    to Alaska in Rassmussen v. United States, the Supreme Court, with its
    decision in Balzac, filled the vacuum on the issue of future status for
    Puerto Rico by concluding that, contrary to the assumption of the
    Insular Cases that conferral of citizenship led to incorporation which
    led to statehood, the extension of U.S. citizenship was not a step
    toward incorporation for Puerto Rico. There are credible arguments on
    both sides of whether the Insular Cases were ``good law'' or ``bad
    law'' in trying to resolve the exigencies of America's experiment in
    imperialism and colonialism in the Philippines and Puerto Rico before
    U.S. citizenship was extended to Puerto Rico. However, the effects of
    those decisions on federal territorial policy become more conspicuous
    with each passing year and render it much more difficult to sustain a
    favorable view of the Balzac decision separating citizenship from the
    Constitution and its fundamental promise of government by consent for
    all U.S. citizens. Further undermining the continuing validity of the
    Balzac ruling is the questionable justification offered by Chief
    Justice Taft that any individual aggrieved by the decision could simply
    move to a State. According to Chief Justice Taft:
            It became the yearning of the Puerto Ricans to be American
            citizens...and the act gave them the boon. What additional
            rights did it give them? It enabled them to move into the
            continental United States and becoming residents of any state
            there to enjoy every right of any citizens of the United
            States, civil, social and political.
        This passage confirms that the Balzac decision created a class of
    U.S. citizenship under American sovereignty and under the America flag
    that could only be redeemed from a discriminatory state of inequality
    and disenfranchisement by migration to another part of America. That
    arguably was not really ``good law'' in 1922, and it should not be
    acceptable to Congress as federal law or policy in 2007. Put simply,
    when Congress' past exercise or failure to exercise its Territorial
    Clause power gives rise to a constitutional detriment to Puerto Rico,
    Congress has a concomitant obligation to take responsibility for and
    ameliorate the failures of that political judgment. For all these
    reasons, a legally authoritative political status policy for Puerto
    Rico is not only within the exclusive power of Congress, as recognized
    by U.S. Senate Resolution 279, adopted September 17, 1998, but also the
    responsibility of Congress under the Territory Clause power.
    C.  H.R. 900--Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007
        As introduced, H.R. 900 meets the criteria for a federal statutory
    policy on status resolution for Puerto Rico. Implicit in H.R. 900 is
    the principle that all U.S. citizens are entitled to enjoy two of the
    most essential American democratic values--equality and self-
    determination. H.R. 900 accomplishes this by allowing voters to choose
    for Puerto Rico to either retain its current status or pursue permanent
    nonterritorial status. Pursuant to H.R. 900, if a majority of voters
    favors the continuation of existing territorial status, additional
    votes will continue to be held every eight years unless and until a
    majority votes to seek permanent nonterritorial status. In my view,
    this provision is necessary to ensure that a less than fully democratic
    status does not continue due to the failure of Congress to provide
    access to a federally sponsored mechanism for expression of the
    political will of the residents of the territory. Such periodic acts of
    self-determination as between options determined by Congress to be
    compatible with the Constitution and applicable federal law are vital
    to redeem America's democratic principles and the fundamental rights of
    U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico.
        Alternatively, if, and only if, a majority of the voters choose for
    Puerto Rico to pursue a path toward permanent nonterritorial status,
    H.R. 900 mandates that a plebiscite be conducted that allows voters to
    choose between statehood or sovereign nation status, including the
    possibility of free association, subject to such terms as may be agreed
    upon by Congress consistent with U.S. constitutional practice and
    international legal criteria. It bears noting that free association as
    envisioned by H.R. 900 is based on an agreement between two sovereign
    nations, and recognition of separate sovereignty, nationality, and
    citizenship. It also must be terminable at will by either party in
    order to preserve the right of each nation to independence. Otherwise,
    if terminable only by mutual agreement, it would give each nation the
    power to deny the other nation's right to independence, and would
    therefore not be non-colonial and non-territorial. When crafted within
    the bounds of these principles, free association can be a useful means
    for a former colony and a former colonial power to sustain a close and
    mutually beneficial postcolonial relationship.
        By approving H.R. 900, Congress can begin to correct the historical
    and constitutional dilemma created by the Insular Cases, the Balzac
    decision, and the incorporated versus unincorporated territory
    doctrines. Indeed, H.R. 900 is predicated on the need for a federally
    sponsored process in which Congress exercises it powers regarding a
    political status resolution for Puerto Rico based on informed self-
    determination between status options recognized as compatible with
    federal law and international criteria of decolonization in the modern
    era. For this reason, it is my view that H.R. 900 is a functionally
    status neutral approach. H.R. 900 neither favors a particular status
    nor gives rise to any sort of undue influence leading to a so-called
    artificial majority. Equally as important, H.R. 900 does not promote
    politically unrealistic or constitutionally unavailable status options
    for inclusion on a plebiscite ballot. H.R. 900 does, however, provide a
    clear path to end the current status policy for Puerto Rico that
    separates U.S. citizenship from the Constitution without any remedy
    based on consent of the governed. The end of this policy has the
    likelihood of leading to a democratically instituted unity of national
    citizenship and inherent sovereignty at the national level for the
    inhabitants of the Puerto Rico territory, if that is what a majority
    want when given the chance to express their will.
        It bears noting that, whether by direct right of referendum
    sponsored by Congress or through a combination to federal and local
    measures including, but not limited to, a local constitutional
    convention, there is precedent for periodic votes in order to achieve
    orderly political status resolution. For example, in 1889 Congress
    sponsored a status resolution process for Dakota, Montana and
    Washington. Congress required each territory to propose a constitution
    ``not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States'', and to keep
    submitting such proposals to the voters until one was approved and
    proclaimed compatible with the federal enabling act by the President of
    the United States. As I noted in my earlier testimony, Congress may
    want to enact H.R. 900 exactly as introduced, or it may want to
    recognize a possible role for a constitutional convention similar to
    that proposed in H.R. 1230. As long as the constitutional convention is
    in some manner compelled to advance proposals determined at the federal
    level to be compatible with federal law, and the local constitutional
    process is not impeded from other measures to resolve the status
    question, there would be no legal reason not to recognize the concept
    underlying H.R. 1230 as part of an overall status policy. Of course,
    the local territorial constitution already authorizes constitutional
    conventions, and a convention called thereunder could possibly propose
    amendments that would change the status of Puerto Rico if approved by
    the people and Congress. With or without a local constitutional
    convention provision, a federally managed process is necessary to
    facilitate majority rule by the people of Puerto Rico in the
    determination of whether the current territorial status should
    continue, or a new political status should be pursued.
    CONCLUSION
        Congress now presides over Puerto Rico as an annexed but
    unincorporated territory. Currently, the people of Puerto Rico lack
    full and equal national citizenship and they lack a status resolution
    process through which they can acquire full and equal national
    citizenship. Congress possesses the exclusive constitutional power to
    determine the appropriate status resolution. Moreover, it is imperative
    that Congress exercise this power in a fashion that is compatible with
    the options made available by the Constitution. It is my belief that
    H.R. 900 provides the best means to accomplish the necessary goal of
    redeeming government by consent for the people of Puerto Rico based on
    legally valid options under applicable federal law and policy.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, panelists. I want to remind the
    Members that Committee Rule 3(c) imposes a five-minute limit on
    questions.
        The Chair will now recognize myself for questions, and
    follow up with recognizing Members for any questions they might
    have.
        I begin with Attorney Thomas. My first question to you is,
    in your view, does the Constitution prohibit Congress from
    entering into an arrangement that establishes a self-governing
    political status that cannot be changed by mutual consent?
        Mr. Thomas. Madame Chairwoman, I would start first that
    absolutely the Congress could enter into such an agreement, and
    could choose by itself to honor the terms of those agreements.
    And as a matter of fact, I think that is what has principally
    been done in the case of Puerto Rico.
        As to whether Congress could bind itself or bind a future
    Congress from changing that agreement, my, I guess, essential
    point is one of locating that constitutional authority.
        I do agree with the comment of Professor Pildes that there
    is, there may well be nothing in the Constitution that
    prohibits the enhanced commonwealth; however, the Constitution
    is a document of both limits and powers. And the perhaps more
    relevant question is where does that power come from in the
    Constitution.
        And I do understand that there are, you know, significant
    gaps in our constitutional knowledge here because of the lack
    of case law on some of these issues. However, at this point I
    can't confidently say that there is a place in the United
    States Constitution that would provide the authority for a
    mutual binding agreement between the Federal government and a
    territory.
        Ms. Christensen. OK, but the first answer to the question
    is yes, it is possible, but you don't know that it can bind the
    following Congress.
        Mr. Thomas. Yes, that is correct.
        Ms. Christensen. I think that Professor Pildes responded in
    his testimony to how he feels about that, so I am not going to
    ask you that question right now.
        My question to you, though, is, for those territories that
    due to size or other reasons are not candidates for statehood
    or independence at this point, what is your view of the notion
    that such areas ``shall forever remain at the will of
    Congress?''
        Mr. Pildes. Well, Madame Chairwoman, I would say first that
    the territory clause itself is the source of power for Congress
    to decide on the appropriate relationship with various non-
    state areas. So to answer Mr. Thomas's comment, precisely
    because the territory clause power is so broad and expansive,
    one of the ways in which Congress might choose to use that
    power, which is supported by Supreme Court precedent, is to
    create new forms of relationship, including in my view a
    binding mutual consent provision.
        For other areas, the territory clause gives the United
    States flexibility and pragmatic policymaking authority to
    determine the appropriate relationship over time, partly in
    response to the preference of the people who live in those non-
    state areas, if those preferences change over time.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Professor Gorrin, since the
    people of Puerto Rico, as I understand it, have several times
    voted in at least a plurality to remain as a commonwealth, it
    seems to me that the people of Puerto Rico chose themselves to
    remain in that status; that it is not necessarily being imposed
    upon them by Congress or the Federal government. Do you
    disagree with that?
        Mr. Gorrin-Peralta. Yes, I do, Madame Chairwoman. The
    original decision in 1950, when the people of Puerto Rico
    received Law 600 adopted by this Congress, gave Puerto Rico the
    alternative of deciding whether it wanted to draw up domestic
    rules for the household, or whether it wanted not to draw up
    those household rules and wanted Congress to keep on drawing
    them.
        But it had no alternative. It was either a yes-no answer to
    a colonial relationship. And that, of course, cannot be legal
    under either constitutional or international law.
        So the only time that Congress has admitted to the people
    of Puerto Rico any kind of question was at that time, and that
    was an invalid question.
        Ms. Christensen. I am going to reserve my next questions
    for the next round, since I am almost out of time, and I will
    turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Fortuno, for any questions he
    may have.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you, Madame Chair. And thank you for all
    the witnesses coming up today.
        My first question is for Mr. Thomas. And I read, last night
    I read your written statement that you had put into the record.
    And you mentioned, and actually you were commenting on H.R.
    1230, which proposes that a non-territorial or enhanced
    colonial status be one of the status options.
        I believe in your written testimony that you stated that
    this at some point could require a constitutional amendment
    here in the United States. Could you expand on that, please?
        Mr. Thomas. Yes. In my written testimony I was speaking to
    the language of H.R. 1230, which seems to provide a broad
    discretion to the convention as to the types of proposals they
    could make. And I would note that the H.R. 1230 speaks of the
    Congress passing a joint resolution in response to the
    convention's proposals.
        And I just thought that that raised the possibility, and I
    wouldn't say that this is necessarily the intent of the bill,
    but I would say it raises the possibility that the proposal
    which could be submitted from the convention could be one of a
    constitutional amendment.
        And that also has the advantages of avoiding some of the
    constitutional issues that might arise if the proposal was sent
    up in the form of a statute.
        Mr. Fortuno. Mr. Thomas, so that everyone is here and
    actually hearing us in Puerto Rico understands, what does it
    take for a constitutional amendment to be approved in the
    United States?
        Mr. Thomas. In the United States, the Congress, both Houses
    of Congress would pass the bill by two-thirds. It would not go
    to the President; it would go directly to the states for
    ratification by three-fourths of the states.
        Mr. Fortuno. Last time the country tried this was ERA.
    Could you tell us what happened?
        Mr. Thomas. In that case, the ERA failed, and I believe
    there were numerous states that did ratify it. The ERA
    legislation was actually amended to extend the opportunity for
    passage, but ultimately it did fail.
        Mr. Fortuno. When was the last time that the U.S.
    Constitution was amended?
        Mr. Thomas. The 27th Amendment was fairly recent, although
    that is an interesting case because that actually was started
    over 200 years ago as one of the original Bill of Rights, and
    was not actually ratified until fairly recently.
        Mr. Fortuno. And the 27th Amendment, what does it state, if
    I may?
        Mr. Thomas. The 27th Amendment speaks to whether the
    compensation of Members can be raised without an intervening
    Congressional election.
        Mr. Fortuno. And it took 200 years to get through that.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Thomas. Thank you.
        Mr. Fortuno. Mr. Goldstein, you have commented on the
    enhanced colonial status that has been proposed. Could you go
    further into, for example, the ability for Puerto Rico, non-
    territorial or enhanced colony of Puerto Rico, to have veto
    power over Federal legislation, and to invalidate Federal court
    jurisdiction?
        Mr. Goldstein. I think that that would be in grave
    constitutional doubt, given, as has been said, the plenary
    power of the Congress under the territory clause.
        If Puerto Rico were to remain in some form of commonwealth
    status, the plenary power would remain with the Congress. And
    in addition to the points that were made earlier about the
    political will to give such a special status to Puerto Rico, I
    think that it would be highly questionable to give a territory
    effectively a veto over the application of laws that were
    passed by Congress.
        Congress, nonetheless, could itself provide, as it has,
    that certain laws don't apply in Puerto Rico. But that is a
    very different question from giving Puerto Rico the opportunity
    to veto those laws itself.
        Mr. Fortuno. The things that the platform, 2004 platform of
    the party, of the Governor's party, states that actually it
    will be the Puerto Rico legislature that will veto our laws
    here in Congress. That is what they are saying that could be
    done. Essentially you are saying that that is not doable.
        Mr. Goldstein. That would not be possible.
        Mr. Fortuno. OK, thank you. Mr. Thomas, I know you--and
    again, I was reading this last night, and you looked at both
    bills. Do you have an opinion as to which of the two will
    actually have, are less likely to survive the constitutional
    scrutiny of the proposed options? That is, statehood,
    independence, or this type of free association, or an
    enhanced--well, basically, we keep it all, but we don't give
    anything back?
        Mr. Thomas. Well, again I should reiterate that I believe
    that both bills are constitutional in the sense, well, first of
    all, that they are really just establishing----
        Mr. Fortuno. I am sorry, my question is about the options,
    the actual options. I am sorry.
        Mr. Thomas. Right. And if the Puerto Rican Convention under
    H.R. 1230 does choose a commonwealth option, and the
    commonwealth option they do choose is one that would withdraw
    the Federal jurisdiction, again, that is, in and of itself, not
    unconstitutional.
        But the question is whether it is effective. The question
    is if then a Congress later came and decided that it was
    necessary for whatever reason to change some aspect of the
    commonwealth in a way that the Puerto Rican Convention had
    decided was inappropriate, I think it would be very difficult
    to find an argument binding that later Congress from taking
    that action.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. I yield back, Madame Chairman.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. At this point, before I move to
    Mr. Faleomavaega, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
    from Indiana, Mr. Burton, be allowed to sit on the dais and
    participate in the hearing. And hearing no objection, so
    ordered. Welcome.
        Next, Mr. Faleomavaega, you are recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. And I guess
    you might say this is my maiden speech for this important
    hearing. And certainly I want to thank Chairman Rahall and
    Chairman Young; I do call the gentleman from Alaska as Chairman
    Young, because he was Chairman of this important committee. In
    fact, he has worn so many hats, I don't know which one that I
    could really address properly the senior Member from our good
    friend and colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young.
        But I do want to thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for calling
    this very important hearing. Again, to figure out how we can
    best determine to give the people of Puerto Rico the best
    option or the best opportunity to determine for themselves as
    to what their future should be.
        I also want to say at the beginning, I have nothing but the
    highest respect for my good friend and colleague, Congressman
    Fortuno, who has represented his district in a most excellent
    way, not only before this body, but certainly before other
    members of this institution.
        I thank also the gentleman from Indiana, because these
    gentlemen all have institutional memories, excellent
    institutional memories, of what has happened for all these
    years in trying to determine what can we do for Puerto Rico.
    And obviously, those of us who represent the insular areas take
    a tremendous interest always when we talk about political
    status for Puerto Rico, because it does have very serious
    implications on the future of the other insular areas, as well.
        So I welcome this opportunity again, and look forward to
    seeing where we are going to be, how we are going to make this
    determination.
        And one of the interesting twists that we find ourselves
    in, that we have two bills introduced by those who are
    originally from Puerto Rico--my good friend, the gentleman from
    New York, Mr. Serrano, and also Ms. Velazquez--for introducing
    both pieces of legislation.
        I have been here almost 20 years now, and there are so many
    different cross-currents going on, and as has been in the past
    and is true in the present.
        I have a grandson, very interestingly enough. He is part
    Tahitian, he is Samoan, and he is also Puerto Rican. So I just
    want to say how far our precenos have traveled, all the way
    from Puerto Rico to the South Pacific. So I am very proud and
    so happy that my grandson does have a sense of heritage, and a
    base or foundation from the good people of Puerto Rico. And I
    look forward to working with my colleagues here on the
    committee, and see how we can best resolve this issue of what
    should be the best option to pursue.
        Now, I look at it from a different perspective. The problem
    we have here so often is that we are almost like in a courtroom
    situation. You get expert witnesses. If I want someone who kind
    of bends a little bit toward H.R. 900, I will call Professor
    Pildes. If I want someone who bends on H.R.--wait a minute, the
    opposite--900, it is Mr. Goldstein, and if it is 1230, maybe
    perhaps Professor Pildes. And I wish we didn't have to do it
    this way, but this issue is not very simple. It is very
    complex. So many constitutional cross-currents, under-currents,
    I don't know what to call them.
        I recall years ago when we held a hearing right in Puerto
    Rico. And right in the middle of the hearing, all of a sudden
    an opinion or a commentary was written by one of the most noted
    conservative journalists or leader, activist, what you want to
    call him, by the name of Pat Buchanan. And he comes out and
    says you give Puerto Rico statehood, we are going to have a
    welfare state. And that caused a barnstorm, and then all kinds
    of things flared up and said my gosh, is this what we want to
    do, in the most--I say it was a very wrong way to look at it,
    perceive what options should be made available for the good
    people of Puerto Rico.
        The political implications are, to me, as the way I look at
    it, from why even the Congress has not dealt very well in
    dealing with this issue.
        What I am saying here, it is a political issue, more so
    than saying whether it is constitutional or right or wrong, to
    try to meet the needs of Puerto Rico.
        We are looking at seven potential Members of Congress. Are
    they going to be Republicans or Democrats? Two Senators; are
    they going to be Republican or Democrat? That is, from what I
    recall before Alaska became a state, the fear politically was
    whether Alaska was going to be a democratically controlled
    state. And guess what? They are Republicans.
        The same situation happened also with the State of Hawaii.
    The fear was that Hawaii was going to be Republican, and guess
    what? They are all Democrats.
        So to me, that seems to be the problem that we have here in
    the Congress, looking at it as a political issue, and not
    looking at the rightness of what should be done to meet the
    best course of action for the people of Puerto Rico and their
    future.
        I am sorry, my time is up. I didn't even have a chance to
    ask questions, but I will hopefully wait for the second round.
    Thank you, Madame Chair.
        Ms. Christensen. Thanks, and we will have a second round. I
    now recognize our Ranking Member on the full committee, Mr.
    Young, for any questions.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I will say that my
    good friend from American Samoa put it very well. This is a
    political issue.
        But I have one, other than Hawaii, one of the most recent
    territories that became a state. And I can say this is my
    interest in this. I make no apologies. I am a statehood person.
    Because I knew where we were as a territory, and what we could
    not do, and how we were being treated as a colony.
        It was a big fight in the State of Alaska. And we
    petitioned the Congress, and the Congress responded, and we
    became a state in 1959.
        And in retrospect, if we knew we had as much oil as we
    had----
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Young.--we would have probably become a nation, and I
    would have become Emperor. But I don't think you would let us
    do it right now.
        But my goal here is to really try to allow Puerto Rico to
    advance. And I do not believe you can advance as a
    commonwealth. I say that from my heart. Because we were not
    able to advance as a commonwealth. We were a territory. And my
    goal is to listen to the Puerto Rican people, listen to
    witnesses like we have today. But my ultimate goal is to try to
    give the Puerto Rican people a choice. And my bill, H.R. 900,
    does give them a choice.
        And if they decide to be an independent nation, God bless
    you. If you decide to be a state, God bless you. If you decide
    to be a commonwealth, you are not going to grow. And I am not
    going to ask God to bless you in that case.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Young. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Before I move to Ms. Bordallo,
    I also have to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent, be allowed to sit on the dais and
    participate in the hearing. And hearing no objection, so
    ordered.
        I now recognize my colleague from Guam, the Congresswoman
    Madeleine Bordallo, for such questions as she might have.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman, and
    Ranking Member Fortuno, and of course our distinguished Mr.
    Young who just left the room, and Mr. Rahall, who was here
    earlier, and to all of the distinguished witnesses.
        It has been a very important morning for me to listen to
    some of the dialogue on this matter. I represent the territory
    of Guam. Guam has in the past gone through the same exercises
    as you have in Puerto Rico over the years. We have introduced a
    number of pieces of legislation in the U.S. Congress. So I
    don't know what the future is for Guam, but this is a learning
    process again for us, and I am sure that in the future we will
    also be entertaining a status change for Guam.
        Now, in examining the, or first, I would like to ask Mr.
    Thomas a question. I want to thank you and your colleagues in
    the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service
    for all of the professional work that you have done for the
    committee, for all of us.
        I have a general question. Much of your written testimony
    focused on potential interpretation by the courts of H.R. 1230.
    And you also touched upon H.R. 900, which is based on the
    President's Task Force report.
        My question then, Mr. Thomas, in examining the task force's
    report and recommendations, do you note any constitutional
    deficiencies in the options and the process presented, or in
    the legal basis that the task force cites for its
    recommendations? Are there any issues that you see in the task
    force report with respect to constitutional compatibility, or
    anything Congress should keep in mind in particular with
    respect to the legal bases cited by the task force report's
    recommendations?
        Mr. Thomas. Well, Congresswoman, I would note that the task
    force really does have two components. One is a process
    component, and the other is a component regarding status
    options.
        As to the process component, obviously there is a lot of
    different ways that plebiscites can be held, different
    variations, and I would certainly have no policy suggestions as
    to which plebiscite form would be most appropriate.
        As to the status options that are presented, as I indicated
    in my report, I did find that the three general options that
    are going to be available to Puerto Rico will probably be
    statehood, independence, and some form of territorial status,
    such as commonwealth. And I think that is consistent with the
    task force.
        There is, of course, extensive appendices associated with
    the task force report that goes into great detail regarding
    some of the legal issues in this. I read those appendices, and
    thought that they went into a lot of the arguments on both
    sides, and noted some of the opposing case law, some dicta,
    some different arguments that could be made. And I thought they
    did a reasonable job of setting forth that. So I found nothing
    that I would consider, that would contradict my testimony.
        Ms. Bordallo. So in other words, Mr. Thomas, you found
    nothing unconstitutional.
        Mr. Thomas. Again, I recognize that the Congress can enter
    into these agreements. But as to whether these agreements can
    bind in the future, I would agree with the task force's
    conclusion on that matter.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
    Burton for five minutes.
        Mr. Burton. First of all, I want to thank you, Madame
    Chairman, for allowing me to sit in on your meeting. I really
    appreciate that.
        I have worked with Mr. Fortuno and Congressman Young for
    many years on this issue. I have been to Puerto Rico many
    times, and I am a very strong supporter of Puerto Rico becoming
    the 51st state.
        But I am also a realist, and I realize that it is extremely
    important that the people of Puerto Rico have the options
    presented to them, so they can make the decision themselves.
    And for that reason, I am a very enthusiastic supporter of H.R.
    900, and I certainly hope it passes the committee and goes to
    the Floor quickly.
        And with that, I will yield the rest of my time to the
    gentleman from Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. I want to thank the gentleman from
    Indiana; thank you for your support, and certainly for being
    there for so long for this cause. Actually, for an unfinished
    matter that has to be dealt with. On behalf of the four million
    citizens that I represent, I thank you for your leadership in
    this.
        I also acknowledge the fact that one of the Members of our
    Subcommittee and committee is here, Mr. Flake. I am sorry I
    couldn't make it to today's press conference, but I certainly
    wanted to be there, and I commend you on your leadership on
    another important issue that this country, this nation of ours,
    is facing, immigration, and I support you wholeheartedly.
        If I may, coming back to Puerto Rico. Mr. Goldstein, I
    stayed up until late last night; I was reading all of your
    testimonies. And you mentioned something in H.R. 1230 there is
    language that talks about inherent powers of Puerto Rico as a
    sovereign to do certain things. And I wonder if you have been
    able to look at what is the authority for the nature of those
    inherent powers that H.R. 1230 alleges.
        Mr. Goldstein. Yes, sir. The Territorial Constitution does
    give the citizenry of Puerto Rico certain autonomy and the
    ability to make certain decisions. But H.R. 1230 I think
    dramatically overstates, under the current legal regime, the
    authority of the citizenry to make sovereign decisions, because
    that power is vested in Congress.
        And I think it is unfortunately misleading to the citizenry
    to suggest that until democracy is restored, that Puerto Rico
    would have such great control over its destiny that it would be
    able to, for example, veto Federal legislation, because that is
    not the way the U.S. Constitution works, regrettably.
        So long as there was a commonwealth or enhanced
    commonwealth status, the power will remain in the Congress.
    Unless and until Puerto Rico becomes a state or becomes
    independent, Puerto Rico does not have this inherent sovereign
    power to exercise so much control as H.R. 1230 suggests.
        Mr. Fortuno. So essentially, you have serious qualms about
    whether what has been actually promised to the people of Puerto
    Rico in the platform of the Governor's party, essentially that
    we will have veto power over Federal legislation, that we would
    actually be able as well to limit the jurisdiction of the
    Federal district courts in Puerto, actually that we will be
    able to, believe it or not, benefit from all these free trade
    agreements and other agreements that our nation enters into.
        But by the same token, if some of them are not of our
    liking, that we will be able to enter into separate agreements.
    Could you comment on those, as well?
        Mr. Goldstein. I have more than serious qualms. I don't
    believe that it is a constitutionally permissible arrangement.
    It is, no doubt, idealistic, in a sense; it would be a
    wonderful arrangement for the people of Puerto Rico, as it
    would be for all of the 50 states that currently exist. But it
    is not something that is recognized by the Constitution.
        Mr. Fortuno. Actually, with this I will yield back. And I
    thank you again, Mr. Goldstein. I am convinced that if we could
    get all that, there will be 50 requests for that before this
    committee.
        I yield back, Madame, my time.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Fortuno. I now recognize
    Mr. Kennedy for five minutes.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Madame Chair. And I want to thank
    you, Madame Chair, for allowing me to be here today. I also
    want to commend the Member from Puerto Rico, Mr. Fortuno, for
    his leadership on this issue.
        It was mentioned, the issue of fairness. The delegate from
    Puerto Rico, Mr. Fortuno, has been outspoken on behalf of the
    people of Puerto Rico. And I think all of us, as Members of
    Congress, are painfully, painfully aware of the fact that
    although he represents seven times the number of people that
    each and every one of us represents, there is only one of him.
    And he doesn't get to go to the Floor of the U.S. Congress
    right now.
        We are about to go for a vote, and he doesn't get to go and
    vote. If you want the truest test of where the power is under
    the Constitution right now, it is in this vote. Because we are
    going to have a vote, and he doesn't get to go vote. The proof
    is in the pudding right there. He doesn't get to go and vote on
    the Floor.
        So if you want to cut right through all of the talk, that
    is where the bottom line is. If you want to know where the
    sovereignty really is, that is where it is. Puerto Ricans don't
    have the power. And until Congressman Fortuno--and he would
    actually have six other colleagues, Members of Congress, if the
    people of Puerto Rico had the right to vote--were able to go
    and vote right now, then you would have real democracy in
    Puerto Rico. That is the real issue here, and that is why we
    are listening to this bill, and why we need to act on this.
        Whether the people of Puerto Rico choose to have people go
    and vote as a state or whether they choose to have
    independence, that is their choice. But they can't allow this
    current disenfranchisement to continue.
        And Delegate Fortuno, you have been outspoken on this
    issue, and I commend you for it. And I think your point on this
    1230, the notion that under developed commonwealth, that
    Congress concede power to Puerto Rico to nullify Federal laws,
    let me ask Mr. Pildes a question, because you brought up the
    issue of the Northwest Ordinance.
        You said the territorial incorporation example of a mutual
    consent arrangement in the Northwest Ordinance was a statutory
    policy subject to alteration by Congress, despite the mutual
    consent provisions it contained.
        But isn't it true that paragraph 14 of the Northwest
    Ordinance, Article IV of the so-called unalterable compact,
    expressly states it was subject to ``such alterations as shall
    be constitutionally made to the Articles of Confederation and
    all acts and ordinances of the Congress of the United States.''
        And isn't it also true that the Northwest Ordinance was
    amended in 1789 by Congress, without the consent of the
    territories?
        Mr. Pildes. Representative Kennedy----
        Mr. Kennedy. Yes or no? Well, the answer is yes, in case
    you needed to know.
        Mr. Pildes. May I respond? I am sorry. I just wanted to say
    that the terms of the ordinance do say that they cannot be
    altered except by mutual consent.
        Mr. Kennedy. Well, it was altered without the consent of
    the territories, contrary to your testimony.
        Mr. Pildes. I don't believe that is correct,
    Representative.
        Mr. Kennedy. Well, I can show you----
        Mr. Pildes. Yes, we can----
        Mr. Kennedy. I have got it here in case you want it.
        Mr. Pildes. I would be happy to look at that, and I would
    be happy to submit a written response to it, if you want to
    give me that information.
        Mr. Kennedy. We have got the Library of Congress right
    here, Ken Thomas is here.
        Mr. Pildes. Do you want to ask him the question?
        Mr. Kennedy. No. I have got the Library of Congress here
    that has refuted your testimony that the Northwest Ordinance
    that you said had mutually consented to the Articles of
    Confederation being amended was not true.
        Mr. Pildes. Representative Kennedy, the United States
    Supreme Court has held constitutionally that the one time I am
    aware of that Congress did try to alter a mutual consent clause
    for a territory, when it came to Alaska, that that, in fact,
    was unconstitutional for Congress to do. That is an explicit
    express holding of the United States Supreme Court in the
    Rasmussen case.
        So as far as I am aware, the only time the U.S. Supreme
    Court has ever confronted the question, it has held that
    Congress is bound by a mutual consent clause when it makes that
    pledge in a statute to a non-state area. And again, that is the
    Rasmussen case, and there is a whole line of cases that follow
    Rasmussen which reaffirm that principle.
        Mr. Kennedy. May I ask Mr. Goldstein--actually, my time is
    up. But if I could ask Mr. Goldstein, once again, does not the
    power to change the status of the people of Puerto Rico reside
    with the people or reside with Congress?
        Mr. Goldstein. Congress controls the future of Puerto Rico,
    and the bills before you seek to take their views and let them
    make a choice. But it is a Congressional power. Unfortunately,
    that is true.
        Ms. Christensen. Mr. Kennedy, your time has expired. Thank
    you.
        I would like to recognize Mr. Flake for five minutes.
        Mr. Flake. I would like to thank the Chair for convening
    this hearing.
        Let me just go quickly to Mr. Thomas. You mentioned in your
    testimony that you thought that both bills were constitutional,
    but you expressed some concern, constitutional concern, in your
    testimony with regard to H.R. 1230. Are those concerns enough
    to give you pause about its constitutionality? Or do you still
    state that that bill is constitutional?
        Mr. Thomas. I guess the best way to phrase it, I would be
    concerned about its enforceability. And again, this would not
    arise until such time as Congress chose, if 1230 again led to a
    plebiscite, led to a commonwealth, enhanced commonwealth status
    that was to be non-alterable, the issue would not be joined
    until Congress tried to alter it. And at that time I do believe
    that the courts would find that the Congress still had the
    power to alter even a solemnly entered-into agreement.
        Mr. Flake. So constitutional, but not enforceable.
        Mr. Thomas. That might be the best way to describe it.
        Mr. Flake. Let me yield my remaining time to Mr. Dent. I
    know we have a vote quickly.
        Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Flake. And also, at the outset I
    just wanted to say I am very pleased to see that included in
    today's witnesses we will include representatives from our
    armed forces from Puerto Rico. I think that is very important.
        I do want to commend Madame Chairwoman and the committee
    staff for inviting these veterans who have done their duty, and
    are here to ask that we in Congress do our duty and uphold our
    oath of service as honorably as they did.
        That said, regarding the status of Puerto Rico, which is
    the subject of the hearing today, I am not here to advocate
    statehood or independence, or even the current status, for
    Puerto Rico. Instead, I support the process laid out in H.R.
    900. And I think we need to clearly define the status options
    Congress is willing to consider if approved by a majority in a
    Federally recognized referendum.
        And if a majority of our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico are
    not ready to make the choice Congress is prepared to offer,
    they can choose to continue their current status, and we can
    continue to assist the commonwealth in its development goals as
    a territory, based on the democratic acceptance, and at least
    for now, the current political status.
        And I do again want to applaud Congressmen Serrano and
    Fortuno and their legislation, which will allow just that kind
    of freely expressed government by consent on the status issue.
    Indeed, there would be no vote on statehood or nationhood until
    a majority seek a new status, and an end to the current status.
    And this is a sound approach. It is a sound process. And that
    is why I strongly support H.R. 900.
        So why would a guy from Pennsylvania care about this
    legislation? Well, I, too, like many people, are concerned
    about the island. I represent a large number of people who have
    strong ties or roots to the island of Puerto Rico, and many of
    my constituents are following this issue very closely.
        And so as this debate unfolds, I certainly am going to
    listen to all sides on this issue. And again, I want to thank
    you, Madame Chairwoman, for putting on this hearing today. And
    again I want to applaud Congressmen Serrano and Fortuno for
    their strong leadership on H.R. 900.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
    Serrano for five minutes.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. There is not that much time
    left before the vote, but I will do some work here.
        Mr. Pildes, just a question probably more on American
    foreign policy than on anything else.
        Did I hear you say that the United States can hold a colony
    if it is in our best interest?
        Mr. Pildes. Well, unfortunately, that was the decision in
    the insular cases, as you know, in Downes v. Bidwell. And I
    actually think it would be perverse for the Constitution to be
    understood to permit that initial move.
        But now to be understood to deny Congress the power to
    expand the self-governing autonomy of Puerto Rico on the basis
    of some view that the one thing the territory clause does not
    do is permit Congress to expand the self-government, the
    autonomy, the political independence of Puerto Rico.
        So that is why in my view the Court's decisions in the
    insular cases actually support an expansive power for Congress
    to cede some of its territory clause powers, and to respect the
    decision of the people of Puerto Rico if that is what they
    prefer in a free and informed process, to become self-governing
    in relationship with the United States.
        Some intermediate form, more autonomous than today,
    distinct from statehood, strong association with the United
    States distinct from independence. I believe whatever of these
    options is right, and whatever the people of Puerto Rico
    prefer, the Congress and the President, because both have to
    join in this decision, do have the constitutional power at
    least to give the Puerto Rican people these different options.
    And that is all I am really trying to insist on here.
        Mr. Serrano. OK. To, very quickly, Mr. Thomas and Mr.
    Goldstein. The H.R. 1230 accepts the now well-known Serrano
    Amendment, which is in H.R. 900, that allows for those of us
    that were born on the island to vote. In fact, I think 1230
    goes a step further and says the children of those born on the
    island.
        I suspect that will probably be the first thing that some
    people go after constitutionally. Is it your feeling that could
    hold constitutional muster?
        Mr. Thomas. Congressman, I would be willing to submit a
    memo on that, not having looked at it closely in some time.
        However, the ability of a governmental entity--here a
    territory with Congressional authorization--to establish the
    parameters of the voting, of its vote, of who gets to vote, of
    suffrages, has quite a bit of discretion. And I wouldn't say
    that there might not be some equal protection issues raised,
    but I think that as long as there is a rational basis for the
    extension of suffrage on an even-handed basis I think would
    survive constitutional scrutiny.
        But I would like to, if necessary, develop that further.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Goldstein. Congressman, I think much would depend on
    the ultimate status of Puerto Rico and the degree of
    independence and autonomy that it ultimately elected to secure.
        I don't think there would be an equal protection problem.
    And Congress does have the ability to extend citizenship. A lot
    would depend, I think, on what came with that citizenship, and
    the ability----
        Mr. Serrano. No, no. I am talking about during those votes,
    to have those of us who reside in the States vote in the
    plebiscites.
        Mr. Goldstein. No, I think that Congress could very
    likely--I apologize--could very likely, with some logical
    basis, such as that relationship to the island, choose to allow
    that level of participation. I don't think that it would
    violate, it would dilute the votes of citizenry in any
    substantial way.
        I do think if, for example, the Congress were to say the
    citizens of the State of Indiana--not to pick on Indiana, which
    is a wonderful place--but were to pick some illogical
    relationship, there would be problems. But I expect that what
    you described would be constitutional.
        Mr. Serrano. OK. Let me just close by saying that I will
    probably have a lot of people in Puerto Rico scratching their
    heads why I would bring up the subject, but part of the
    confusion has been seen in Congress in Major League Baseball.
        C.Q., a national journal, once published a list of foreign-
    born Members of Congress, and it listed Ms. Velazquez and I as
    foreign-born, and it listed Mr. Gutierrez as native-born,
    because he was born in Chicago.
        Major League Baseball says that Bernie Williams is foreign-
    born, and they have got Martinez as native-born. And so it
    dilutes the numbers of Puerto Ricans.
        So it really can be resolved by Major League Baseball
    first, and then we can move on to take care of it. Thank you so
    much.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Serrano. Sure.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I was introduced by one of the Member's
    colleagues on the Floor of the House as the gentleman from
    Somalia.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, I represent the Puerto Rican capitol of
    the world, the South Bronx.
        Ms. Christensen. Would you yield again?
        Mr. Serrano. Absolutely.
        Ms. Christensen. As far as I know, Bernie Williams' family
    is from the Virgin Islands. He just happens to be born in
    Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, and we gave you a great Governor for a
    while, right?
        Ms. Bordallo. Sir, would you yield for just a moment? I am
    also known as the Representative from Guatemala.
        Mr. Serrano. I think I started something here.
        Ms. Christensen. We are going to entertain a second round
    of questions. And fortunately, four of us sitting here do not
    have to vote right now.
        But I would like to ask Mr. Nieves, as far as I know, none
    of the other freely associated states have continuing U.S.
    citizenship. And I noticed that that is number four in your
    principles.
        Why do you think that that would be possible, to continue
    to be U.S. citizens under a freely associated state?
        Mr. Nieves. OK. The issue of citizenship is very hard to
    discuss. But the things that, the decision to grant citizenship
    to Puerto Ricans was not made by us; it was made by the United
    States in 1917.
        In the case of Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans, for several
    historic reasons, have come to value their American
    citizenship. The things that any movement toward a form of
    sovereignty, free association, must take into account a
    historical reality, that Puerto Ricans value American
    citizenship. Although it could be said that it is a kind of
    second-class citizenship, but that is the historical reason.
        We should make that American citizenship, that there are no
    constitutional problems for a new arrangement within Puerto
    Rico and the United States, based on the sovereignty of Puerto
    Rico, whereby in the free association, there could be a
    recognition of continued American citizenship.
        We submit, Madame Chairwoman, that this is not a legal
    issue, per se; it is a political decision that could be made by
    the United States. There are no legal----
        Ms. Christensen. Impediments.
        Mr. Nieves.--impediments to making that decision.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Thank you for your answer.
        Mr. Nieves. Thank you.
        Ms. Christensen. Mr. Goldstein, would you agree that should
    the new enhanced commonwealth be the choice through whatever
    process, that it would have to be negotiated? And through that
    negotiation, can you say with any certainty that none of those
    provisions of commonwealth could be successfully negotiated?
    Could you with certainty say that any one of them cannot be
    negotiated with the United States Government?
        Mr. Goldstein. No, Madame Chairwoman. My concern is only
    with two things. One is the fundamental promise that H.R. 1230
    would be making to the citizens of Puerto Rico that this would
    be permanent, and that they could count on the U.S. Congress
    never being able to change the deal. And I don't think that is
    a promise that could be made.
        And my second point is that there are important promises
    there about the ability to veto Federal laws and Federal
    jurisdiction that might be at the heart of the citizens' desire
    to adopt that proposal that would be very problematic under the
    Constitution.
        Ms. Christensen. But your answer was no, that you can't say
    with certainty that they could not be negotiated.
        Mr. Goldstein. That no provision of that could be
    negotiated, no, that is not my point. But the fundamentals are
    very doubtful.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Professor Pildes, can you
    explain--I would like to go back to some of the conclusions of
    the President's Task Force. And can you explain in more detail
    why the Bowen case contradicts many of the conclusions of that
    task force?
        Mr. Pildes. Well, the task force relies on recent Justice
    Department memoranda in the 1990s that assert that the decision
    in this Bowen case by the Supreme Court from the 1980s required
    a dramatic change in position of the Justice Department
    regarding whether Congress has the power to enter into these
    mutual consent clauses over political status.
        I gather the theory of the Justice Department as to why
    Bowen suddenly required this about-face in Justice policy is
    that Bowen held that California did not have the right
    permanently to choose to remove itself from the Social Security
    system once it had entered into that system.
        One of the obvious problems with reasoning the Justice
    Department analysis is that the Social Security system, the
    relevant Congressional statutes expressly reserve the right of
    Congress to amend those statutes and change them at any time.
    So the argument of California, that somehow it had a pledge
    from Congress never to alter the Social Security system was
    refuted by the very statute on its face.
        And for that reason alone, it seems to me the Bowen case is
    utterly irrelevant to a statute that would say we pledge to
    respect the autonomy of Puerto Rico in this particular form,
    whatever form was adopted. I just find it utterly inexplicable,
    unless there is some political or policy judgment that is not
    reflected in the legal analysis, as to how one could conclude
    that that decision dramatically changed the constitutional
    doctrine about whether Congress could create one of these
    mutual consent agreements.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you for your answer. Mr. Fortuno, I
    recognize you for five minutes.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you, Madame Chair, again. Mr. Goldstein,
    just to finish on the question that Madame Chair just asked
    you. Is there a legal impediment to Congress guaranteeing a
    million dollars to each Puerto Rican for life? Legal
    impediment?
        Mr. Goldstein. There is a different rule that would apply
    to when you promise someone property, which has been something
    that, an analogy that has been made for the enhanced
    commonwealth status. There would be a significant impediment to
    promising permanent autonomy that Congress could never revisit,
    and the ability to veto Federal laws and the like.
        Mr. Fortuno. And the bottom line here is that even if we
    can have our cake and eat it, too, the next Congress could take
    it away.
        Mr. Goldstein. That is right. And this could be a promise
    that could not be kept.
        Mr. Fortuno. Exactly. That is why it is not permanent. That
    is the reason why, there are two words in our H.R. 900,
    permanent and non-territorial. And there is a reason for each
    word in that legislation, to make sure that we finish this
    discussion once and for all.
        And talking about finishing the discussion once and for
    all, if I may, Professor Gorrin, even though we differ on the
    final outcome of this situation, not only our families tied for
    a long, long time, but I have the utmost respect for you. I
    would like for you to expand even further on whether we changed
    our status back in 1952, and whether we selected our status in
    1952.
        Mr. Gorrin-Peralta. Well, the committee would do well to go
    back to the legislative history of Law 600. That record is
    quite clear. Everybody was very clear at that time. The Senate
    committee that recommended the legislation, the House
    committee, the State Department, the hearings, the Interior
    Department at the hearings, and even the Representatives of the
    Puerto Rican Government at that time, referred once and again
    that the purpose of that legislation was to give the people of
    Puerto Rico a greater degree of self local government, and to
    obtain some kind of collective consent to the current
    relationship back then. In other words, a consent to the
    territorial status at that time.
        And all those reports and all those positions reiterated
    that the fundamental relation between Puerto Rico and the
    United States would not be changed. Even the Governor of Puerto
    Rico told, in a hearing just like this one at that time, if the
    Puerto Rican people should go crazy, Congress will always have
    the power to go back and legislate again.
        Mr. Fortuno. That is why, indeed, what we have today is not
    permanent in nature, because Congress any day can change it.
        I have just one more question, and that is to Mr. Pildes.
    Your name sounds familiar. Were you involved in the case
    stemming out of the 2004 election, by any chance?
        Mr. Pildes. I absolutely was, Representative Fortuno.
        Mr. Fortuno. Who did you represent?
        Mr. Pildes. I represented the Puerto Rico Electoral
    Commission in the First Circuit, on behalf of the Commission's
    view about how to resolve that disputed election, which was the
    position that the First Circuit ultimately endorsed.
        And I should also add I have represented Puerto Rico in
    litigation over its status in the United States Court of
    Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. And that
    litigation centered on the question you were just asking, which
    is----
        Mr. Fortuno. During what time did you represent in those
    cases before the District of Columbia?
        Mr. Pildes. That is in my testimony, but I believe it was
    in the last two years, that litigation.
        Mr. Fortuno. So under this Administration. So you have
    worked for this Administration.
        Mr. Pildes. In that litigation, I did represent the
    Government of Puerto Rico. That is correct.
        Mr. Fortuno. Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila's administration.
        Mr. Pildes. That is correct.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance
    of my time.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Pildes. That is OK.
        Ms. Christensen. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Faleomavaega
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madame Chair. I appreciate the
    opportunity again. I do have some questions I would like to
    share with the members of the panel.
        I have the famous or infamous pleasure, when people ask me
    well, what is your territorial status, you representing
    American Samoa. And I say we are an unincorporated and
    unorganized territory of the United States.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Which leads me to my first question to
    the members of the panel. With my limited understanding of the
    insular cases, I remember the doctrine of incorporation was
    first instituted during the insular cases, especially in Downes
    v. Bidwell, as I recall. And this is where the Supreme Court
    invented what was known as whether you are an incorporated or
    unincorporated territory.
        And as I recall clearly, Puerto Rico was classified as
    unincorporated territory. Which means, if I understand that
    correctly again, that any territory that is to be considered as
    an unincorporated territory will never see the day of ever
    becoming a state. That is my understanding of the doctrine of
    incorporation.
        But I would like to ask the members of the panel, what do
    they understand the doctrine of incorporation. Because it does
    have serious implications on the whole realm of constitutional
    court cases and problems of whether or not some provisions or
    all provisions of the Constitution apply to the insular areas.
    And Puerto Rico has always been the lead case in anything
    dealing with insular areas.
        And especially I would like to ask my good friend,
    Professor Peralta, if you could help me with this. Am I correct
    that the current status of Puerto Rico is an unincorporated
    territory?
        And second, wasn't there a tremendous reluctance on the
    part of the Congress even to entertain the idea of statehood
    for Puerto Rico, because they were from a different culture?
    They didn't speak English? Their whole relationship was more
    toward Spain than it is with our own country? I just wanted to
    ask you that question.
        Mr. Gorrin-Peralta. You are absolutely right, Downes v.
    Bidwell was the first judicial expression of the theory of non-
    incorporation, which actually originated in this Congress,
    when, in 1900, the first organic act for Puerto Rico was
    approved by Congress. And a tax was established, which was not
    a uniform tax, as the Constitution orders, for any, for the
    United States.
        Thus, the validity of that tax depended on whether Puerto
    Rico was part of the United States or not. That is the issue in
    Downes v. Bidwell. And the United States said that
    unincorporated territories are not part of, but merely are
    pertinent to, the United States.
        Contrary to the incorporated territories, which had been
    all previous territories, including the Northwest Territory,
    which was Federalized in 1784 through the first Ordinance for
    the Northwest, and thus became part of the United States. It
    was just a matter of time. The ordinance established that that
    territory would become several states. The ordinance was
    amended a few years later, and the number of states increased.
        From then on, since the Louisiana Purchase, the acquisition
    of Mexican territories, the acquisition of Florida, the
    acquisition of Washington State, et cetera, et cetera, et
    cetera, all territories had been acquired through instruments
    of annexation that referred to the rights of the inhabitants of
    the Northwest Territory, which meant that all new territories
    during the 19th Century had been annexed as part of the United
    States. It was just a matter of time before they were to be
    admitted as states. That was the case also with Alaska and
    Hawaii. That is why----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. That is where we are right now.
        Mr. Gorrin-Peralta. That is where we are. And in 1952, that
    situation did not change, as I said before, because everybody
    was clear in Congress that the fundamental relationship would
    not change. The only thing that would change was the local
    government would not be dictated by Washington through an
    organic act, but through an exercise of constitutional
    government by the people of Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Would you say--and my time is running
    down, so I just--would you say that this proposed enhanced form
    of commonwealth that other faction is trying to pursue here is
    really almost the same as the current status of a compact of
    free association? That the three entities Micronesia currently
    have with the United States--Palau, the Republic of Palau, the
    Republic of the Marshall Islands, and also the Federated States
    of Micronesia.
        In fact, the term compact of free association was derived
    from the word commonwealth, which I understand, I am not very
    good in Spanish, but it means free association, if I am correct
    on that definition. And the Micronesians just simply adopted
    the term and expanded it now in terms of having literally a
    treaty relationship between the United States and these three
    Micronesian entities that for every 15 years, they will then
    renegotiate or come back to the table and find out where we go
    from there as far as their futures are concerned.
        But they are independent and sovereign nations. They are
    members of the United Nations. They participate in
    international organizations. And the people even there can join
    the military. But they are not U.S. citizens.
        And I am sorry, my time is out again, Madame Chair. I will
    try to come back again. I know we have got two more panels, but
    I really want to welcome our members of the panel, Madame
    Chair. They have been very, very good, and I wish we would have
    more time to pursue with more questions.
        But thank you again.
        Ms. Christensen. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bordallo for
    five minutes.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
        Attorney Goldstein, this question is for you. The task
    force report seems to relish in the language if you are a
    territory, you are at the will of Congress. What are the
    boundaries of the will of Congress? Could Congress remove the
    Governor of Puerto Rico, or any of its elected officials from
    office? Or for that matter, a Governor or any officials from
    any other territory?
        Mr. Goldstein. To intervene in the ongoing politics of the
    island could create due process problems for rights that have
    already been exercised. But it is perfectly clear, I think,
    that Congress could prospectively dictate what the form of
    government on the island would be.
        So Congress's powers are very, very broad in this respect.
    And it is regrettable that the citizenry itself doesn't have
    the kind of autonomy that it deserves.
        Ms. Bordallo. I am gathering that you are saying yes to
    that.
        Mr. Goldstein. Well, I think it would present, if you were
    to remove someone from office it could present constitutional
    problems for the rights of the citizens that have already been
    exercised to elect that person in the first place. I think it
    would be a very, very close constitutional question. It would
    be at the outer bounds probably of Congress's authority.
        Ms. Bordallo. Well, say that the answer more is leaning to
    an affirmative.
        Mr. Goldstein. Yes?
        Ms. Bordallo. Do you think any Federal court in this
    country would actually allow that?
        Mr. Goldstein. Do I think that, on the assumption that
    Congress has the power to do it, do I think that a Federal
    court would actually let them do it? The answer is probably
    yes; that a Federal court would express its dismay at the
    continued mistreatment of the citizens of Puerto Rico, but it
    would conclude that Congress's power here is exceptionally
    broad, if that is the premise of your question.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. And I do have a question for
    Professor Pildes. I am sure you are familiar with the
    legislation that is pending before Congress, and which is
    scheduled, I think, to come to the Floor of the House for a
    vote tomorrow, as a matter of fact, that would grant the
    District of Columbia voting representation in the House of
    Representatives based on Article I of the Constitution's broad
    authority over D.C.
        In your opinion, Professor, is the analysis employed in the
    deliberations over this bill in any way illustrative of the
    process and issues that we are discussing here?
        Mr. Pildes. I think that that is a fairly unique issue,
    which poses specific problems. Because when Congress, by
    statute, tries to enhance representation in the U.S. House of
    Representatives, then I think there are quite serious
    constitutional questions about whether the Constitution does or
    does not permit that particular act.
        Congress can treat D.C. as a state for purposes of many
    Federal statutes, which is has. But the extension of voting
    rights always means that someone else's voting power is being
    diminished as a formal matter. And as Mr. Goldstein said
    earlier, when vote dilution issues are present, there are
    always very difficult and very serious constitutional issues.
        So I don't tend to think, at least as far as I have studied
    the D.C. bill at this point, that the resolution of that very
    specific issue about voting power by statute in the House has
    any direct implication for these issues about the process
    Congress might set up to allow the people of Puerto Rico, in
    the first instance, to make their judgment about what political
    status they would like going forward.
        Can I just, for the record, I would like to state one
    thing?
        Ms. Bordallo. Yes, sure.
        Mr. Pildes. I am here testifying in my own capacity as an
    academic. I am not being paid to be here. My expenses are not
    being paid by anybody.
        When I testify as an academic, I place a very high value on
    my credibility and my academic statements. And I just would
    like the record to reflect that.
        I have learned about these issues in part through my
    experience litigating cases, as well as my academic study. But
    I am here testifying as an academic.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Professor. Thank you,
    Madame Chair.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. I would like to thank the
    panelists. And as I dismiss you, I wanted to point out that
    this panel, as the other two, are made up of individuals
    recommended by all three political parties, plus the MAS, and
    with the intention of trying to bring a balanced view on the
    issues before us.
        And as such, we recognize that different panelists may have
    relationships or affiliations with political parties or
    organizations representing one view or another. And in the
    interest of full disclosure, I would just like to say that Akin
    Gump also has contracts with the Citizens Educational
    Foundation of Pro Statehood, a lobbying group that works on
    behalf of Puerto Rico.
        So with that, I would like to thank the panelists. You are
    dismissed.
        We are going to take just a five-minute break as we bring
    up the second panel.
        [Recess.]
        Ms. Christensen. The Subcommittee on Insular Affairs is now
    back in session. Members will be coming in and out. Those who
    are voting will be coming back and going back and forth, and we
    may expect to be rejoined by our fellow delegates. And the rest
    of the commissioners will be right in.
        So I would now like to recognize our second panel. And on
    that panel we have Mr. Manuel Mejia, the Chairman for the
    Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Enrique Baquero, the
    President of the Puerto Rico Foundation for Democratic Action;
    and Mr. Jose Luis Fernandez, President of the Inter-American
    Entrepreneurs Association.
        I would like to recognize Mr. Mejia for five minutes.

                STATEMENT OF MANUEL A. MEJIA, CHAIRMAN,
                    PUERTO RICO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

        Mr. Mejia. Good morning. Madame Chairwoman and Members of
    the Insular Affairs Subcommittee, my name is Manuel Mejia. I am
    the Chairman of the Board of the Puerto Rico Chamber of
    Commerce.
        We want to thank you for the opportunity to express the
    views and positions of our Chamber regarding the political
    status of Puerto Rico.
        I would like to briefly summarize the salient points of our
    statement. However, we have submitted our full statement to the
    Subcommittee, and would appreciate its inclusion in the printed
    record of these proceedings.
        At the outset, I would like to state that I am appearing
    here not in my personal capacity, but as Chairman of the Puerto
    Rico Chamber of Commerce. It has 2500 members, plus over 60
    affiliate associations who together employ over two-thirds of
    the island's labor force.
        I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr.
    Christensen on becoming the first female Chairwoman of this
    Subcommittee.
        This hearing is also truly historic for another reason. It
    is the first where both a Chairwoman and the Ranking Minority
    Member are delegates from territories.
        I would also like to thank you for promptly scheduling a
    hearing on the two bills before us. Each of those bills
    implements a different process for resolving the longstanding
    political status issue. However, because the Puerto Rico
    Chamber of Commerce does not favor any particular form of
    political status, I will not discuss here today the merits or
    the merits of any of those bills. I will focus my presentation
    on a discussion of those general procedural principles that
    must be included in each of the bills to ensure a prompt and
    fair resolution of the status issue.
        I will also address the Chamber's concerns regarding the
    economic and commercial effects of any transition. The first
    principle must be the principle of informed consent. This
    requires Congress, regardless of the process chosen, whether a
    constitutional convention or a referendum, to provide clear
    guidance regarding constitutional limits. This guidance will
    enable either the members of the convention or the voters to be
    fully informed regarding the alternatives before them.
        In addition, Congress must provide for a thorough
    educational program to acquaint voters with the consequences
    attendant to each alternative. The wider the educational
    program, the more voters that will participate. An educated
    electorate assures our nation and the international community
    that the process has been fair, transparent, and in accordance
    with international law.
        The second principle is the principle of transition. By
    this I mean that no matter what status is selected by the
    members of the constitutional convention or by the electorate
    directly in the referendum, Congress must provide for an
    orderly transition in order to avoid economic and other
    dislocation.
        The Chamber and its members have a particular concern
    regarding the effects that a lack of a proper and smooth
    transition may have on the economy. This transition, depending
    on the status selected, may affect such matters as taxation,
    citizenship, language, public entitlement, educational
    benefits, migration, obligation of terrorists, capital [ph]
    laws, Federal infrastructure expenditures on the island,
    Federal procurement, conditions and restriction to the island's
    access to United States and foreign markets.
        The economic well-being of Puerto Rico and its ability to
    compete in a global market are among the principle concerns of
    the Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce. Accordingly, we are
    extremely concerned about the effects that an improper
    transition may have on our multi-sectoral economy. You are
    responsible for providing for a transition in any legislation.
    Please bear in mind that an orderly transition will be very
    beneficial to the island, whereas an improper transition can
    gravely affect Puerto Rice's economy.
        In conclusion, the Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce
    sincerely hopes that this historic hearing marks the beginning
    of a new and definite process for resolving the island's
    political status. We welcome any prompt action that you can
    take to assure the prompt passage of legislation toward that
    end.
        We do urge, however, that any such legislation contain
    clear constitutional guidelines, a thorough education program,
    and an orderly transition if a new status is chosen.
        The Chamber stands ready to assist this 110th Congress in
    the drafting of appropriate legislation by providing such data
    and information as this Subcommittee may require.
        I would like to again thank the Subcommittee for its prompt
    scheduling of this hearing, and for the interest demonstrated
    in Puerto Rico's future.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mejia follows:]

             Statement of Manuel A. Mejia, Chairman of the Board,
                        Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce

        Madam Chairman and Members of Congress, my name is Manuel Mejia; I
    am the Chairman of the Board of the Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce. We
    want to thank you for the opportunity to express the views and
    positions of our Institution on this most important issue; Puerto
    Rico's Political Status.
        The issue of the political status has been an open and unresolved
    question in the history of Puerto Rico. It creates serious divisions
    among our society, forcing us to devote valuable human and economic
    resources in its debate, without reaching yet a definite solution. The
    Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce certainly appreciates the present
    Congressional efforts to find a democratic solution to this issue.
        Before I enter into the discussion, of the principal issues, allow
    me to say that today we stand before this distinguished committee as
    representative for over 2,500 businesses and professionals of all
    sector and university students as well as a federation of over 60
    private sector organizations in the Island jointly employing two thirds
    of the workforce.
        The Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce does not favor any particular
    form of political status. Its membership includes individuals from all
    political perspectives. In this diversity, chamber members have reached
    a consensus on the need to resolve the status issue and bring emotional
    and economic stability to our society. Without an organized
    congressionally sanctioned process, locally celebrated plebiscites on
    the status issue will continue to create much uncertainty among present
    and potential investors. Such situation hinders economic prosperity;
    therefore, this should be resolved as quickly as possible. Neither
    Congress nor the Puerto Rican people should wait another decade to
    decide this issue. Once the status question is resolved, efforts could
    be efficiently channeled to deal with the various social and economic
    problems of our society.
        The Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce will not address the provisions
    of H.R. 1230 regarding the process to exercise the right to self-
    determination thru a Plebiscite versus a Constitutional Convention.
    Further, we will not address the provisions of H.R. 900 on the two
    federally sanctioned plebiscite processes. For this reason our comments
    will be limited to the issues which have to be considered in the
    transition to any given status formula selected by the people of Puerto
    Rico. The central focus in our analysis is the economic and social
    circumstances of our members and, what is more important, those of the
    people of Puerto Rico. Before entering into the discussion of the
    process here are some pointers regarding Puerto Rico present economic
    structure.
        Puerto Rico's economic model dates back to the early 1980s. During
    such years, most developing country governments, with a few exceptions,
    as well as many international organizations, had in mind a similar
    model of the development process as they went about their work. That
    model of how development goals should be attained greatly influenced
    government policies and institutions. It also profoundly affected
    national legal systems and the way government officials, lawyers, and
    legal scholars thought about law and its role in development. Since the
    late 1980s, most developing countries, in varying degrees, have
    abandoned that first model of development (Development Model I) and
    have evolved to a new model (Development Model II) that supersedes it.
    That has not been the case of Puerto Rico. This fundamental change in
    development models was in many ways as significant a transformation for
    developing countries as was the movement in the 1950s and 1960s from
    dependent to independent political status. This transformation is
    partially reflected in the change of name used to describe the ``Third
    World: the ``developing countries'' of the 1960s have become the
    ``emerging markets'' of the 1990s. (The International Lawyer Winter
    1999; Volume 33; Number 4 page 876).
        Probably all Third World countries entered the decade of the 1960s
    with a fundamental belief that their governments had the primary
    responsibility for bringing about economic development. In the minds of
    most officials, lawyers, and scholars, the belief in government's
    dominant role evolved into a definite model about the nature of the
    development process. This model had four elements: (1) public ordering
    and state planning of the economy and society; (2) reliance on state
    enterprises as economic actors; (3) restriction and regulation of
    private enterprise; and (4) limitation and control of the country's
    economic relations with the outside world. Puerto Rico's model still
    has these elements present to certain extent. (The International Lawyer
    Winter 1999; Volume 33; Number 4 page 877)
        The position of our institution revolves around two main concerns.
    One is that the process ought to be fair and well informed, for the
    people to make an enlightened decision. The other is that, should the
    people of Puerto Rico decide to change the present status, an orderly
    and well-defined transition has to be clearly stated. This is of
    outmost relevance, because the people should know, not only the final
    outcome of their decision, but the road to reach it, if they are going
    to issue a responsible vote.
    The Process
        The self determination process should be dealt on its own merits.
    It should not be mixed with the normal electoral process. Voters have
    to be able to focus upon the status issue, apart from any distractions
    and confusions with other issues. All political parties in the Island
    have different positions with regard to their desired solutions to the
    status question. Indeed, each one of them uses the status as the
    principal issue in their political platforms and as their main
    identifier. As a result, the issues of governance and administrative
    policies are mingled in the electoral process with those related to the
    status and the type and form of future political relations between
    Puerto Rico and the United States. This situation creates confusion
    among voters, obscuring their ability to focus on the real issues to be
    decided at each electoral process. The status question is an
    ideological and emotional issue, becoming one of the most divisive
    issues in Puerto Rico. Too many human and economic resources have been
    spent in debating this issue. It is clear that a final solution is of
    foremost relevance for the future of our people. By solving the status
    issue, we will be deciding not only our future, but also the one for
    the generations to come.
        The long-term process to address the status issue in Puerto Rico
    requires that voters be well-informed on the consequences of their
    decisions throughout the entire process. Before Puerto Ricans are asked
    to stamp their status preference on a plebiscite ballot, it is
    necessary to clearly spell-out the cultural, political and
    socioeconomic consequences of each political status alternative to be
    presented.
        The information transmitted to the people should be based upon
    accurate and unbiased data. The data that the Federal Agencies provide
    with respect to the costs and benefits of each status alternative must
    be consistent in terms of objectivity and basis. Some examples where
    consistency and objectivity are of utmost importance are statements
    about the nature of our American citizenship. Statements on the
    implications of federal corporate and personal taxation under statehood
    must be based on scientific estimates. We hereby offer the resources of
    our institution to help in obtaining additional information about the
    socioeconomic impact of each status alternative to supplement what has
    already been obtained, and what needs to be gathered in order to allow
    the people to make an informed decision.
        The only viable alternative to solve Puerto Rico's status issue is
    a federally sanctioned process. This process must outline very specific
    steps to accomplish its objectives, the participating institutions for
    each step in the process, and, very importantly, the responsibility and
    role of each participant at each step. Our institution believes that
    the private sector must have a role and a consequent responsibility in
    this important undertaking. Political parties should welcome the
    private sector's contributions to this process. On this issue we would
    like to congratulate Madam Chairman and the distinguished members of
    this commission for allowing us to testify this morning. We feel that
    this is an initial step, to encourage a broader participation of
    private sector institutions in Puerto Rico to complement the views and
    recommendations of our local government and political parties.

    The Outcome and Its Transition

    1. The transition

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4236.001

        Puerto Rico's economy has been directed and structured on the basis
    of its present status. Our economy has achieved a high degree of
    integration to the U.S. economy. Our total exports in the year 2005
    were $56.5 billion. It should be noted that, on the average, 82.6%
    percent of our exports of merchandise go to the U.S. market. Most of
    our imports come from the continental U.S., and our financial markets
    are totally integrated to the national market. The capital stock of
    Puerto Rico, and the investments made considering the reduction of
    political risk due to the stability of our relationship with the U.S.
    and the application of federal laws in interstate cannot be changed
    overnight. To do otherwise risks grave dislocations and suffering for
    the people of Puerto Rico if the change is not accompanied with
    countervailing measures.
        Our local tax system is based upon the present flexibility granted
    to the states and is administered considering local economic conditions
    as any tax system ought to be. Any change in political status will
    require a major restructuring of the tax system in Puerto Rico. A
    drastic and fast change in the local tax system could affect the whole
    economy.

    2. U.S. Citizenship
        We are U.S. citizens since 1917, accepting with honor the rights
    and responsibilities of such citizenship. Our great participation in
    U.S. military conflicts from World War I to the most recent
    interventions in Iraq is a clear evidence of this point.
        Contradictory statements have confused our people on the nature of
    our citizenship and its future under different status options should be
    avoided. We feel that Congress has the duty to state without ambiguity
    what will happen to our present U.S. citizenship under each status
    alternative. A clear expression from Congress is necessary to spell out
    the confusion created by federal and local officials, so that Puerto
    Ricans can make the appropriate decision.

    3. The Federal Tax Treatment of U.S. Corporations
        Our industrialization program was developed on the basis of
    preferential federal tax treatment of U.S. corporations doing business
    in Puerto Rico. Drastic modifications were made in 1993 and 1996 to
    Section 936 until its eventual phase out in 2005. These modifications
    have severely eroded industrialization initiative, not only because tax
    benefits were diminished, but also because they created uncertainty
    about the stability of federal policies toward Puerto Rico. Since
    uncertainty is a formidable enemy of productive investment and economic
    growth, we now face more difficult conditions to promote the prosperity
    for our people.
        No matter if Puerto Rico chooses to maintain the present
    commonwealth status, or to become a state or a republic, there is a
    common interest in promoting the economic development of the Island. We
    obviously want to prosper. It is not in the best interest of the United
    States to have a territory, state or an independent neighbor plagued
    with poverty. Over the past half century Puerto Rico has made, with the
    assistance of the federal government, big efforts to promote its
    economic growth. We have worked hard, and achieved great improvements
    in economic conditions. But more efforts are needed to improve our
    economic development under our competitive global economy. Even the
    status quo should be regarded as a transition from poverty to progress,
    and our economic development strategies are designed from this
    perspective. Any change in status has to provide instruments to achieve
    our common goal of economic development.
        It is important for Congress to realize that any successful
    transition requires an efficient instrument. For that reason, we
    actively support the efforts of private organizations and of the
    Government of Puerto Rico to develop new and efficient and effective
    economic development model, to transform our Island into a developed
    and prosperous economy. At the very least, Congress ought to clearly
    state what will be the federal tax treatment to U.S. corporations under
    each status formula, as well as under the corresponding transition
    periods, including the period of time for which the corresponding tax
    treatment is guaranteed.

    4. Federal Tax Treatment to Residents and Local Business
        People know that the local tax system will have to be adjusted if
    there is a change in status. We all realize that the present tax
    structure is consistent with existing conditions, and that any
    transformation in conditions, as it will be the case if the political
    status is changed, will result in deep modifications in taxation. The
    problem is that no reliable information has been produced about what
    those changes might be.
        The role, functions and activities of government differ under each
    status formula. In a state, the U.S. federal government is in charge of
    many activities that are the responsibility of local authorities, and
    federal taxes will be levied on local residents. In a republic, all or
    most of the activities actually performed by the federal government in
    Puerto Rico will be transferred to the local government, and it won't
    be subject to federal laws and regulations. Both scenarios drastically
    change the needs and tax system for government financing.
    Transformations of that nature cannot be done overnight without a great
    risk of serious economic dislocation.
        We know of no serious study to document and analyze this most
    important aspect. It is unfair to ask people to choose between status
    options and not tell them the consequences of their decisions. At the
    very least, Congress ought to clearly establish which will be the
    federal tax treatment to residents under each status, as well as during
    the different stages of each transition period.

    5. Access to U.S. Commercial and Financial Markets
        Over the past century, Puerto Rico integrated its economy to the
    U.S., with obvious mutual benefits. It has been already shown that
    82.6% percent of our exports of merchandise are sold in the U.S., and
    that we depend upon external trade to achieve a reasonable rate of
    economic growth. Our monetary and financial systems are also totally
    integrated to the U.S. Most of our productive and infrastructural
    investments are financed with funds lent from U.S. individuals and
    institutions, while Puerto Rican savers hold over $20 billion in assets
    issued by the federal government and private U.S. institutions.
        Any modification in the status quo will have consequences in our
    financial institutions and in the asset values of all citizens. These
    effects ought to be clearly identified, and measures designed to take
    advantage from favorable opportunities and to minimize any adverse
    effect. Again, limited information has been produced in this respect.
    Here it is necessary to clarify what will be the terms and conditions
    for Puerto Rico's access to the United States commercial and financial
    markets under each status formula, including what will be its position
    with respect to present and future trade agreements that the U.S.
    engages with foreign countries.

    6. Access to Foreign Commercial and Financial Markets
        Puerto Rico's economic model is predicated upon the diversification
    of our economy. It calls for promoting growth in all industrial
    sectors, and diversifying manufacturing by strengthening the Life
    Sciences and Biotechnology Sectors. It also seeks to diversify export
    markets and sources of investment funds. Such policy is consistent with
    U.S. interests in reducing its trade deficit.
        A change in status would modify conditions for the implementation
    of this economic model. In order to know what modifications we will
    have to make in our economic development strategies, it is necessary to
    know which will be the conditions and restrictions to Puerto Rico's
    access to foreign commercial and financial markets under each status
    formula, as well as the market penetration of foreign goods in our
    economy.

    7. Long Term Public Debt
        The topic of the long term public debt under each status formula is
    important by itself, as well as in relation to the design of
    modifications in our tax structure. Our long term public debt has been
    issued to finance investments in infrastructure. Many of these
    investments are the responsibility of the federal government in the
    states of the Union. A sovereign nation in order to benefit from the
    international trade agreements will have to establish a level playing
    field through the rule of law, but harmonized and unified with a free
    market economy and free market system which in itself will require that
    investments be made. On the other hand, some of these investments were
    made to comply with federal laws and regulations. Also, the design of
    local projects would have to meet or exceed federal regulations, thus
    constructions costs would be higher, increasing the needed for debt
    financing.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4236.002

        Long term public debt represents 68.8 percent of Puerto Rico's GNP.
    Given the tax structure presently available, the Island has no problem
    in paying for the service of that debt. But with a change in status,
    the government's ability to raise revenues will also change, and
    adjustments have to be made to recognize that fact.
        Also, Puerto Rico needs to continue its present aggressive program
    to enhance its infrastructure. That is essential for the
    competitiveness of our economy. It is, therefore, necessary to know if
    there will be any constraints for issuing new public debt under the
    transition periods of the different status formulas.

    8. U.S. Transfers

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4236.003

        The issue of federal transfers is another that should be properly
    addressed before the Puerto Rican people are asked to make a decision
    about the status. Federal transfers to individuals totaled $9,862.1
    million in Fiscal Year 2005, accounting for 20.2% percent of personal
    income in the Island. Of these transfers, 79.0% percent were earned
    benefits, such as Social Security pensions and Veterans benefits.
        It is essential for the people to know what will be the amount and
    terms of U.S. transfers to Puerto Rico under each status option. That
    information is vital for the persons to make an informed decision.
    Particular attention has to be paid to what is going to happen to the
    contributions that Puerto Rico makes to earmarked funds, such as Social
    Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance, among others.

    9. Travel and Migration
        Almost all families have close relatives living in the continental
    United States. For family ties to be maintained, it is necessary to
    keep unrestricted travel between the U.S. and Puerto Rico.
        Migrations of Puerto Ricans to the continent happened as a derived
    effect of U.S. citizenship, a significant demand for employment in the
    United States coupled to high unemployment and low income levels in the
    Island. In consequence, the issue of migration is related to the
    previously mentioned U.S. citizenship and economic development, but has
    a humanitarian dimension by itself. Hence, voters must know conditions
    for travel and migration between Puerto Rico and the United States
    under each status alternative.

    Final Remark
        In finalizing this presentation it is important to conclude that no
    law should be approved and consequently the proposed process should not
    be held if these basic concerns are not properly addressed. Not
    covering these basic concerns will not have afforded the Puerto Rican
    voters an opportunity to make an informed decision in selecting among
    the status options at the time.
        The Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce realizes that some of the key
    factors that have contributed to our economic development are subject
    to changes as circumstances vary over time, but we are also aware that
    drastic changes over a short period of time could prove to be
    disastrous if the changes occur at a rate faster than the ability of
    our economy to adjust to them.
        Whatever alternative is democratically chosen by the people of
    Puerto Rico will probably result in economic adjustments and could
    entail sacrifices on our part. Private enterprise is ready to shoulder
    its responsibility; however, even in times of budgetary restrain,
    Congress should be sensitive to our needs and economic realities. Self-
    sustained economic development can only be achieved through a long term
    process. With your help, and a great deal of work on our part, we are
    confident that we can achieve our mutual goal of human progress for the
    people of Puerto Rico. But an adequate transition period is necessary.
    It ought to be designed in all relevant details and informed to the
    people before they are asked to choose.
        Once again we would like to express our most sincere gratitude to
    Madam Chairwoman and the distinguished members of this Committee. The
    status issue needs to be solved if Puerto Rico is to offer a secure
    long term investment environment to interested individuals and
    organizations. Congress needs to act now. Our immediate goal at the
    Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce is to focus on the preparation of a
    strategic plan for Puerto Rico's future economic development. A plan
    which is capable to adapt and transition into any status alternative
    and that will guaranty our fellow Puerto Ricans future economic
    prosperity and a better quality of life.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Mejia. Next I recognize Mr.
    Enrique Baquero for five minutes.

    STATEMENT OF ENRIQUE BAQUERO, PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICO FOUNDATION
              FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Baquero. Good afternoon, Madame Chair, Dr. Donna
    Christensen, distinguished Subcommittee Members. Thank you for
    the opportunity to discuss my organization's stance on the two
    measures before this committee relating to the political status
    of Puerto Rico. We especially thank you for spreading the net
    wider to hear other voices on this important matter that
    affects four million Puerto Ricans in particular residing in
    Puerto Rico.
        My name is Enrique Baquero, and I am here as President of
    the Foundacion Accion Democratica Puertorriquena, a civil
    society non-partisan group that advocates national self-
    determination for the people of Puerto Rico, and also supports
    a constitutional assembly or convention of Puerto Rican
    delegates to initiate the process of self-determination.
        By way of background, we have been active since 1984, and
    have participated in previous Congressional hearings on Puerto
    Rico's political status favoring the inclusion of the sovereign
    free association option as a separate option in itself, which
    is different from traditional independence and recognized as
    such by the United Nation's General Assembly Resolution 1541 of
    1960 and 2625 of 1970.
        In addition, we have also been active in international
    activities seeking solidarity for Puerto Rico's right to
    national self-determination, and for the right of the residents
    in Vieques to live in peace.
        With respect to bills H.R. 1230, sponsored by Congresswoman
    Nydia Velazquez, and H.R. 900, sponsored by Congressman Jose
    Serrano, we believe strongly that these two measures ought to
    be viewed against certain guiding principles. Let me elucidate.
        First, we feel strongly that any process of self-
    determination should be respectful of international law if it
    is to meet the true test of a valid self-determination process
    for the people of Puerto Rico. This means that any territorial
    status leaving Puerto Rico under U.S. sovereignty violates in
    essence the inalienable right of national self-determination of
    the people of Puerto Rico to choose among sovereign non-
    territorial and non-colonial options, such as those recognized
    by the United Nations and by international law precedents.
        The plain fact is Puerto Ricans are clearly a distinct
    people, and cannot be excluded from exercising this right which
    has been reaffirmed in 2004 as an erga omnes right by the
    International Court of Justice; that is, a right which pertains
    to all peoples without exceptions, and generates obligations
    and responsibilities to all states, without exceptions, with
    reference to the international community.
        Therefore, we urge this Subcommittee and Congress to
    exclude territorial commonwealth as an option in any future
    consultation to the people of Puerto Rico. To ask Puerto Ricans
    if we wish to continue being a territory, as stipulated in
    Section 3[a] of H.R. 900 in its present form, is as absurd and
    cynical as it would be to ask an inmate due for parole whether
    he or she would prefer to stay in jail instead of exercising
    the right to parole.
        If the United States sincerely wishes to comply with
    international law standards, territorial status must be
    excluded as a valid option. We are persuaded that this is the
    only way to resolve this stubborn issue between the United
    States and Puerto Rico in a satisfactory manner, and end what
    the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said about Puerto
    Rico in a letter to former President Clinton on territorial
    status, characterizing the relationship as ``this remnant of
    19th Century imperialism.''
        Second. Prior to any consultation or plebiscite on Puerto
    Rico's future political status, Congress ought to recognize the
    inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico to elect, in an
    exercise of its natural right to sovereignty, a constitutional
    convention of delegates to deliberate on the political future
    of Puerto Rico. The constitutional convention as a mechanism
    will give due course to the initiative of the people of Puerto
    Rico to provide an educational process for a national
    discussion, as well as multiple opportunities to engage in
    fruitful conversations and negotiations with Congress.
        We recommend that in both the constitutional convention and
    in all subsequent referenda on political status options,
    mechanisms be established to allow the inclusion of native-born
    Puerto Ricans not residing in Puerto Rico, but interested in
    participating in the process of national self-determination of
    the Puerto Rican people.
        Finally, we reiterate most emphatically that the options of
    sovereign free association be considered as an option in
    itself, for this option is vastly different from independence,
    statehood, or any other non-territorial option. Free
    association conveys a special and particular political economic
    relationship, rendering this option distinct from the other
    sovereignty-based alternative as is independence.
        H.R. 900 version of free association implies that this is
    identical to independence, thus ignoring important substantive
    and procedural fundamentals, leading to necessary confusion and
    distortion, particularly among nonastute [ph] advocates.
        In conclusion, a final point. We want this committee to
    fully understand and appreciate that our organization and
    similar groups, as well as civil society groups in Puerto Rico,
    are prepared to reorganize and promote an international
    campaign against any process of pretended self-determination
    that includes territorial status as an option, or that resorts
    to unfair manipulations to obstruct or impede a democratic,
    just, and rightful level playing field for the competition
    among the different non-territorial options.
        Thank you very much for this opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baquero follows:]

                   Statement of Enrique Baquero, President,
                  Fundacion Accion Democratica Puertorriquena

        Chairwoman Dr. Donna Christensen, distinguished subcommittee
    members, thank you for the opportunity to discuss my organization's
    stance on the two measures before this committee relating to the
    political status of Puerto Rico. We especially thank you for spreading
    the net wider to hear other voices on this important matter that
    affects 4 million Puerto Ricans, in particular, residing in Puerto
    Rico.
        My name is Enrique Baquero, and I am here as President of the
    Fundacion Accion Democratica Puertorriquena (ADP), a civil society non
    partisan group that advocates national self-determination for the
    People of Puerto Rico and also supports a Constitutional Assembly or
    Convention of Puerto Rican delegates to initiate the process of self
    determination.
        By way of background, we have been active since 1994 and have
    participated in previous Congressional hearings on Puerto Rico's
    political status favoring the inclusion of the sovereign free
    association option as a separate option in itself, which is different
    from traditional independence and recognized as such by the United
    Nations General Assembly Resolutions 1541 (XV) of 1960 and 2625 (XXV)
    of 1970. In addition, we have also been active in international
    activities seeking solidarity for Puerto Rico's right to national self-
    determination and for the right of residents in Vieques to live in
    peace.
        With respect to bills H.R. 1230 sponsored by Congresswoman Nydia
    Velazquez and H.R. 900 sponsored by Congressman Jose Serrano, Accion
    Democratica Puertoriquena believes strongly that these two measures
    ought to be viewed against certain guiding principles. Let me
    elucidate:
        (1)  We feel strongly that any process of self-determination should
    be respectful of international law, if it is to meet the true test of a
    valid self-determination process for the People of Puerto Rico. This
    means that any territorial status, leaving Puerto Rico under U.S.
    sovereignty violates in essence the inalienable right of national self-
    determination of the People of Puerto Rico to choose among sovereign
    non-territorial and non-colonial options, such as those recognized by
    the United Nations and by international law precedents. The plain fact
    is Puerto Ricans are clearly a distinct People, and cannot be excluded
    from exercising this right which has been reaffirmed in 2004 as an erga
    omnes right by the International Court of Justice, i.e. a right which
    pertains to all peoples, without exceptions, and generates obligations
    and responsibilities to all states, without exceptions, with reference
    to the international community. Therefore, we urge this sub-committee
    and Congress to exclude territorial Commonwealth as an option in any
    future consultation to the people of Puerto Rico. To ask Puerto Ricans
    if we wish to continue being a territory, as stipulated in Section 3
    (a) of H.R. 900 in its present form, is as absurd and cynical as it
    would be to ask an inmate due for parole whether he or she would prefer
    to stay in jail instead of exercising the right to parole. If the
    United States sincerely wishes to comply with international law
    standards, territorial status must be excluded as a valid option. We
    are persuaded that this is the only way to resolve this stubborn issue
    between the United States and Puerto Rico in a satisfactory manner and
    end what the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said about
    Puerto Rico in a letter to former President Clinton on territorial
    status, characterizing the relationship as ``this remnant of 19th
    Century imperialism.''
        (2)  Prior to any consultation or plebiscite on Puerto Rico's
    future political status, Congress ought to recognize the inalienable
    right of the People of Puerto Rico to elect, in an exercise of its
    natural right to sovereignty, a Constitutional Convention of delegates
    to deliberate on the political future of Puerto Rico. The
    Constitutional Convention as mechanism would give due course to the
    initiative of the People of Puerto Rico to provide an educational
    process for a national discussion as well as multiple opportunities to
    engage in fruitful conversations and negotiations with Congress.
        (3)  We recommend that in both the Constitutional Convention, and
    in all subsequent referenda on political status options, mechanisms be
    established to allow the inclusion of native born Puerto Ricans, not
    residing in Puerto Rico but interested in participating in the process
    of national self-determination of the Puerto Rican people.
        (4)  Finally, we reiterate most emphatically that the options of
    sovereign free association be considered as an option in itself. For
    this option is vastly different from independence, statehood or any
    other non-territorial option. Although from the point of view of the
    United States, both independence and free association would mean
    disposing of the territory and hence ending U.S. sovereign powers over
    the territory, it is important to bear in mind that under the option of
    sovereign free association a special political and economic relation is
    maintained, between the two sovereign nations, through a bilateral
    treaty of free association as has been done in the case of the freely
    associated states of Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands with
    the United States. The nature and content of such a treaty of free
    association establishes a clear difference between Puerto Rican
    sovereignty in free association with the United States and Puerto Rican
    sovereignty under the option of independence. We believe that H.R. 900
    attempts to mislead and confuse the people by considering free
    association as a form of independence status. The foregoing is regarded
    as a palpable direct and unacceptable manipulation to avoid a level-
    playing field for all options in order to favor statehood by making
    people associate free-association with independence.
    CONCLUSION
        In conclusion, a final point. We want this committee to fully
    understand and appreciate that our organization and similar groups, as
    well as civil society groups in Puerto Rico are prepared to organize
    and promote an international campaign against any process of pretended
    self-determination that includes territorial status as an option or
    that resorts to unfair manipulations to obstruct or impede a
    democratic, just and rightful level-playing field for the competition
    among the different non-territorial options. I thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss our firm position on this very important topic,
    and I am happy to answer your questions.
        Thank you very much.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jose Luis
    Fernandez for five minutes.

      STATEMENT OF JOSE LUIS FERNANDEZ, PRESIDENT, INTER-AMERICAN
                 ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATION, PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Fernandez. Madame Chair and distinguished Members,
    thank you for inviting such a representative group of citizens
    to testify.
        My name is Jose Luis Fernandez, President of the Inter-
    American Entrepreneurs Association in Puerto Rico, an
    organization founded 46 years ago to promote free enterprise
    and international business development. We, like most other
    Puerto Ricans, hope you will provide us with a serious process
    to answer the question of the territory's status preference.
        Our primary interest is the serious deterioration of our
    island's economic situation due to the lack of resolution as to
    what the territory's ultimate status will be.
        This basic political question denies us the economic
    advantages of statehood or nationhood needed to compete in the
    greater American and global economies, distracts attention from
    economic and social issues, raises questions about what the
    appropriate economic and social policies are, and discourages
    investment in Puerto Rico while encouraging investment
    elsewhere.
        A state of confusion, indifference, and uncertainty has
    permeated over the years. Territory status stopped benefitting
    Puerto Rico long ago. That is why the status quo only obtained
    0.06 percent of the vote the only time it was ever voted on, in
    1998. And all other status proposals, including commonwealth
    proposals, have been for a different governing arrangement.
        Dissatisfaction with Puerto Rico's current situation is so
    great that now there are as many people of Puerto Rican origin
    in the States as in the islands. Over 3,000 Puerto Ricans a
    month move to Florida, and a recent poll revealed that at least
    a third of all Puerto Ricans are seriously considering leaving
    the territory.
        Past local processes to answer the question of our status
    preference have failed because they have included proposals not
    attuned to what the Congress would accept based on the
    Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States.
    In most cases, these options have included commonwealth
    proposals later rejected by the U.S. Government, which would
    have to act to change Puerto Rico's status.
        In the 1998 referendum, the impossible option was a none-
    of-the-above line, when all of the options that U.S. officials
    have ever said they would be willing to implement were on the
    ballot.
        H.R. 1230 would repeat the mistake by inviting us to choose
    a non-territory commonwealth status that would not be statehood
    or nationhood, when there is no precedent for such a status,
    and the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status, the
    Clinton Administration, and the first Bush Administration have
    all said that there cannot be such a status.
        Further, the local political minority that requested H.R.
    1230 has repeatedly made it clear that their intent is that the
    non-territory commonwealth status be their development of the
    commonwealth proposal. Chairman Don Young and Ranking Democrat
    Miller of your full committee reported in 1999 that the
    proposal is based on principles that the committee rejected in
    1998. The Clinton Administration specifically rejected it as
    impossible for constitutional and other reasons in testimony,
    and in a report to the full committee in 2000 and 2001. And the
    President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status rejected it in
    December 2005.
        The proposal would permanently bind the U.S. to Puerto Rico
    determining the application of most Federal laws and court
    jurisdiction; Puerto Rico entering into international trade and
    other agreements and organizations that states and territories
    cannot; replacing tax exemptions for the income of U.S.
    companies in Puerto Rico that Congress just repealed; granting
    an additional subsidy for the insular government; and
    continuing all current programs of assistance to Puerto Ricans,
    totally free entry to any goods shipped from Puerto Rico, and
    citizenship.
        It would be counter-productive and irresponsible for
    Congress to invite Puerto Rico to propose a non-territory
    commonwealth status when it knows that the intent of the
    proponents for such a status is a proposal that Congress would
    not, and cannot, implement.
        By contrast, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, H.R. 900,
    proposes a process that includes only real statuses: statehood,
    independence, and nationhood, in a true free association with
    the U.S. in addition to the current territory status quo, all
    of the real statuses that have support in the island.
        It would continue the current status if, and for as long
    as, Puerto Ricans vote for that instead of voting to seek one
    of the real status alternatives.
        My one concern about H.R. 900 is that it would enfranchise
    non-citizens of Puerto Rico to vote in the determination of
    Puerto Rico's status preference, even though they may have no
    real connection with the islands, other than birth, and may
    never. Like citizens of Puerto Rico, these citizens of the
    States would also have voting representation in the U.S.
    Government decision of whether to implement the preference.
        Madame Chair and distinguished Members, Puerto Ricans want
    to finally be able to choose among real statuses that can be
    implemented by Congress. The ongoing political impasse divides
    and holds down our people, and only benefits a few select
    economic interests, some external companies and a select few
    who work for them, and some lobbyists here in Washington,
    versus most Puerto Rican entrepreneurs and most Puerto Ricans.
        The business community, representative of our people as a
    whole, abhors the uncertainty of the present status and; abhors
    the unrealistic process implied by the constitutional
    convention proposal. Congress should not be in a position to
    raise expectations that eventually would not be willing to
    fulfill.
        Madame Chair, I appreciate your openness and willingness to
    listen to the citizens. People need to regain confidence. They
    are looking for trust, and they are expecting a true
    commitment.
        Please help put an end to this limbo that has forced so
    many of us to leave the island, consigns almost half of those
    who remain to poverty, has resulted in Puerto Rico slipping
    further and further behind the States economically, as reported
    last year by the Brookings Institution and the Government
    Accountability Office, and denies us the democracy for which so
    many Puerto Ricans have sacrificed on behalf of the United
    States.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fernandez follows:]

                 Statement of Jose Luis Fernandez, President,
            Inter-American Entrepreneurs Association in Puerto Rico

        Madame Chair and Distinguished Members:
        Thank you for inviting such a representative group of citizens to
    testify.
        My name is Jose Luis Fernandez, President of the Inter-American
    Entrepreneurs Association in Puerto Rico, an organization founded 46
    years ago to promote free enterprise and international business
    development. We--like most other Puerto Ricans--hope you will provide
    us with a serious process to answer the question of the territory's
    status preference. Our primary interest is the serious deterioration in
    our islands' economic situation due to the lack of resolution as to
    what the territory's ultimate status will be. This basic political
    question:
          Denies us the economic advantages of statehood or
    nationhood needed to compete in the greater American and the global
    economies;
          Distracts attention from economic and social issues;
          Raises questions about what the appropriate economic and
    social policies are; and
          Discourages investment in Puerto Rico while encouraging
    investment elsewhere.
        A state of confusion, indifference and uncertainty has permeated
    over the years. Territory status stopped benefiting Puerto Rico long
    ago. That is why the status quo only obtained 0.06% of the vote the
    only time it was ever voted on--in 1998--and all other status
    proposals--including ``Commonwealth'' proposals--have been for a
    different governing arrangement.
        Dissatisfaction with Puerto Rico's current situation is so great
    that now there are as many people of Puerto Rican origin in the States
    as in the islands; Over 3,000 Puerto Ricans a month move to Florida;
    and a recent poll revealed that at least a third of all Puerto Ricans
    are seriously considering leaving the territory.
        Past local processes to answer the question of our status
    preference have failed because they have included proposals not attuned
    to what the Congress would accept based on the Constitution and basic
    laws and policies of the United States.
        In most cases, these options have included ``Commonwealth''
    proposals later rejected by the U.S. Government, which would have to
    act to change Puerto Rico's status.
        In the 1998 referendum, the impossible option was a ``None of the
    Above'' line--when all of the options that U.S. officials have ever
    said they would be willing to implement were on the ballot.
        H.R. 1230 would repeat the mistake by inviting us to choose a non-
    territory ``Commonwealth status'' that would not be statehood or
    nationhood--when there is no precedent for such a status and the
    President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status, the Clinton
    Administration, and the first Bush Administration have all said that
    there cannot be such a status.
        Further, the local political minority that requested H.R. 1230 has
    repeatedly made it clear that their intent is that the non-territory
    ``Commonwealth status'' be their ``Development of the Commonwealth''
    proposal. Chairman Don Young and Ranking Democrat George Miller of your
    full Committee reported in 1999 that the proposal is based on
    principles that the Committee rejected in 1998, the Clinton
    Administration specifically rejected it as impossible for
    constitutional and other reasons in testimony and in a report to the
    full Committee in 2000 and 2001, and the President's Task Force on
    Puerto Rico's Status rejected it in December 2005.
        The proposal would permanently bind the U.S. to:
          Puerto Rico determining the application of most federal
    laws and court jurisdiction;
          Puerto Rico entering into international trade and other
    agreements and organizations that States and territories cannot;
          Replacing tax exemptions for the income of U.S. companies
    in Puerto Rico that Congress just repealed;
          Granting an additional subsidy for the insular
    government; and
          Continuing all current programs of assistance to Puerto
    Ricans, totally free entry to any goods shipped from Puerto Rico, and
    citizenship.
        It would be counter productive--and irresponsible--for Congress to
    invite Puerto Rico to propose a non-territory ``Commonwealth status''
    when it knows that the intent of the proponents for such a status is a
    proposal that Congress would not--and cannot--implement.
        By contrast, the ``Puerto Rico Democracy Act'', H.R. 900, proposes
    a process that includes only real statuses--statehood, independence,
    and nationhood in a true free association with the U.S. in addition to
    the current territory status quo--all of the real statuses that have
    support in the island.
        It would continue the current status if--and for as long as--Puerto
    Ricans vote for that instead of voting to seek one of the real status
    alternatives.
        My one concern about H.R. 900 is that it would enfranchise non-
    citizens of Puerto Rico to vote in the determination of Puerto Rico's
    status preference even though they may have no real connection with the
    islands (other than birth) and may never. Unlike citizens of Puerto
    Rico, these citizens of the States would also have voting
    representation in the U.S. Government decision of whether to implement
    the preference.
        Madame Chair and Distinguished Members, Puerto Ricans want to
    finally be able to choose among real statuses that can be implemented
    by Congress. The ongoing political impasse divides and holds down our
    people and only benefits a few select economic interests--some external
    companies and a select few who work for them--and some lobbyists here
    in Washington--vs. most Puerto Rican entrepreneurs and most Puerto
    Ricans.
        The business community--representative of our people as a whole--
    abhors the uncertainty of the present status and abhors the unrealistic
    process implied by the Constitutional Convention proposal. Congress
    should not be in a position to raise expectations that eventually would
    be unwilling to fulfill.
        Madame Chair, I appreciate your openness and willingness to listen
    to the citizens. People need to regain confidence, they are looking for
    trust and they are expecting a true commitment. Please help put an end
    to this limbo that: has forced so many of us to leave the island;
    consigns almost half of those who remain to poverty; has resulted in
    Puerto Rico slipping further and further behind the States
    economically, as reported last year by the Brookings Institution and
    the Government Accountability Office; and denies us the democracy for
    which so many Puerto Ricans have sacrificed on behalf of the United
    States.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. I thank all of the panelists for your
    testimony, and I recognize myself for five minutes.
        Mr. Mejia, you talked about the fundamental changes that
    have taken place in development models and the transformation
    for developing countries over the last 50 years. Do you believe
    that the current political status of Puerto Rico harms or helps
    its economic development, in spite of or because of its
    economic model, which you say dates back to the early 1980s?
        Mr. Mejia. The situation in Puerto Rico is basically one of
    uncertainty, and that hinders any economic developments. So it
    all depends, in the actions of Congress, the future of Puerto
    Rico.
        I certainly want the future, the progress and the future of
    Puerto Rico to be better than it is right now, and that the
    people of Puerto Rico have the conditions and the competitive
    advantage that has been, has been changing through years.
        Ms. Christensen. But under the current, do you think that
    the commonwealth in and of itself, the political status was
    harmful to the economy of Puerto Rico? Or helpful?
        Mr. Mejia. It has been for some time very beneficial. But
    time changes, and it is a time for Congress to act.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Mr. Fernandez, in your
    statement you make reference to the plebiscite, where you state
    that commonwealth got only .6 percent of the vote. Isn't that
    not quite accurate, since the PDP was not happy with the
    definition in that plebiscite, and the fact that none of the
    above got more, 50 percent or a little over 50 percent? Doesn't
    that really contradict what you are trying to imply by that .6
    percent?
        Mr. Fernandez. Madame Chair, if you look at the numbers
    throughout history, there has been a significant change in
    terms of how people feel about the different options.
    Regardless of the ideology, regardless of who belongs to which
    party or some ideology, people are reflecting in these local
    elections which have not been valid elections, because people
    really haven't had any confidence in these, unless Congress
    really guides us through a real serious process leading to
    that.
        But regarding that particular one, where I point out that
    0.06 percent only voted for the commonwealth, is according to
    what the Constitution of the United States and the policies and
    laws of the United States consider that as a reasonable option,
    as a reasonable option. The fact that a lot of people voted for
    none of the above, and that a lot of people supported
    statehood, and people supported independence and free
    association, does imply that people do want to change.
    Regardless of the outcome of the election, the fact that none
    of the above, I mean, that is a very, very strong message.
        Ms. Christensen. But it was a message that was generated by
    opposition to the definitions by the supporters of
    commonwealth. So I think it is a pretty strong statement that
    they could get supportive of commonwealth generally--I am maybe
    making an assumption here--to vote for none of the above,
    because they were dissatisfied.
        Mr. Fernandez. But the fact that we have a none of the
    above again, and we have people, and over the course of history
    the different local plebiscites that we have had, numbers have
    significantly changed. In fact, none of the above, support for
    other statuses that were not previously considered as part of
    the options presented to the people, do reflect that people do
    want to change.
        The issue and the point here is that people want to make
    sure that the process that they are confronted with is a
    serious process, and that the options that they will be voting
    for will be respected, and will be accepted by the Congress of
    the United States. And that is the bottom line.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. I just wanted to try to get in
    another question to Mr. Baquero. Why do you believe that the
    option of choosing to continue being a territory, in Section
    3[a] of H.R. 900, which you say is absurd and cynical, was
    included in the bill? Shouldn't the democratic process afford a
    people the opportunity to choose something that they believe
    works for them?
        Mr. Baquero. I think definitely the actual territory is
    colonial. Following principles established by, as I quote here
    from the United Nations international law precedents, I think
    we need to change that. I don't think it is an option.
        The only option under the commonwealth status would be free
    association developed as such. I don't see a territorial status
    being prevailing in Puerto Rico as an option.
        Ms. Christensen. I am not sure that territory and
    commonwealth quite, as being defined, are exactly the same. But
    my time is up. I am going to recognize Mr. Fortuno for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. And again I want to thank all the
    members of the panel for flying up here and joining us this
    afternoon.
        One of the purposes for which I commend again the
    Chairperson, Madame Chair of the Subcommittee for this hearing,
    one of the purposes of the hearing is to allow for Congress to
    understand what is going on in Puerto Rico. So if I may, even
    though it may sound unrelated to the topic, I believe it is
    certainly related to it, I will ask, if I may, the Chairman of
    the Chamber of Commerce to briefly describe the economic
    situation in Puerto Rico as we speak right now, with the latest
    numbers that have been put out, official numbers, in terms of
    negative growth for two consecutive years in our economy.
        So if you may, Mr. Mejia.
        Mr. Mejia. For the last couple of years we have certainly
    lost a competitive advantage due to the uncertainty of our
    status.
        In the 1980s we were the economic example of the under-
    developed, of the countries that were looking for some type of
    progress. I mention Singapore Island, such countries. And from
    that point on, from the nineties on, Puerto Rico has been
    losing that competitive advantage. And probably the reason for
    that is that the status issue hasn't been resolved.
        Mr. Fortuno. Actually, Madame Chair, if I may, I would like
    to introduce for the record--and we will do so in the next 24
    hours, if that is OK with you--a chart with the growth rate in
    the last 40 years in Puerto Rico. And we will show that since
    the early seventies on, our economic performance has been
    lackluster. And actually at this moment, for the first time in
    our history, our economy is not following the national trend.
    The national economy has been growing for 43 consecutive
    months, and now we have had two years where we have had
    negative growth.
        But I believe it will be good for us to understand what has
    happened to the economy in the last 50 years or so, so we can
    compare it to the national economy, if I may.
        Ms. Christensen. Without objection, admitted.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you, I appreciate it.
        [The information submitted for the record has been retained
    in the Committee's official files.]
        Mr. Fortuno. Mr. Fernandez, in your statement you talk
    about uncertainty, unrealistic processes and expectations. And
    actually there were some statements somewhat similar in Mr.
    Mejia's comments relating to the effect of that uncertainty of
    the present status has over the economic climate in Puerto
    Rico. Could you expand on that, please?
        Mr. Fernandez. Sure. I must first say that uncertainty is
    not good for people, and it certainly is not good for business.
        The fact that uncertainty permeates, and the fact that
    people are concerned about the economic situation of Puerto
    Rico, the social situation, the situation with public safety
    and all these other things, that uncertainty unfortunately has
    driven a lot of professionals, youth, people who would be
    responsible for the direction of public and private
    institutions in Puerto Rico, to leave the island.
        Unfortunately, we are losing that capital that we need in
    order to grow our infrastructure in all areas: economic,
    social, and educational, as well.
        The fact that this uncertainty has been leading people is
    because they look at the political situation, they look at the
    economic situation, how education is affected by all of this,
    the social problems that are structural to the situation in
    Puerto Rico, and they have just lost faith. And I think that we
    need to give some injection and some hope back to the people.
        And that is why a serious process I believe will lead to
    that direction.
        Mr. Fortuno. Certainly we need a change, and most people
    are dissatisfied with what we have.
        Final question, if I may, to you, Mr. Fernandez. What
    happened to the economies of Hawaii and Alaska once they became
    states?
        Mr. Fernandez. Once they became--increasingly, they have
    grown dramatically. I mean, and I am sure that Congressman
    Young, and I am sure that the Congressmen of Hawaii and Alaska
    and the Senators, could talk about that more in general.
        But we see it. And I have been to Hawaii. I have seen how
    they have been able to grow their economy, how they have been
    able to foster their values, their cultural values as well.
        But at the same time, the fact that that unresolved
    business that was happening back then in Alaska and Hawaii gave
    some stability, gave some security, gave some direction to the
    people. And that is why they say, you know, if I know where I
    am going, if I know that things are going to stay stable, I
    know that I will have an opportunity for growth.
        But in the matter that uncertainty permeates, in the matter
    that people don't know what is going to happen, don't know if
    their pockets will be filled any time soon, they will have no
    hope for their families, they will have no hope for the future.
    We need to change that.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. Thank you again. Madame, I yield
    back.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
    Faleomavaega for five minutes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madame Chair. And I do
    apologize for not being here while our distinguished members of
    the panel had testified before the committee, but I sense that
    the whole gist of this panel's expertise in terms of their
    positions or opinions is in reference to the economic
    conditions and the status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
        As indicated in the White House Task Force report, going
    back again to the three plebiscites that were held, at least in
    terms of the records that were taken in 1967, the people of
    Puerto Rico opted for commonwealth status with 60 percent of
    the vote, statehood at 39 percent, and for independence, 1
    percent.
        And then there was a 1993 plebiscite for which people opted
    for commonwealth at 48 percent, those who wanted statehood was
    at 46.3 percent, and independence, 4.4 percent.
        I thought that perhaps after the 1993 plebiscite that there
    would be a runoff between commonwealth and statehood. But that
    was not made possible, so we are right back again to square
    one.
        I understand also I think the latest plebiscite, if you
    consider it as such, but because of a lot of misgivings and
    misunderstandings about definitions were in the 1998
    plebiscite, where people opted for territorial commonwealth at
    6 percent, free association at 29 percent, statehood at 46.49
    percent, but none of the above was some 50.3 percent. So here
    again we are kind of fuzzy in terms of exactly where do the
    people of Puerto Rico desire to opt for whatever future that
    they may want to have.
        As we hold this hearing, there is a big, big debate,
    furious as it is, in trying to determine even to give the
    delegate of the District of Columbia full voting rights. And
    Eleanor Norton-Holmes represents 600,000 U.S. citizens. They
    all pay Federal income taxes, and yet they have no full voting
    rights. So even the Congress is having a little problem even
    doing this, and there are some very serious constitutional
    issues. Just as we now find ourselves in, and have been for how
    many years now, in dealing with the Commonwealth of Puerto
    Rico.
        I had asked some previous questions about the doctrine of
    incorporation. I don't want to get into the legal stuff, but I
    think I did mention that years ago, in the middle of a hearing
    that we held in Puerto Rico--and I was there--that this
    conservative columnist by the name of Pat Buchanan issued a
    commentary, saying that if Puerto Rico was to become a state
    tomorrow, it would become a welfare state, and the United
    States were going to have to provide a tremendous amount of
    funding to upkeep the people. Which, you know, it came at the
    wrong time, and I felt it was very unfair, especially not only
    to the people of Puerto Rico, but even to the American people,
    because that was just one opinion.
        But my basic position is this. I want to ultimately,
    whatever option that the people of Puerto Rico want, that is
    what we should do.
        Here is the question that I have for our members of the
    panel. Suppose the option of statehood is presented in such a
    way that this is ultimately what the people of Puerto Rico have
    decided. But are you aware of the fact that just because the
    people of Puerto Rico opted for statehood, there is no
    guarantee that Congress is going to grant you statehood?
        Mr. Baquero. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Are you aware of that fact? Because that
    is another side of the coin, so to speak.
        So we are back again with the situation of commonwealth
    status in terms of however you may want to interpret it. Some
    have said, as I stated earlier, that it seems to me that this
    enhanced form of commonwealth is almost similar to what the
    compact of free associations have now been developed by the
    Republic of Marshall Islands, Palau, as well as the Federated
    States of Micronesia.
        And I want to ask my good friends here on the panel, do you
    honestly believe that the economy of Puerto Rico will stabilize
    if Puerto Rico was to become a state tomorrow? Is this the
    basic tenets of our members of the panel and their opinions on
    this issue?
        Mr. Baquero. I think the basic question here is give the
    people the opportunity. We have to educate a lot. I think we
    have fallen prey to the political parties' status orientation,
    and that type of politics in Puerto Rico has created negative
    effects in the development of democracy.
        I think that is why a civil society has to take a role in
    this, more active than now, and make an issue of this. Because
    the way to develop Puerto Rico basically through the political
    status is one option, but we have to create also a new economic
    plan for the island based on the real facts, not illusions.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Madame Chair, just one comment I wanted
    to make. I have the highest respect for my good friend and
    colleague, Resident Commissioner Fortuno, and the fact that he
    does support statehood. And I have the utmost respect for his
    position that he has taken. There is nothing wrong with that.
        His predecessor also sat on this committee. He is now the
    Governor of Puerto Rico. But he opts for a different status,
    which is primarily commonwealth and however you want to define
    it.
        So we are torn between these two. And this is not being
    disrespectful for those who advocate independence, as well. But
    we have been going through this now for 50, 60 years, among
    these three options. And I am tortured and really hopeful that
    some way or somehow we are going to have a major breakthrough
    that maybe combining the two pieces of legislation that is now
    before the committee, taking the pluses of both proposed
    legislations, so that there is fairness in the process.
        If there is anything that I think that I would like to
    advocate very strongly, as I am sure it is the feeling and
    sentiments of all the Members of Congress, is that we come up
    with a proposed bill that will be fair to all the people of
    Puerto Rico. And let the people of Puerto Rico make that
    decision in terms of their option for their future.
        I am sorry. Thank you, Madame Chair.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Serrano for five minutes.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. I didn't hear the testimony, so I
    apologize. But I will just stick with some of the concerns that
    are always voiced.
        As you know, I am clear on my opposition to the
    commonwealth status, and I am clear on opposition to any status
    that doesn't remove Puerto Rico from the colonial territorial
    status that it finds itself in now. And that is the one thing
    that everybody agrees with now on the island, finally. They may
    not call it a colony, but people understand that this has to
    change.
        Now, one of the arguments always presented is, one, could
    Puerto Rico survive as an independent nation; and two, can
    Puerto Rico carry the burden of being a state, in terms of its
    economy. I don't know if that question has been asked; if it
    has, I apologize for asking it again, or perhaps asking it
    differently.
        But I would like for you to comment on both, with the full
    understanding, incidentally, that if Puerto Rico was a state,
    obviously it would immediately share in all that states share
    in, within certain responsibilities that it may not have now.
    And if it was an independent nation, I doubt that after 109,
    110, 111 years, the U.S. would simply say goodbye, see you
    later. There would be a close relationship, probably the
    closest we would have with anyone in the world, I would say,
    because it is, you know, a member of the family doesn't leave
    and totally become not a member of the family.
        So can you, any of you, comment, or all of you, on that
    whole notion? The economy under statehood, and the economy
    under----
        Mr. Baquero. I think the basic issue here has to be a
    transition period for both equations, both for statehood or for
    independence. Because the economy is right now in a state of
    like an appendix to the American economy. And to develop
    properly as a republic, as an independent nation, Puerto Rico
    needs to have fully transition.
        The same with the statehood. That is my opinion.
        Mr. Fernandez. Well, I think particularly, going back to
    uncertainty, I think the fact that there is uncertainty in the
    environment and in the business community, that the citizens in
    general have no idea as to what is going to happen, has
    frustrated a lot of people. That is why we are getting our
    professionals and youth to leave the island.
        In terms of the final decision, I think what is really most
    important is to have a fair process, a serious process, where
    people could feel confident that the options that they are
    voting for are going to be accepted by the Congress. And if
    people openly express that they favor statehood, or they favor
    independence, or they favor free association, or the status
    quo, then that there is a fair process to accept and assimilate
    that will from the people.
        But I think until the people are confronted with that,
    uncertainty is really fading away hope in general, in Puerto
    Rico. And I think that that is the key issue that we need to
    address.
        Mr. Mejia. The Chamber's concern at this point in time is
    the process should be fair, and that transition should be a
    smooth one. Education is power; thus, that will allow the
    people of Puerto Rico to make an enlightened decision. So
    whatever process Congress decides to do, it is very important
    that the people are educated in what are the choices.
        Mr. Serrano. Would it be fair or unfair to suggest that the
    business community may never truly favor statehood because of
    the tax issue that it would impose on the island, on that
    state? Is that a fair statement, or is that an unfair statement
    on my part?
        And please understand, if that was the case, it would be,
    you know, I have made a career out of pointing out that
    corporate America every so often thinks of itself first, and
    the people somewhere down the line, maybe never. So you know,
    corporate America would now be corporate-new state America or
    territory America.
        So my question is, if you had a vote amongst Puerto Rican
    businessmen--and I don't mean, you know, Don Pepe or Comer
    Icoco [ph] and Dutrieri Esso [ph]--just on the tax issue, would
    they not be in favor of statehood?
        Mr. Mejia. At this point in time, the Chamber of Commerce
    is only concerned with a fair process and a smooth transition.
        Mr. Serrano. OK.
        Mr. Baquero. I think the key is I come back to education.
    We have to really put the numbers and educate the people as to
    the real effect of all the alternatives. Because that way, our
    people will know what is the reality that we are talking about,
    not illusions.
        Mr. Fernandez. Let me add, also, Congressman. I think
    economic stability and growth for business community as well
    has to do as well with the developments in the political arena.
    They are not excluded.
        I mean, and in the way that the citizens, including the
    business community, are involved in the political decision-
    making process for things that have an impact over the economy,
    over social development, over education, over public safety,
    over everything that is around us, that is kind of a big
    statement just right there.
        And when people are fully able to either engage in
    international treaties and be able to do that to expand the
    economy, or fully integrate as a state, then that sort of full
    participation in the political decision-making process will get
    more people to be confident for economic development of Puerto
    Rico, and that will also be helpful for foreign investment, as
    well, as to the stability of the island.
        Mr. Serrano. May I just take a few seconds more? If you
    don't smile, I won't take a second more.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Serrano. OK, thank you for smiling. See, here is my
    concern. We get to the nitty-gritty, as we say, we get to a
    vote. And that vote then becomes an issue of independence and
    statehood. And then you see the business community pour a lot
    of money into that vote. That is why I would hope, and we
    shouldn't discuss this now, that those both be totally funded
    to keep people from having to donate to those campaigns.
        Then you will get the business community to say well, what
    do we support? Do we support getting to the burden of paying
    taxes? Or do we support the uncertainty we think of an
    independent nation, that it will be another Cuba? You are going
    to hear all of these silly arguments that have nothing to do
    with anything, and it will be just the agenda of the business
    community, which scares the hell out of me.
        And then last, I have noticed that if you take a survey,
    you may find out that a lot of New Yorkers retire in Florida,
    but they don't retire in Puerto Rico. Non-Puerto Rican New
    Yorkers. Is that also linked to--I mean, some people may say
    good that they don't retire here, you know, in droves. But is
    that linked to the status issue? The uncertainty over political
    situations?
        Mr. Fernandez. Or why do we have more Puerto Ricans
    stateside, on the mainland, than in Puerto Rico, as well?
        Mr. Serrano. Well, that is because of my leadership.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Fernandez. But I feel, and that is my personal feeling,
    that Puerto Rico has a lot to offer. And it is a beautiful
    place. It is a place with a great infrastructure. It is a place
    with great opportunities for the region and the international
    marketplace, as well.
        But the fact that people don't feel comfortable in Puerto
    Rico, and we are losing as much--I mean, the most recent poll
    that I read was 36.5 percent of people are seriously
    considering leaving the island--is because of the uncertainty,
    is because of the public safety, because of the lack of, the
    uncertainty with the economy, education, and anything related
    to that. They want to make sure that their families have a
    share in that. And they are looking for that elsewhere,
    unfortunately.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
        Ms. Christensen. You are welcome, Mr. Serrano. I am going
    to do another round, because I have a couple of questions that
    I wanted to ask.
        Mr. Mejia, you said that in recent years, I believe you
    said four, that it is in recent years that an uncertainty has,
    and the economy of Puerto Rico has seen a decline.
        To what extent do you think that is related to our removal
    of 936?
        Mr. Mejia. The benefits of 936 helped the economic
    development of Puerto Rico for many years. For reasons of a
    decision by Congress, that has changed. There was a phase-out
    of 10 years, and at this point in time Puerto Rico doesn't have
    the necessary benefits, tax benefits, to be able to improve
    their economic development. Although I believe Puerto Rico
    still has a lot to offer, and I believe in the human capital
    and the desire of all the Puerto Ricans to become entrepreneurs
    and to move forward. That made a change.
        Ms. Christensen. 936 did make a change.
        Mr. Mejia. It did make a change.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Mr. Baquero, I believe you said
    that what Puerto Rico needs is a real economic plan. What
    prevents it from happening under the current status?
        Mr. Baquero. You have to have a clear definition of
    purpose, and we don't have it right now.
        The way we operate in Puerto Rico with the political system
    creates, well, they already said uncertainty, in terms of a
    stability, in terms of doing things in one direction. There is
    no sense of direction.
        One party comes over, change the policy. The other comes
    back, change the policy again. We need to work together, and
    that is the problem.
        So I think it is obviously establishment. Once we have a
    clear-cut definition of what we are, what we are going to do,
    then we can establish the economic plan that Puerto Rico needs
    and deserves. And it is getting late. It is getting late.
        Ms. Christensen. Once the choice is decided and stability
    established because that choice has been made, Puerto Rico can
    move ahead. It doesn't seem to me that it has to be one or the
    other.
        Mr. Baquero. Then we don't have too much fighting among
    ourselves. That is keeping us divided.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Fernandez, you
    did say in your testimony that you have one concern about 900,
    is that it would enfranchise non-citizens of Puerto Rico to
    vote in the determination of Puerto Rico's status. And then
    1230 would enfranchise not only persons born in Puerto Rico,
    but also possibly children of parents.
        I suspect that, you know, that that may be a concern of
    others in Puerto Rico. How would you suggest we resolve that
    issue?
        Mr. Fernandez. I honestly feel, I mean, I wake up in Puerto
    Rico, go to work in Puerto Rico, have to live the consequences
    of what permeates around the environment these days. I go to
    sleep and wake up the next morning in Puerto Rico.
        I think it is very important that the people of Puerto
    Rico, that people who are living in Puerto Rico and who aspire
    to live in Puerto Rico and further develop their families and
    their economic environments in Puerto Rico, are able to decide
    the ultimate status option for Puerto Rico.
        As I say, more than the current population of Puerto Rico
    live in the mainland and abroad. And the fact that we could
    probably extend that vote to over four million Puerto Ricans
    who have fully integrated into a state, and now have their kids
    and everything, they already, they live in a different
    scenario.
        The scenario that we live in Puerto Rico right now is very
    different. And I think that the desperation or the frustration
    of the people of Puerto Rico should be respected in the regard
    that these are, we who live in Puerto Rico need to make sure
    that we feel confident about the final status decision. Because
    our aspiration is to remain there.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Mr. Fortuno, do you wish five
    minutes?
        Mr. Fortuno. Yes, very briefly. I have a concern that I
    believe is shared by many of us. At the rate that we are
    losing, and it has been touched upon briefly here, we are
    losing the best and brightest of Puerto Rico, at a fast pace.
        And in addition to Mr. Serrano's leadership certainly,
    which is I know is the number one reason for it, I have no
    doubts about it----
        Mr. Serrano. I don't want another person to leave, believe
    me.
        Mr. Fortuno. But certainly, I do have--not to Florida,
    anyway, I know. Which is where most of them are living.
        But certainly, what we are discussing here has a direct
    impact on that. And actually, I have, there are a number of
    things we need to do.
        I believe the issue of uncertainty has been actually raised
    by all three in one way or another. That is out there, has been
    out there for a while.
        We have been under-performing. Actually, if we look at it,
    none of the last two years, since the early seventies on, we
    have been under-performing as an economy.
        I just filed a couple weeks ago H.R. 1340. And I will use
    this to pitch my bill. And essentially that bill is status
    neutral. That bill doesn't get economic development in the
    middle of politics, or politics in the middle of economic
    development. That bill tries to provide for an economic
    development tool to create jobs in Puerto Rico.
        And I have discussed it with Chairman Rahall and Ranking
    Member Jim McCrery. I invite all of you here to look at it. It
    would apply to pockets of poverty, not just in Puerto Rico, I
    mean around the country, including the territories.
        And I believe we can do both things. We can try here to try
    to address the issue of status, and provide for a pathway to
    solve it; and we can try in this Congress to address, at least
    in part, the issues of economic development that are affecting
    Puerto Rico's economy right now.
        Having said that, I will again stress what has been
    mentioned by all three: that this uncertainty provides for what
    a friend of mine calls the Puerto Rico discount rate. And you
    know, if this existed in the mainland, it would cost so much
    more. The value of it would be so much more. And I hear that
    over and over and over.
        On top of that, our tax rates. Oftentimes the issue of
    taxes has been used as an excuse, saying we cannot move on on
    status. And actually, if we were to move on to statehood, that
    would be detrimental. Well, we have proven, and history has
    proven, that in the country we pay more taxes than anybody else
    under the American flag. So we have ended up with the worst of
    both worlds, actually.
        And my question here is, Mr. Fernandez, if you feel that
    once we have a process, even before we have a status change, if
    we have a process that is mandated by Congress, if you feel
    that that sense of that things will get better will commence to
    permeate the business sector right away.
        Mr. Fernandez. A process for providing----
        Mr. Fortuno. Status, economic.
        Mr. Fernandez. Definitely. I mean, the fact that the
    local--again, I want to stress that again. The fact that
    previous plebiscites, people have been confronted with
    definitions that have not been approved. People have not had
    confidence in the process.
        People really aspire to participate or engage in a process
    that they feel confident about. And I think that H.R. 900
    clearly, clearly outlines a process that includes all the
    possible constitutionally viable options for the people of
    Puerto Rico in a way that allows, you know, gives space for all
    sectors of society to be involved, and to look at all
    constitutionally viable options to the people.
        If the people of Puerto Rico are not confronted with a
    serious process, fully supported by the U.S. Congress, we will
    keep having elections, keep having elections with local
    plebiscites and local political parties making, writing the
    definitions, and there will be more confusion, more
    frustration. And people will not be confident about a future
    resolution of this matter.
        I think this is a historic time. It is a historic time that
    we are really taking a serious step into considering this
    process. And I fully feel confident about the U.S. Congress
    presenting options that are viable, and that they are willing
    to accept.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Mr. Serrano, I think you took
    up half of this round already, but we are willing to recognize
    you for any questions you might have.
        Mr. Serrano. By the way, I want to thank you for that
    letter for those items that you want in your district, that you
    sent to me, to the Appropriations Committee.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Serrano. I am learning the system well.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Fernandez, you broke my heart.
        Mr. Fernandez. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. As a child, I remember during the Luis
    Administration, sound trucks going around in Barrio Parisa
    Majagues telling my parents that there were jobs available in
    Brooklyn and in the Bronx. That is why they left.
        They didn't leave because El Coqui was making too much
    noise; they didn't leave because the hot water in mani were too
    hot for them. They didn't leave because El Parma, and I don't
    mean El Parma you have today, but El Parma was upsetting them.
        They left because they had no choice; because of economic
    conditions. And you should understand that better than anyone
    else.
        Those economic conditions I claim were the direct result of
    the relationship. So when the relationship is going to be
    defined--and statehood is forever, and independence is forever,
    and hopefully there will be no more colonial forever--when that
    is to be defined, then all the children of the colony should be
    allowed to participate. It is no different than to ask an
    American Jew to turn his back on Israel. It is no different to
    tell African-Americans to turn their back on Haiti or on the
    Continent of Africa.
        But I ask you the difficult question. If you are willing to
    keep me from voting, are you willing to go on the record now
    and say that any Cuban, Dominican, Colombian, Mexican who came
    to Puerto Rico and made a deal with the U.S. Government for
    citizenship--not for the people of Puerto Rico--that they
    should be allowed to vote on that plebiscite, and not me?
        Mr. Fernandez. Congressman, I believe that the Cubans, the
    Guatemalans, the Salvadorans, and all of the people who became
    citizens and now live in Puerto Rico; they work in Puerto
    Rico----
        Mr. Serrano. But they became American citizens, not Puerto
    Rican citizens, right?
        Mr. Fernandez. They became American citizens and live in
    Puerto Rico. No, I mean, U.S. citizens and residents, as well,
    of Puerto Rico, of course.
        But my point is in the regard that they live in Puerto
    Rico, and that everything that happens around them, in terms of
    the economy, in terms of the social structures, has an impact
    over them.
        We have millions of Puerto Ricans living abroad.
        Mr. Serrano. And you don't think the conditions that Puerto
    Rico lives under has an impact on us? What the heck am I doing
    on this panel right now?
        Everything that happens in Puerto Rico has an impact on
    those of us who were born there, and our generations to follow.
    I did not have to prove my worth in New York because I was a
    white, blue-eyed, blond, Anglo Saxon-type American. I had to
    prove my worth because I was seen as a Puerto Rican.
        I had to explain that it was under the American Flag day
    after day, and still do. Everything that happens in Puerto Rico
    has an impact on what happens throughout this nation to Puerto
    Ricans. That is why we left or were forced out by our own
    government in cahoots with the Federal government, but we were
    forced--do you think we created the Puerto Rican parade in New
    York because we like to take a Sunday and march down a big
    street? Do you think we created a Fiesta Forclorica in Hartford
    because they had nothing better to do? It was a reaffirmation
    of who we are.
        And may I remind you that before Puerto Ricans discovered,
    except for some people in this audience, the Puerto Rican Flag
    in the eighties, the Puerto Ricans were keeping it on the fire
    escapes in New York since the 1920s.
        So really think that out, because whether one party likes
    it or the other, somo solo una sola nacion, you know. And that
    has to be remembered forever.
        Mr. Fernandez. And that leads me--thank you, Congressman.
    And that leads me to two points.
        First, the sense of urgency to come with a serious process
    to resolve this matter, so that we don't have hundreds of
    thousands of Puerto Ricans to keep leaving the island because
    they have no future or they feel they have no future for them.
        The sense of urgency--and I really respect your opinion, as
    well, and because of the situations that they went through in
    Puerto Rico, as well--sometimes I feel uncomfortable when I get
    into debates with Puerto Ricans who I admire very much, as
    well, in the mainland, and have fully integrated to the States,
    and talk----
        Mr. Serrano. With all due respect, because my time is
    running out. I really think you need to do more work on this.
    Fully integrated, I don't know what that means. I am as
    American as apple pie, and I am a Member of the U.S. Congress.
    I served in the military. I am as American as apple pie.
        But I never stopped being as Puerto Rican as--I mean, we
    wrap it in paper, but it never changed on the inside. It just
    changed on the outside.
        Mr. Fernandez. I refer to the integration to the States.
        Mr. Serrano. So why do you insist on assuming that we have
    integrated somewhere else, and no longer belong to the nation?
    We are one nation. And that, I am not asking to vote for
    Governor or for President of the Republic once it is
    established. I am not asking for that. I am not asking to vote
    for any Member of Congress there if Puerto Rico is a state.
        But I am saying when this decision is going to be made, it
    belongs to all the children of the colony. And you shouldn't
    try to keep some of us out.
        Mr. Fernandez. If I might say just one thing. I would
    really like to have an opportunity to share more thoughts about
    this, Congressman. I really feel that this is a very important
    issue. It is a very important issue.
        But I want to stress and end with the statement that there
    is a sense of urgency to come into a conclusion of this matter.
    A sense of urgency.
        But I do agree that we have some common ground, and I would
    like to talk to you about that.
        Mr. Serrano. I am afraid you might convince me.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. I would like to thank this
    panel for your testimony and your answers to our questions. And
    this panel is dismissed.
        And we are ready to recognize the third panel of witnesses.
    I believe we can get through on one round. We are going to
    finish before 4:00.
        [Recess.]
        Ms. Christensen. I would like to now recognize the third
    panel of witnesses. They are Mr. Jorge Pedroza, the State
    Council President of Vietnam Veterans of America; Mr. Luis E.
    Gonzalez Vales, the Official Historian of Puerto Rica; Ms.
    Veronica Ferraiuoli, the President of the Puerto Rico Chapter
    of the Federal Bar Association; Ms. Celina Romany, the
    President of the Puerto Rico Bar Association; and Ms. Aida
    Diaz, the President of the Puerto Rico Teachers Association.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pedroza to testify for five
    minutes, and we are going to follow the lights on the table.

    STATEMENT OF JORGE E. PEDROZA, STATE COUNCIL PRESIDENT, VIETNAM
                          VETERANS OF AMERICA

        Mr. Pedroza. Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee
    on Insular Affairs, Committee on Natural Resources of the House
    of Representatives. My name is Jorge Pedroza. I am the
    President of the Vietnam Veterans of America, Puerto Rico State
    Council.
        I appear before this Congressional committee on behalf of
    my organization. I served in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968 with the
    U.S. Army Pathfinder Detachment, Fourth Infantry Division, and
    proud of it.
        Those of us who served in Vietnam performed our duty with
    honor and pride, to defend and preserve our democratic values
    and way of life. Hundreds of my brothers-in-arms died in that
    conflict, and thousands were wounded.
        For those of us who came back, there were no parades or
    celebrations. It took many years and the dedication of the
    Vietnam Memorial monument in Washington, D.C., which we have in
    the back, and a memorial monument in San Juan and many cities
    around the nation, for the American people to at last extend
    the Vietnam veterans the recognition and remembrance they
    justly deserve.
        Today I come before the U.S. Congress to request a similar
    recognition on behalf of over 200,000 veterans who live in
    Puerto Rico, and the thousands of brave young men and women
    from Puerto Rico deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout
    all the world, who proudly wear the U.S. Armed Forces uniform.
        Our request is simple. Give us the opportunity to actively
    participate in American democracy. Veterans of Puerto Rico who
    have so proudly fought in the past, and continue to do so in
    the present, approve legislation authorizing a plebiscite to
    provide the veterans and the people of Puerto Rico the
    opportunity to determine a non-colonial and non-territorial
    political status.
        Puerto Rico is a non-incorporated territory of our nation.
    It has been such since 1898, when the island was invaded by the
    U.S. forces under General Miles. U.S. was entrusted with two
    obligations: civil rights of the inhabitants will be determined
    by Congress, and political status will be determined by
    Congress. It means that the obligation accepted by the U.S.
    Representatives in the Treaty of Paris was to resolve the
    political status of the island, and that rested in Congress.
        The time has come to empower the Puerto Rican men and women
    to make a decision regarding the island's ultimate destiny. Let
    the people of Puerto Rico, with your authorization, decide they
    want to become a State of the Union or an independent republic.
        This request for self-determination is supported by the
    National Organization of the Vietnam Veterans of America. A
    resolution entitled Self-Determination for Puerto Rico was
    unanimously approved at the National Convention held on August
    3 at St. Louis, Missouri. It calls for the U.S. Congress to
    define the legal status options available for Puerto Rico, and
    authorize a plebiscite regarding the island's future. I am
    including with my remarks a copy of said resolution, which is
    this that I have at this moment.
        I understand you have two bills under consideration. The
    bill that represents the position adopted by the Vietnam
    Veterans of America is H.R. 900, introduced by Congressman Jose
    Serrano and 93 co-sponsors, including Chairman Nick Rahall and
    Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Luis Fortuno. We believe this
    bill affords the people of Puerto Rico with the opportunity to
    make an informed decision and directly vote on their status
    preference on constitutionally valid options, as defined by
    Congress.
        Until you, my honorable ladies and gentlemen of this
    committee, act, Puerto Rico will continue suffering of being a
    second-class territory of the Union. And we, the U.S. citizens
    who have served in the U.S. armed services, have paid our
    greatest tribute of all--be willing to give our lives for our
    nation--lack the rights to vote for he who sends us to battle,
    to he who sends us to defend this nation and the right to
    decide our political status.
        Thank you for giving me this opportunity. God bless our
    veterans and our soldiers at home and around the world.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pedroza follows:]

     Statement of Jorge E. Pedroza, President, Vietnam Veterans of America
                             Council of Puerto Rico

        I was born in Cayey, Puerto Rico on November 6, 1947.
        After graduating from high school in May 1967, I volunteered to
    serve my country in the United States Army in June 1967. I served in
    the Vietnam War, participating in the 1968 Tet offensive as an U.S.
    Army Pathfinder 4th Infantry Division in Pleiku South Vietnam. I was
    honorably discharged from service in June 1970.
        Married with 3 children and 2 granddaughters I have lived in
    Guaynabo, Puerto Rico since then.
        In 1987 I joined the Vietnam Veterans of America Organization as
    President of Chapter 59, which held only 11 members. Today the
    membership counts 380 hundred.
        By 1988, I started a protest movement on behalf of my fellowship
    veterans against the Department of Veterans Affairs that lasted 4
    years. The conclusion was the Giusti Bravo lawsuit vs. U.S. Department
    of Veterans Affair. 1,000 compensations, which were taken away from our
    Vietnam veterans in Puerto Rico, were restored as a result by 1992.
    During that same period; 1993 to 1996, I was able to start new chapters
    around the island; Yauco, Ponce, and Arecibo. In 1993 I demanded the
    need for a State Council in Puerto Rico becoming it's president until
    1996 and regaining the position unanimously again in May 2001 to
    present.
        At the age of 59 I still have the strength and pride of being a
    contribution as a servicemen to the greatest country in the world, to
    all the veterans and to my brothers at war.
    STATEMENT
        Madame Chair and members of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs,
    Committee on Natural Resources of the U.S. House of Representatives.
        My name is Jorge E. Pedroza, President of the Vietnam Veterans of
    America Puerto Rico State Council.
        I appear before this Congressional Committee on behalf of my
    organization. I served in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968 with the U.S. Army
    Pathfinder Detachment, 4th Infantry Division.
        Those of us who served in Vietnam performed our duty with honor and
    pride to defend and preserve our democratic values and way of life.
    Hundreds of my brothers in arms died in that conflict, and thousands
    were wounded. For those of us who came back there were no parades or
    celebrations. It took many years and the dedication of the Vietnam
    Memorial Monument in this Capital city and the Memorial Monument in San
    Juan and many cities around the nation, for the American people to at
    last extend to the Vietnam Veterans the recognition and remembrance
    justly deserved.
        Today, I come before the U.S. Congress to request a similar
    recognition on behalf of over 200,000 thousand veterans who live in
    Puerto Rico and the thousands of brave young men and women from this
    island deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and through all the world who
    proudly wear the U.S. Armed Forces uniforms. Our request is simple:
    give us the opportunity to actively participate in the American
    Democracy. Veterans of Puerto Rico have so proudly fought in the past
    and continue to do so in the present. Approve Federal Legislation
    authorizing a plebiscite to provide the veterans and the people of
    Puerto Rico the opportunity to determine a non-colonial and non-
    territorial political status.
        Puerto Rico is a non-incorporated territory of our nation. It has
    been such since 1898 when the island was invaded by the U.S. Forces
    under General Miles. U.S. was entrusted with 2 obligations: Civil
    rights of the inhabitants will be determine by Congress, Political
    status will be determine by Congress.
        It means that the obligation accepted by the U.S. representatives
    in the Treaty of Paris to resolve the political status of the island of
    Puerto Rico rests in Congress.
        The time has come to empower the Puerto Rican men and women to make
    a decision regarding the island's ultimate destiny. Let the people of
    Puerto Rico with your authorization decide if they want to become a
    State of the Union or an independent republic.
        This request for self determination is supported by the National
    Organization of the Vietnam Veterans of America. A resolution entitled
    ``Self-Determination for Puerto Rico'' was unanimously approved at the
    National Convention held on August 3, 2003 in St. Louis, Missouri. It
    calls for the U.S. Congress to define the legal status options
    available for Puerto Rico and authorize a plebiscite regarding the
    island's future. I am including with my remarks a copy of said
    resolution.
        I understand you have (2) two bills under consideration. The bill
    that represents the position adopted by the Vietnam Veterans of America
    is H.R. 900 introduced by Congressman Jose Serrano and 93 co-sponsors,
    including Chairman Nick Rahall and Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner
    Luis Fortuno. We believe this bill affords the people of Puerto Rico
    the opportunity to make an informed decision and directly vote on their
    status preference on constitutionally valid options as defined by
    Congress.
        Until you my honorable ladies and gentleman of this committee act,
    Puerto Rico will continue suffering of being a second class territory
    of the union and we the U.S. citizens who have served in the U.S. Armed
    Services having paid our greatest tribute of all: Be willing to give
    our lives for our nation, lack the rights to vote for he who send us to
    the front lines in combat and the right to decide our political status.
        Thank you for giving me this opportunity. God bless our veterans
    and our soldiers at home and around the world.
        NOTE: Additional information submitted for the record by Mr.
    Pedroza has been retained in the Committee's official files.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Pedroza. We will now hear
    from Mr. Luis Gonzalez Vales, the Official Historian of Puerto
    Rico. Five minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF LUIS E. GONZALEZ VALES,
                   OFFICIAL HISTORIAN OF PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Gonzalez Vales. Madame Chair, Members of the committee,
    I am speaking as the Official Historian, a position created by
    the Legislature in 1903, with tenure for life and not subject
    to recall by any party.
        I am not advocating any status or side. The only
    consideration that has prompted me to appear before the
    committee is my feeling that this may be a historic moment in
    the possible solution to the island's long-standing status
    controversy.
        There is unanimity among all leaders and political groups
    that after 109 years of U.S. sovereignty over Puerto Rico, it
    is time to find a solution that provides a democratic form of
    government at the national government level.
        I am confident that from a historical perspective, the
    Puerto Rico Democracy Act, H.R. 900, would provide a process
    that addresses this central question in a more direct and
    precise way than H.R. 1230. In my judgment, it is more
    democratic, for it places in the hands of all Puerto Rican
    voters the decision. In addition, it provides at each stage
    clearly defined alternatives to choose from.
        Since 1967, there has been a number of status referendums
    and plebiscites which have been inconclusive, because the
    political parties have defined each status option without
    considering their constitutionality. Therefore, it is the
    Government of the United States who has to act to change Puerto
    Rico's status.
        The fundamental flaw of H.R. 1230, in my humble opinion, is
    the inclusion of a new or modified commonwealth status not
    subject to Federal territory governing powers as an option for
    Puerto Rico's future status.
        Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United
    States. Commonwealth is a word in the formal name of its local
    government adopted with the adoption of the territorial
    constitution. It is not now a status in the sense that
    territory, State of the United States, and nations are
    statuses. And very early--and it has been stated here before--
    Governor Munoz and Resident Commissioner Fernos agreed with the
    U.S. Representatives of both Houses of Congress, including this
    Subcommittee's predecessors and with a precedent and Federal
    powers, regarding the territory was not being, the powers
    regarding the territory were not being relinquished, and that
    Puerto Rico remains subject to U.S. Government powers under the
    territory clause. It has been also the conclusion of the
    Supreme Court and Justice and State Departments.
        Puerto Rican proposals for an enhanced commonwealth status
    have been rejected by the U.S. Government repeatedly since soon
    after the local constitution was adopted in 1952. In my
    opinion, there would be a significant difference between the
    constitutional convention proposed by the H.R. 1230 and the
    1950 Convention that resulted in the drafting of the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Constitution.
        Public Law 81.600 included specific parameters to guide the
    work of the convention. Then a consensus was reached among all
    convention delegates, regardless of their political
    affiliation, as to how the local government should be
    organized, and unanimity was nearly achieved.
        Today, with the present polarization among the major
    political parties, there is a strong possibility that a
    convention may end deadlock, making the solution to the status
    question nearly impossible.
        H.R. 1230 also excludes one of Puerto Rico's status
    options: nationhood in a true free association with the United
    States, which has been recognized by President Clinton and the
    President's Task Force on Puerto Rico.
        H.R. 1230 would further recognize an inherent authority of
    the people of Puerto Rico to call a constitutional convention
    in the territory, authority which is provided by U.S. Public
    Law 81.600.
        H.R. 900 otherwise would provide a good process for
    determining Puerto Rico's status preference, the process
    recommended by the Presidential Task Force on Puerto Rico's
    Status, established initially by President Clinton and
    continued by President Bush. It includes all the options for
    Puerto Rico recognized to date. It provides for the current
    status to continue if, and as long as, the voters want it. It
    provides a process for the issue to be resolved in the future
    if there is not a majority for seeking the territory's ultimate
    democratic status in an initial or subsequent vote.
        Finally, it is my opinion that Congress, after more than a
    century of being entrusted with the responsibility by Article
    IX of the Treaty of Paris of 1898, must act to provide a viable
    solution to this longstanding issue which has consumed a lot of
    energies that could be better spent addressing the island's
    social and economic problems.
        I have appeared before you, for I strongly believe that it
    is time that Puerto Rico ceases to be foreign in a domestic
    sense.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzalez Vales follows:]

                     Statement of Luis E. Gonzalez Vales,
                       Official Historian of Puerto Rico

        I am speaking as the Official Historian, a position created by the
    Legislature in 1903, with tenure for life and not subject to recall by
    any party. I am not advocating any status or side. The only
    consideration that has prompted me to appear before the Committee is my
    feeling that this may be a historic moment in the possible solution the
    Island's long standing status controversy.
        There is unanimity among all leaders and political groups that
    after 109 years of U.S. sovereignty over Puerto Rico is time to find a
    solution that provides a democratic form of government at the national
    government level.
        I am confident that from a historical perspective the Puerto Rico
    Democracy Act, H.R. 900, would provide a process could resolve this
    central question ``the ultimate solution to the status issue ``whereas
    H.R. 1230 might not. In my judgment it is more democratic for it places
    the decision directly in the hands of all Puerto Rican voters. In
    addition it provides, at each stage clearly-defined ``and real status--
    alternatives to choose from.
        Beginning in 1967, the Commonwealth has held a three (3) status
    referendums which have been inconclusive because the status options
    have been proposed without considering their constitutionality. It is
    the Government of the United States who has to act to change Puerto
    Rico's status, so the federal positions on local status proposals are
    needed to ensure a meaningful choice.
        The fundamental flaw of H.R. 1230 is the inclusion of a ``new or
    modified Commonwealth status'' not subject to federal territory
    governing powers as an option for Puerto Rico's future status (that
    could be chosen by what is called a ``constitutional convention'' even
    thought it would not draft a constitution).
        Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States.
    ``Commonwealth'' is a word in the formal name of its local government
    adopted with the adoption of the territorial constitution; it is not
    now a status in the sense that territory, State of the United States,
    and nation are statuses. Puerto Rico's representatives in the U.S.
    legislative process that authorized and approved the local
    constitution, Governor Munoz and Resident Commissioner Fernos, agreed
    with the U.S. representatives of both houses of Congress--including
    this Subcommittee's predecessor--and the President's administration
    that federal powers regarding the territory were not being
    relinquished. That Puerto Rico remains subject to U.S. Government
    powers under the Territory Clause has been the conclusion of the
    Supreme Court, the Justice and State Departments, successive
    Presidents, the Congress, Government Accountability Office and Library
    of the Congress, the House of Representatives, and the Senate
    committee.
        Puerto Rican proposals for a ``Commonwealth'' status have been
    rejected by the U.S. Government repeatedly since soon after the local
    constitution was adopted in 1952. Past proposals were made in:
    legislation in the 1950's; negotiations between Gov. Munoz and the
    Kennedy White House; legislation in the 1960's; legislation in the
    1970's based upon the results of a referendum in 1967 that result in a
    majority for a ``Commonwealth'' with some national government powers
    with continued U.S. jurisdiction benefits; legislation between 1989 and
    ``91; a referendum in 1993 that resulted in a plurality--not a
    majority--for a ``Commonwealth'' immune from federal tax and other laws
    and for restoration of tax exemptions for the Puerto Rico income of
    companies based in the States that had just been cut by the President
    and Congress, trade protection for Puerto Rican products that
    contradicted NAFTA and GATT, and $1.5 billion a year in additional
    social programs funding; legislation that passed the U.S. House in
    1998; and unsuccessfully arguing before the federal court that the
    definition of the current status on a 1998 referendum ballot was
    erroneous.
        In my estimation there would be a significant difference between
    the constitutional convention proposed in H.R. 1230 and the 1950
    convention that resulted in the drafting of the Commonwealth of Puerto
    Rico Constitution under which our Government has functioned during the
    past fifty five years. Public Law 81-600 included specific parameters
    to guide the work of the Convention. Then a consensus was reached among
    all convention delegates regardless of their political affiliation as
    to how the local government should be organized and unanimity was
    nearly achieved. Today, with the present polarization among the major
    political parties there is a strong possibility that a convention may
    end deadlock making the solution to the status question nearly
    impossible. And this ``constitutional convention'', unlike de 1950-2
    convention would not have the purpose of writing a constitution for an
    already-determined status; it would have the purpose of choosing a
    status from among proposals that cannot be reconciled--a choice that
    should be made by the people directly.
        H.R. 1230 also excludes on of Puerto Rico's status options:
    nationhood in a true free association with the United States, which has
    been recognized by President Clinton, the President's Task Force on
    Puerto Rico's status; and H.R. 900.
        H.R. 1230 would, additionally, define the ``People of Puerto Rico''
    differently than the reference in the local Constitution of Puerto Rico
    approved by U.S. Public Law 82-447. The bill includes individuals who
    do not live in Puerto Rico who were born in the island or who had one
    parent born in the island. And it would provide for these ``non-
    resident Puerto Ricans'' to vote in the determination of the future
    status of Puerto Rico even if they had no other connection with the
    island, diluting and skewing the vote of the actual people of Puerto
    Rico. There is no precedent in the U.S. law for persons resident in one
    U.S. jurisdiction to vote in another U.S. jurisdiction.
        H.R. 1230 would, further, recognize an ``inherent authority'' of
    ``the People of Puerto Rico'' to call a ``Constitutional Convention''
    in the territory. The authority for Puerto Rico to call a
    constitutional convention is provided by U.S. Public Law 81-600.
        The one questionable provision of H.R. 900 would enfranchise
    individuals who are not residents of Puerto Rico but who were born in
    the island to vote in the determination of Puerto Rico's status
    preference.
        H.R. 900 otherwise would provide a good process for determining
    Puerto Rico's status preference, the process recommended by the
    President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status established by President
    Clinton through Executive Order 13183 and comprised of senior
    appointees of President Bush.
        It includes all of the options for Puerto Rico recognized to date
    ``continued territory status, U.S. statehood, and nationhood, although
    it could be argued based on U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1541 that
    the nationhood option should be separated into separate independent and
    free association options.
        It provides for the current status to continue if--and for as long
    as--the voters want it.
        It provides a process for the issue to be resolved in the future if
    there is not a majority for seeking the territory's ultimate,
    democratic status in an initial or subsequent vote on whether to seek a
    not-territory status.
        Finally it is my opinion that Congress, after more than a century
    of being entrusted with the responsibility by Article IX of the Treaty
    of Paris of 1898, must act to provide a viable solution to this long
    standing issue which has consumed a lot of energies that could be
    better spent addressing the island's socials and economic problems. I
    have appeared before you for I strongly belief that is time that Puerto
    Rico ceases to be ``Foreign in a domestic Sense''. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez. Next I
    would like to recognize Ms. Veronica Ferraiuoli for five
    minutes.

       STATEMENT OF VERONICA FERRAIUOLI, PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICO
                 CHAPTER OF THE FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Ferraiuoli. Good afternoon. My name is Veronica
    Ferraiuoli. I am the President of the Puerto Rico Chapter of
    the Federal Bar Association, and appear before you on its
    behalf.
        The Federal Bar Association is a voluntary non-partisan
    organization whose main objective is to serve as the
    representative of the Federal legal profession in Puerto Rico.
    Currently our chapter boasts about 800 members, and it includes
    practitioners, judges, and students from all political
    ideologies.
        As a representative of the Federal Bar Association, I am
    not here to advocate any particular status choice. However, I
    am here to urge you to protect the integrity and the
    jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
    District of Puerto Rico.
        The options under H.R. 900 are clear with respect to the
    jurisdiction of the Federal Court in Puerto Rico. If status quo
    is chosen, the Federal Court in Puerto Rico will remain
    unchanged. If the people of Puerto Rico choose statehood, the
    Federal Constitution will determine the Federal Court's
    jurisdiction.
        If independence or free association is the choice of the
    people of Puerto Rico, international law will divest the
    Federal judiciary of jurisdiction in Puerto Rico. In contrast,
    the constitutional convention to be held under H.R. 1230
    provides no safeguard or guarantee of the Federal Court's
    continued jurisdiction in Puerto Rico. Without such a guarantee
    that the Federal Court's current jurisdiction will be
    respected, as long as Puerto Ricans continue to be citizens of
    the United States, the Federal Bar Association cannot support
    this bill.
        Changes in the political relationship between Puerto Rico
    and the United States may necessitate changes in the
    jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in Puerto Rico.
    Historically, discussions regarding changes in Puerto Rico's
    political status have been accompanied by attempts to limit or
    abolish Federal Court jurisdiction in the island. This, even
    when the proposals sought to maintain or to grant United States
    citizenships for Puerto Ricans.
        Our written statement details the many attempts at this,
    all of which have failed to date. Suffice it to say that what
    began as a court for the foreigners and the wealthy in Puerto
    Rico has become the court of choice for persons seeking redress
    or protection from commonwealth action.
        After the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
    especially, the number of cases seeking redress from
    commonwealth action filed before the Federal Court has
    increased substantially. In addition, that court has
    experienced an increase in the filing of constitutional
    challenges to both Federal and commonwealth law.
        But even in the face of the growing popularity and prestige
    of the Puerto Rico Federal Court in the minds of the general
    population, limitations to its jurisdiction continue to be
    advanced. Veiled in H.R. 1230 is a proposal for a new
    commonwealth, which provides that while Puerto Ricans will
    continue to be citizens of the United States by birth, the
    Puerto Rico District Court's jurisdiction will be limited to
    matters arising from the Federal Constitution and whichever
    Federal laws apply in Puerto Rico and are not inconsistent with
    the laws of the commonwealth.
        It would appear that under this proposal, the Federal Court
    in Puerto Rico would be divested of diversity jurisdiction. In
    addition, it appears that under this proposal, the Federal
    Court will lack jurisdiction over statutory challenges to
    commonwealth law, such as actions under the 1964 Civil Rights
    Act.
        Further, under this proposal the Federal Court's
    jurisdiction will be left to the whim of the commonwealth, who
    could enact statutes which would strip the Federal Court of its
    jurisdiction.
        Despite a history of constant attempts to limit the
    jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in Puerto Rico, it currently
    holds a privileged place among the Federal District Courts in
    the United States, territories, or commonwealth-affiliated
    unions with the United States.
        The District Court for the District of Puerto Rico is the
    only Article III Court in the territories. Moreover, the very
    differences which have been used in the past to support the
    integration of Federal jurisdiction to the local court system
    have placed the Federal forum in a privileged place within the
    life of the citizens of Puerto Rico. The Federal right to a
    jury trial in civil cases is unavailable in our local courts,
    and has made the Federal Courts the forum of choice for
    plaintiffs in diversity cases.
        This notwithstanding, the Federal Court continues to be the
    preferred forum for American and foreign corporations, which
    language and practice are more familiar than that of the local
    courts. Moreover, the fact that commonwealth judges are
    appointed for terms, as opposed to lifetime tenure, has led to
    a perception of politicization in the local judiciary cases
    involving the commonwealth, since they, the judiciary, depend
    on the favor of the executive to be reappointed, and of the
    Legislative Assembly to be confirmed.
        Puerto Rico remains subject to Federal powers under the
    territory clause of the United States. The government initially
    established pursuant to the Foraker Act, and continued by the
    Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act, has left many questions
    unanswered regarding the relationship between Puerto Rico and
    the United States.
        However, the Federal system interacts and coexists with
    local law. It has become the preferred forum for the people of
    Puerto Rico to obtain relief from their grievances, and it has
    become an integral part of the system of justice of Puerto
    Rico, despite all attempts at abolishing it. More than in any
    state it has come to represent the liberties guaranteed by the
    United States Constitution and the Federal laws.
        For this reason, the Federal Bar Association, Puerto Rico
    Chapter, cannot support H.R. 1230. We cannot support a bill
    which, unlike H.R. 900, fails to guarantee the continued
    existence of a Federal court system in Puerto Rico, with
    jurisdiction consistent with that of all states so long as
    Puerto Ricans continue to be United States citizens.
        I thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ferraiuoli follows:]

                       Statement of Veronica Ferraiuoli,
               Puerto Rico Chapter of the Federal Bar Association

        Good morning. My name is Veronica Ferraiuoli. I appear before you
    on behalf of the Puerto Rico Chapter of the Federal Bar Association
    (the ``FBA''). 1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The position taken herein is that of the Puerto Rico Chapter of
    the Federal Bar Association only. The National Council of the
    Association has not taken any public position regarding these bills.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The FBA is a voluntary, non-partisan organization whose main
    objective is to serve as the representative of the Federal legal
    profession in Puerto Rico. Currently, our Chapter boasts about 800
    members and it includes practitioners, judges and students from all
    political ideologies.
        As a representative of the FBA, I am not here to advocate any
    particular status choice. However, I am here to urge you to protect the
    integrity and the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for
    the District of Puerto Rico as an integral part of the proceedings
    before this Subcommittee.
        Since all of Puerto Rico's status proposals involve changes in
    federal law and policy, Puerto Ricans need to know federal positions on
    the proposed options so they can make an informed, meaningful, and fair
    choice.
        The options under H.R. 900 are clear with respect to the
    jurisdiction of the federal court in Puerto Rico. If the status quo
    option is chosen by the people of Puerto Rico, the federal court in
    Puerto Rico will remain unchanged by this choice. If the people of
    Puerto Rico choose statehood as their option, Article III of the United
    States Constitution and federal law will determine the federal court's
    jurisdiction. If independence is the choice of the people of Puerto
    Rico, international law will prevail and will divest the federal
    judiciary of jurisdiction in Puerto Rico.
        In contrast, the Constitutional Convention to be held under H.R.
    1230 provides no safeguard or guarantee of the federal court's
    continued jurisdiction in Puerto Rico. Without such a guarantee--that
    the federal court's current jurisdiction will be respected as long as
    Puerto Ricans continue to be citizens of the United States, the FBA
    cannot support this bill.
    The History of Federal Jurisdiction in Puerto Rico
        The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has its
    genesis in the U.S. Provisional Court for the Department of Puerto
    Rico. It was established by Governor Davis on June 27, 1899 with
    judicial power extending to all cases that would otherwise fall within
    the jurisdiction of the United States circuit or district courts, over
    violations to the United States Constitution and all common law
    offenses. 2 The Provisional Court followed the same law and
    equity principles as the United States courts and, for its procedures,
    rules, and case management, it was to follow as closely as possible
    those of the federal courts. Three judges were appointed to the
    Provisional Court, who were vested the with the same powers as the
    judges of the other federal circuit or district courts. Spanish
    citizens still residing in the Island welcomed the Provisional Court;
    they saw the federal court as the only forum which would guarantee
    their property rights under the Treaty of Paris. The Provisional Court
    was, thus, the safe heaven of foreigners seeking protection from the
    perceived injustices of the local governing body.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ General Order No. 88, San Juan, P.R. June 27, 1899, Brigadier
    General George W. Davis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Puerto Rico was under military rule from October 18, 1898 through
    April 30, 1900. On May 1, 1900, the Foraker Act came into effect.
    3 This first Organic Act established that the Island was a
    territory belonging to the United States and contained no provisions
    for the Island's political development towards statehood or
    independence. Puerto Ricans were denied U.S. citizenship at that time;
    a political body was created under the name of the ``People of Porto
    Rico'' entitled to the protection of the United States, with no
    provisions for the implementation of the United States Constitution or
    the Bill of Rights.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Foraker Act, Ch. 191, 31 Stat. 77, 48 U.S.C. Sec. 731; Organic
    Act of 1099, April 12, 1900, Historical Documents, P.R. Statutes
    Annotated, Vol. I, 24-29 (1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With respect to the federal judiciary, Congress provided for the
    judicial District of Porto Rico, created pursuant to the Territorial
    Clause of the United States Constitution, to be the successor of the
    Provisional Court. Although, this court initially enjoyed the same
    ordinary jurisdiction on all matters that would come before the
    district courts or the circuit courts of the United States, Congress
    extended its jurisdiction to civil matters ``where the parties or
    either of them, are citizens of the United States, or citizens or
    subjects of a foreign State or States, wherein the matter in dispute
    exceeds'' $1,000. 4 Under this expanded diversity
    jurisdiction, United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico were
    granted the option of suing in the insular courts or in federal courts,
    a right not extended to Puerto Ricans. 5 The establishment
    of a federal forum where foreign and U.S. citizens could take their
    civil and constitutional claims proved to be a necessary tool to
    attract foreign capital since American investors felt wary of a
    language they did not understand and a legal system with unfamiliar
    procedures. 6
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ An Act of Congress of March 2, 1901, P.R. Statutes Annotated,
    Historical Documents, Vol. I, 52-54.
        \5\ Jose Trias Monge, Historial Constitucional de Puerto Rico, Vol.
    I, (Ed. U.P.R. 1980), at 295.
        \6\ Guillermo A. Baralt, History of the Federal Court in Puerto
    Rico: 1899-1999 (Publicaciones Puertorriquenas 2004), at167-168.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It was not long after the Foraker Act came into effect when the
    deficiencies of the governmental structure established thereunder came
    to light and local voices started crying out for reform. The structure
    of the Puerto Rico district court was one of the matters that often
    came up during the debates to amend the Foraker Act. For example, the
    Olmstead Bill to amend the Foraker Act, introduced in March 1910,
    included a clause to limit the federal court's diversity jurisdiction
    to causes involving American citizens who were not domiciliaries of
    Puerto Rico. 7 The bill for a new organic act introduced in
    1912 by Senator Jones also originally included a provision to limit
    diversity jurisdiction in the same manner provided for in the Olmstead
    Bill. 8
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ The Olmstead Bill had various versions. The principal ones were
    H.R. 22554 and H.R. 23000, 61st Cong., 2nd Session.
        \8\ H.R. 13818, 63rd Cong., 2nd Session.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        During this period, the federal court came under strong opposition
    from local institutions. On March 9, 1915, the P.R. House of Delegates
    approved a resolution calling for the President and Congress to grant
    Puerto Rico a republican form of government; and further called for the
    ``exclusive jurisdiction of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court...in all
    matters pertaining to the District and Circuit Courts of the United
    States.'' 9 In 1916, the Puerto Rico Bar Association
    publicly supported the abolition or limitation of the federal court's
    jurisdiction in Puerto Rico stressing the efficiency and integrity of
    the insular court judges and the problems caused by the use of the
    English language in the federal court on the Island, objected to the
    court's broad jurisdiction, and recommended that the Puerto Rico
    Supreme Court hear all cases involving federal questions. 10
    On April 18, 1916, the House of Delegates again called for the
    suppression of the federal court in Puerto Rico and the transfer of its
    jurisdiction to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court based on the later's
    ``prestige''. 11
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Trias Monge, Historia Constitucional de Puerto Rico, Vol. II
    (Ed. U.P.R. 1981), at 61.
        \10\ Baralt, op. cit., at 161.
        \11\ Trias Monge, Historia Constitucional de Puerto Rico, Vol. II
    (Ed. U.P.R. 1981), at 61-62.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Organic Act of 1917 came into effect on March 2, 1917.
    12 The final, approved version of the Organic Act of 1917
    ratified the presence of the federal court in Puerto Rico, even over
    the strenuous objections of the House of Delegates and of the Puerto
    Rico Bar Association and their requests for the elimination of the
    federal court. The federal court was granted jurisdiction over ``all
    controversies [exceeding $3,000] where all of the parties on either
    side of the controversy are citizens or subjects of a foreign State or
    States, or citizens of a State, Territory, or District of the United
    States not domiciled in Puerto Rico'' and ``of all controversies in
    which there is a separable controversy involving such jurisdictional
    amount and in which all of the parties on either side of such separable
    controversy are citizens or subjects of the character aforesaid.''
    13 This notwithstanding, the United States Supreme Court did
    limit the federal court's jurisdiction soon thereafter. In late June
    1920, the Supreme Court interpreted the Organic Act of 1917 to exclude
    from federal jurisdiction those cases involving aliens domiciled in
    Puerto Rico. 14 A year later, that court also found federal
    jurisdiction to have been denied to American citizens domiciled in
    Puerto Rico. 15
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Organic Act of 1917, March 2, 1917, Ch. 145, 39 Stat. 951.
        \13\ Organic Act of 1917, Sec. 41.
        \14\ Agueros v. Sanjurjo, 11 P.R. Fed. 574 (1920).
        \15\ Alvarez v. Madera, 12 P.R. Fed. 278 (1921).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The federal court's jurisdiction remained basically unchanged
    through the status proceedings related to Public Law 600 and the
    establishment in 1952 of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, except for
    one thing: Public Law 600 granted the federal court in Puerto Rico
    jurisdiction over diversity cases where neither of the parties were
    residents of Puerto Rico, even if they resided in the same state.
    16 But the ink was not yet dry on Public Law 600 when the
    jurisdiction of the federal court was challenged. Less than ten years
    after its enactment, changes to the court's jurisdiction were
    prominently included in the amendments to Public Law 600 contained in
    the Fernos-Murray Bill; the applicable provisions provided for the
    federal court for the District of Puerto Rico to share the same
    jurisdiction as those of the other States. Federal jurisdiction was
    also challenged in court, where it was alleged that, as a result of the
    creation of the Commonwealth, Congress had voluntarily and irrevocably
    granted Puerto Rico full and absolute responsibility over all internal
    affairs and, thus, abandoned federal jurisdiction over matters
    involving strictly Commonwealth law. None of these attempts prospered.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ This special grant of jurisdiction, which was unique to Puerto
    Rico's district court, was repealed by Public Law 91-272 of June 2,
    1970, 84 Stat. 294, Sec. 13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Not long after, though, the federal court in Puerto Rico underwent
    an important transformation. On September 12, 1966, Public Law 89-571
    was signed, making judiciary appointments in the United States District
    Court for the District of Puerto Rico lifetime appointments under
    Article III of the United States Constitution. The Senate Report stated
    that
            Federal litigants in Puerto Rico should not be denied the
            benefit of judges made independent by life tenure from the
            pressures of those who might influence his chances of
            reappointment, which benefits the Constitution guarantees to
            the litigants in all other Federal courts. 17
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ 1966 U.S. Cong. and Adm. News 2787.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another reason for lifetime appointment was the following:
            the court is now the only judicial agency on Puerto Rico which
            is independent of the Commonwealth government and it will aid
            the district judges to perform their functions impartially,
            particularly in those cases involving the Federal Government on
            one side and the Commonwealth government on the other if they
            have the full independence inherent in a lifetime tenure.
            18
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Id., at 2788.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At that time, the prototypical petitioners before the federal court
    also began to change. After the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
    the number of cases seeking redress from Commonwealth action filed
    before the federal court increased substantially. In addition, the
    court has experienced an increase in the filing of constitutional
    challenges to both federal and Commonwealth law.
        What began as a court for the foreigners and the wealthy, has
    become the court of choice for persons seeking redress or protection
    from Commonwealth action. However, even in the face of the growing
    popularity and prestige of the Puerto Rico federal court in the minds
    of the general population, limitations to its jurisdiction continue to
    be advanced. For example, in the 1998 plebiscite on status, the Popular
    Democratic Party proposed a new Commonwealth providing that, while
    Puerto Ricans will continue to be citizens of the United States by
    birth, the federal court's jurisdiction will be limited to matters
    arising from the United States Constitution and whichever federal laws
    apply in Puerto Rico and not in violation with the laws of the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 19 It would appear that--under
    this proposal--the federal court in Puerto Rico would be divested of
    diversity jurisdiction. In addition, it appears that--under this
    proposal--the federal court would lack jurisdiction over statutory
    challenges to Commonwealth law, such as actions under the 1964 Civil
    Rights Act. Further, under this proposal, any laws that the
    Commonwealth might enact in the future would strip the federal court of
    its jurisdiction under the Constitution and federal laws of the United
    States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Governor Acevedo Vila, the proponent of H.R. 1230, has
    recently stated that the new ``Commonwealth status'' he proposes is
    that adopted by his party's governing board on October 18, 1998, and
    included in his party's platforms of 2000 and 2004. The President's
    Task Force and the Department of Justice called this proposal's
    constitutionality into question because, among other reasons, it would
    empower Puerto Rico to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts and
    nullify the application of federal laws in many areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite a history of constant attempts to limit the jurisdiction of
    the federal court in Puerto Rico, it currently holds a privileged place
    among the federal district courts in the United States' territories or
    commonwealth in affiliated unions with the United States. The territory
    of American Samoa has no federal district court. On the other hand,
    while the territories of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
    Islands, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands do have federal district
    courts, they are territorial courts in every sense of the word.
    Although they enjoy the same jurisdiction as all other United States
    district courts, they are also courts of general jurisdiction for all
    causes which jurisdiction is not otherwise vested in the local courts
    and their judges are appointed to ten-year terms. 20 In
    contrast, the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico is an
    Article III court, with all the benefits and limitations appurtenant
    thereto.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1821 et seq. (District for the Northern Mariana
    Islands); 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1612 et seq. (District for the Virgin
    Islands); 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1424 (District of Guam).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The very differences which have been used in support of the
    integration of federal jurisdiction to the local court system, have
    placed the federal forum in a privileged place within the life of the
    citizens of Puerto Rico. The federal right to a jury trial in civil
    cases--unavailable in local court--has made the federal court the forum
    of choice for plaintiffs in diversity cases, in light of the inadequate
    damage determinations made by local courts. This notwithstanding, the
    federal court continues to be the preferred forum for American and
    foreign corporations, whose language and practice are usually more
    familiar than that in local courts. Moreover, the fact that
    Commonwealth judges are appointed for terms--as opposed to lifetime
    tenure--has led to a perception of politization of the local judiciary
    since they depend on the favor of the Executive to be reappointed and
    of the Legislative Assembly to be confirmed.
    Conclusion
        Puerto Rico remains subject to federal powers under the Territory
    Clause of the United States according to the Supreme Court, Justice and
    State Departments, Congressional Research Service, Government
    Accountability Office, and successive presidents. The government
    initially established pursuant the Foraker Act, and continued by the
    Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act, left many questions unanswered
    regarding the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States.
    Professor Guillermo A. Baralt summarizes some of these questions as
    follows:
            Does the Constitution of the United States follow the flag?
            What is the nature and scope of Congress in governing Puerto
            Rico? Do constitutional amendments apply to the territory of
            Puerto Rico? What is the constitutionality of this new
            territorial status, or of the limitations on the rights of the
            citizens of Puerto Rico? 21
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Baralt, op. cit., at 125-126.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        More than 100 years later and substantial changes to the law, we
    are still grappling with these questions.
        However, we do know what role that the federal court plays in this
    relationship. The federal system interacts and coexists with local law.
    It has become the preferred forum for the people of Puerto Rico to
    obtain relief for their grievances. It has become an integral part of
    the system of justice of Puerto Rico--despite all attempts at limiting
    or abolishing it. More than in any State, it has come to represent the
    liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the federal
    laws.
        For this reason, the FBA cannot support H.R. 1230. We cannot
    support a bill which, unlike H.R. 900, fails to guarantees the
    continued existence of a federal court system in Puerto Rico with
    jurisdiction consistent with that of all States so long as Puerto
    Ricans continue to be United States citizens.
        I thank you for your time.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Celina
    Romany for five minutes.

             STATEMENT OF CELINA ROMANY-SIACA, PRESIDENT,
                      PUERTO RICO BAR ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Romany-Siaca. Good afternoon, Madame Chairwoman and
    Members of the committee. My name is Celina Romany, and I
    appear before you as President of the Puerto Rico Bar
    Association, an organization founded in 1840. It is one of the
    oldest professional associations in the Americas, approximately
    groups 14,000 lawyers of diverse political and ideological
    preferences. And notwithstanding this reality, the Colegio de
    Abogados, as we call it, has historically been an advocate of
    the decolonization of Puerto Rico, and has advocated for a
    solution that emerges from Puerto Rico, from its people, the
    ultimate depository of political sovereignty.
        It has consistently supported the need to seriously address
    this issue with the political will required for correcting the
    democratic deficit inherent in the denial of a people's
    fundamental human right to sovereignty and self-determination.
        Our Bar Association has provided a constitutional and
    democratic theoretical and practical perspective, as well as an
    international law dimension, to a passionate debate that often
    ends up stationed in parties and political allies.
        The long trail that precedes today's Congressional effort
    speaks for itself, and reflects the U.S. officials' inability
    to grasp the essential components of a colonial relationship.
    But more importantly, it also reflects the dangerous paths of
    the control exercised by partisan politics. The Puerto Rican
    people have not been able to enter the stage on the political
    status question, and H.R. 1230, the Puerto Rico Self-
    Determination Act, constitutes a first entrance. It lays out a
    significant foundation toward the eradication of a colonial
    relationship, out of sync with democratic values, and which
    give voice to all Puerto Ricans, from here and there, in the
    design and elaboration of their political destiny.
        H.R. 1230 additionally provides a first opportunity to
    build a mechanism for the democratic deliberations of all
    political sectors. It also represents the first Congressional
    acknowledgment of a people's natural right to self-
    determination, the contours of which have been amply refined by
    an international society much different to the one existing at
    the U.N. of the fifties, the time when Puerto Rico was removed
    from the list of non-self-governing territories.
        This is the first time in more than 100 years, and this
    Congress, increasingly representative of a diverse Latino
    population, increasingly learning to walk the tightrope of
    national and cultural identities, of plurality and difference,
    increasingly aware of Latin-American neighbors watching the
    inconsistencies in our backyard, must rise to the occasion.
        A first scenario, that by granting our people the status
    convention assembly option provided in H.R. 1230, offers a
    remedy for a whole century witnessing the egregious violations
    of basic political human rights.
        H.R. 1230 acknowledges the fairness and legitimacy of said
    convention assembly as a vehicle of expression which allows the
    articulation of non-colonial alternatives not bound by the
    straitjacket of the territorial clause and its plenary powers.
        In light of this morning's discussion, I might add that the
    issue before you and before your consideration is how to
    channel that expression, and avoid destructing historical
    discussions about the specific contours of substantive status
    options that stirs passions and misinformation. We should be
    here today talking about implementing a consensus, as
    Commissioner Fortuno pointed out, toward the decolonialization,
    and must underscore as well that the constitutional analysis
    that has been discussed here today has missed a central point
    of our constitutional law: specifically, the recognition of a
    dynamic constitution that distances itself from a strict
    constructionist approach in dissonance with basic international
    human rights principles, and which imprisons in an invalid box
    a territorial clause that, as Professor Pildes suggested, has
    correctly characterized as one demanding the pragmatism, the
    flexibility long recognized in foreign policy relations.
        I think that the deliberative mechanism proposed by H.R.
    1230 proposes the unleashing of a political and negotiation
    process that guarantees a non-colonial outcome. That is why the
    Puerto Rico Bar Association has its Board of Governors approve
    such bill, and has also supported a similar bill in the Puerto
    Rico Legislature. Puerto Rico is our nation, a Latin-American
    and Caribbean nation, which has been denied its right to self-
    determination, notwithstanding several U.N. decolonialization
    resolutions translating recognized international principles.
    Regardless of the systematic and prolonged violations of basic
    and universal human rights, the Executive Branch of this
    government insists that Puerto Rico is a U.S. commodity, which
    can indeed be freely trafficked and ceded in any international
    exchange.
        The President's Task Force report, presented to Congress in
    December 2005, constitutes an unfortunate reminder of the
    stagnation of the colonial relationship. That task force
    discourse is not far removed from Senator Joseph Foraker's
    words of 105 years ago, when he stated that we have a right to
    legislate with respect to them as we may see fit. Nor is it far
    removed from the Supreme Court of 106 years ago that justified
    the territorial clause on the basis of alien races.
        Madame Chairwoman, to privilege a constitutional clause
    that clashes against the wall of basic universal principles and
    of the political lessons brought about by the convulsions of
    the 20th Century, amounts to nothing else but to the
    privileging of imperial periods, an empire camouflaged in self-
    serving interpretations of the rule of law.
        And to conclude, there is no more time to waste. No more
    detours or delays are acceptable. For the first time this
    Congress has the opportunity to legitimize the entrance of the
    Puerto Rican people to the deliberative stage and the outcome
    of its self-determination deliberation as an equal sovereign.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Romany-Siaca follows:]

                 Statement of Celina Romany-Siaca, President,
               Puerto Rico Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados)

        My name is Celina Romany and I appear before you as President of
    the Puerto Rico Bar Association. Our organization, founded in 1840, and
    one of the oldest professional associations in the Americas,
    approximately groups on a compulsory basis, 14,000 lawyers of diverse
    political and ideological preferences. Notwithstanding this reality,
    the Colegio de Abogados has historically been an advocate of the
    decolonization of Puerto Rico, both under the Spanish and United States
    regimes. It has advocated for a solution that emerges from Puerto Rico,
    from its people, the ultimate repository of political sovereignty. It
    has consistently supported the need to seriously address this issue
    with the political will required for correcting the democratic deficit
    inherent in the denial of a people's fundamental human right to
    sovereignty and self-determination.
        Our Bar Association has played a key advocacy and educational role
    in the public debate. Through its Constitutional Development Commission
    has provided a constitutional and democratic theoretical and practical
    perspective as well as an international law dimension to a passionate
    debate that often ends up stationed in partisan political alleys.
        The long trail that precedes today's congressional effort speaks
    for itself and reflects the United States officials' inability to grasp
    the essential components of a colonial relationship. But more
    importantly, it also reflects the dangerous paths of the control
    exercised by partisan politics. The Puerto Rican people have not been
    able to enter the stage on the political status question and H.R. 1230,
    the Puerto Rico Self Determination Act, constitutes a first entrance.
    It lays out a significant foundation towards the eradication of a
    colonial relationship, out of sync with democratic values which give
    voice to all Puerto Ricans--from here and there--in the design and
    elaboration of their political destiny.
        H.R. 1230 additionally provides a first opportunity to build a
    mechanism for the democratic deliberations of all political sectors. It
    also represents the first congressional acknowledgement of a people's
    natural right to self-determination, the contours of which have been
    amply refined by an international society much different to the one
    existing at the United Nations of the 50's, the time when Puerto Rico
    was removed from the list of non-self-governing territories.
        This is a first in more than a hundred years, and this Congress,
    increasingly representative of a diverse Latino population;
    increasingly learning to walk the tightrope of national and cultural
    identities--of plurality and difference; increasingly aware of Latin
    American neighbors watching the inconsistencies in our backyard, must
    rise to the occasion. A first scenario that, by granting our people the
    Status Convention/Assembly option provided in H.R. 1230, offers a
    remedy for a whole century witnessing the egregious violations of basic
    political human rights.
        H.R. 1230 acknowledges the fairness and legitimacy of said
    Convention/Assembly as a vehicle of expression which allows the
    articulation of non-colonial alternatives--not bound by the straight-
    jacket of the territorial clause and its plenary powers. Section 2 of
    the bill correctly emphasizes that any ``self-determination option''
    agreed by the Puerto Rican Convention ``must be based on the
    sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico and not be subject to the
    plenary powers of the territorial clause of the Constitution of the
    United States.'' Another essential provision of the bill is included in
    its Section 4(a)(2), which establishes that, if Congress rejects a
    self-determination proposal submitted to it by the People of Puerto
    Rico, the Convention may reconvene ``to adopt another Self-
    Determination Option;'' while Section 5 adds that the Convention ``may
    remain in session until a Self-Determination Proposal is enacted by
    Federal law.'' Hence, H.R. 1230 proposes the unleashing of a political,
    deliberative and negotiation process that must guarantee a non-colonial
    outcome. Thus, the Puerto Rico Bar Association in a Resolution approved
    by its Board of Governors, commends and supports bill H.R. 1230.
    1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ H.R. 900 is silent as to what Congress should do in case either
    the ``statehood'' or the ``sovereign nation'' option wins; is silent as
    to the implementation of the winning alternative; and thus it does not
    map out the direction that the relations between the two nations would
    follow. In contrast, H.R. 1230 requires Congress to respond to the
    options previously approved by the People of Puerto Rico and for the
    expiration of the Convention only when one non colonial status is
    finally approved by both the People of Puerto Rico and Congress.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Puerto Rico is our nation, a Latin-American and Caribbean nation
    which has been denied its right to self-determination notwithstanding
    several UN Decolonization Committee resolutions, translating recognized
    international law principles. Regardless of the systematic and
    prolonged violations of basic and universal human rights, the Executive
    Branch of the current government insists that Puerto Rico is a U.S.
    commodity which can indeed be freely trafficked and ceded in any
    international exchange. The President's Task Force Report, presented to
    Congress in December 2005, constitutes an unfortunate reminder of the
    stagnation of a colonial relationship. The Task Force essential
    discourse is not far removed from Senator Joseph Foraker's words of a
    hundred and five (105) years ago when he stated that ``we have a right
    to legislate with respect to them as we may see fit.'' 2 Nor
    is it far removed from the Supreme Court of a hundred six( 106) years
    ago that justified the territorial clause on the basis of alien races.
    3
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Congressional Record, Senate, March 2, 1900, pag. 2475; cited
    in Ronald Fernandez, The Disenchanted Island: Puerto Rico and the
    United States in the Twentieth Century 9 (1992).
        \3\ Downes v Bidwell 182 U.S. 244 (1901), at 286-87
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Madame Chair, to privilege a constitutional clause that crashes
    against the wall of basic universal principles and of the political
    lessons brought about by the convulsions of the 20th century, amounts
    to nothing else but to the privileging of imperial periods, an empire
    camouflaged in self-serving interpretations of the rule of law.
        There is no more time to waste; no more detours or delays are
    acceptable. H.R. 1230, for the first time, legitimizes the entrance of
    the Puerto Rican people to the deliberative stage and thus the outcome
    of its self-determination deliberation, as an equal sovereign.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you very much. Our last panelist,
    last but not least, is Ms. Aida Diaz. You will be recognized
    for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF AIDA DIAZ, PRESIDENT,
                    PUERTO RICO TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Diaz. Good afternoon, Honorable Donna M. Christensen,
    Chair of the Subcommittee, and honorable Members of this
    committee.
        My name is Aida Diaz, President of the Puerto Rico Teachers
    Association, a non-partisan, voluntary membership organization
    of 26,000 teachers, which advocates for the welfare of the
    Puerto Rican teacher since its foundation in 1911. As an
    organization we have members who belong to the three main
    political parties, and we do not advocate or endorse any
    particular statutes.
        The teachers appreciate the opportunity to share our
    thoughts on the two bills introduced in the Congress to provide
    a process to move Puerto Rico to a new political status, H.R.
    900 and H.R. 1230. As educators, we have to take a critical
    look as to which process promotes a better educational
    opportunity for the people of Puerto Rico to learn about the
    political options available to our future.
        Objectively, after viewing both bills we firmly believe
    that H.R. 1230 provides for a better educational experience and
    a simpler process. We are prepared to endorse H.R. 1230 only if
    the matters below described are included in the bill. H.R. 1230
    promotes a constitutional convention in which elected delegates
    would debate the full extent of the political options
    available, would choose one, and have its acceptance put to a
    vote of the people of Puerto Rico.
        The format of a constitutional convention constitutes a
    process which is less complicated, and thus better suited to
    reach a definite result within a shorter period of time. It
    also seems less prone to manipulations of politicians in their
    characterizations of the options as presented to the people;
    vis-a-vis, a simple plebiscite with the three status options.
        H.R. 1230 offers a balanced approach, confers our people
    ample opportunity to analyze and learn in a detailed manner
    about the self-determination options.
        It could further specify delegates need not to be the
    exclusive representatives of political parties. Gender
    representation should be addressed in order to guarantee a
    balanced representation, since women are a majority of the
    electorate in Puerto Rico. Congress needs to appropriate funds
    to share in the financing of this option. Congress needs to put
    a date certain by which the constitutional convention is
    constituted.
        H.R. 1230 calls for a process of a superior quality. The
    definition of the political status option shall be the product
    of the Puerto Rican delegates elected by the people of Puerto
    Rico. The chosen option should be later ratified by the Puerto
    Rican electorate.
        Under H.R. 900, the political options are defined by the
    Congress, not by the people of Puerto Rico. H.R. 900 offers a
    very complicated process with multiple electoral events.
    Furthermore, the second plebiscite proposal of H.R. 900 is
    flawed. It pretends to limit the status options available to
    only two.
        There is now consensus in Puerto Rico the present political
    relationship with the United States is unacceptable. Free
    association is a recognized international status option which
    needs to be included. The United States has ample experience in
    this field with three relationships of free association
    presently in existence: Federated States of Micronesia,
    Republic of Marshall Islands, and Palau.
        So if the committee prefers H.R. 900 as the vehicle for
    Puerto Rico to adopt a new political status, then it needs to
    amend it to eliminate the first plebiscite and legislate on the
    plebiscite with the three options as recognized by the
    resolution 1541 of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
    as approved in 1960.
        One, emergency as a sovereign independent state. Two, free
    association with independent state. Three, integration with an
    independent state. Also, Congress has to recognize the
    jurisdiction of the local courts over any plebiscite. Congress
    also needs to consider the development of an objective
    educational campaign.
        The State Election Commission with an advisory committee
    constituted of institutions such as ours would implement a
    campaign to address the political options and the peculiarities
    of each one objectively. This campaign could serve to clarify
    concepts debated by the delegates which may need further
    explanation. Again, this goes further our concern to have an
    educated electorate.
        We urge you to adopt, with amendments, H.R. 1230. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Diaz follows:]

                      Statement of Aida Diaz, President,
                    Puerto Rico Teacher's Association (PRTA)

        Honorable Donna M. Christensen, Chair of the Sub-Committee and
    honorable members of this committee.
        My name is Aida Diaz, President of the Puerto Rico Teachers
    Association (PRTA), a non-partisan voluntary membership organization of
    26,000 teachers which advocates for the welfare of the Puerto Rican
    teacher since its foundation in 1911.
        The teachers appreciate the opportunity to share our thoughts on
    the two bills introduced in Congress to provide a process to move
    Puerto Rico to a new political status, H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. As
    educators we have to take a critical look as to which process promotes
    a better educational opportunity for the People of Puerto Rico to learn
    about the political options available to our future. Objectively, after
    reviewing H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, we firmly believe H.R. 1230 provides
    for a better educational experience and a simpler process. Educating
    the electorate about the options are key to our future, since as
    Epictetus, the Greek philosopher said: ``Only the educated are free.''
    And, since this process is to set the Puerto Rican people totally free,
    they must be well educated as to the political options available and,
    most importantly, as to how these options promote a better Puerto Rico.
        We are prepared to endorse H.R. 1230 if the matters below described
    are included in the bill. H.R. 1230 promotes a Constitutional
    Convention in which elected delegates would debate the full extent of
    the political options available; choose one and have its acceptance put
    to a vote of the People of Puerto Rico. The format of a Constitutional
    Convention constitutes a process which is less complicated and thus
    better suited to reach a definite result within a shorter period of
    time. It also seems less prone to the manipulations of politicians in
    their characterizations of the options as presented to the people vis a
    vis a simple plebiscite with the three (3) status options. H.R. 1230
    offers a balance approach, confers our people ample opportunity to
    analyze and learn in a detailed manner about the self determination
    options.
        H.R. 1230 could further specified: 1. Delegates need no to be the
    exclusive representatives of political parties; 2. Gender
    representation should be addressed in order to guarantee a balance
    representation, since women are a majority of the electorate; 3.
    Congress needs to appropriate funds to share in the financing of this
    option; and, 4. Congress needs to put a date certain by which the
    Constitutional Convention is constituted.
        H.R. 1230 calls for a process of a superior quality. The definition
    of the political status option shall be the product of the Puerto Rican
    delegates elected by the People of Puerto Rico. The chosen option would
    be later ratified by the Puerto Rican electorate. Under H.R. 900, the
    political options are defined by Congress not the People of Puerto
    Rico. It must be up to our people to decide the political formula or
    status under which they will be governed in the future ``not Congress.
        H.R. 900 offers a very complicated process with multiple electoral
    events. It pretends to limit the status options available to only two
    (2). There is now consensus in Puerto Rico ``the present political
    relationship with the U.S. is unacceptable. Free Association is a
    recognized international status option which needs to be included. The
    U.S. has ample experience in this field with three relationships of
    Free Association presently in existence: Federated States of
    Micronesia; Republic of Marshall Islands; and, Palau.
        So, if this Committee prefers H.R. 900 as the vehicle for Puerto
    Rico to adopt a new political status, then its needs to amend it to
    eliminate the first plebiscite and legislate one plebiscite with the
    three (3) options as recognized by Resolution 1541 (XV) of the General
    Assembly of the United Nations as approved in 1960: 1. Emergence as a
    sovereign independent state; 2. Free Association with and independent
    state; or 3. Integration with an independent state. Also Congress has
    to recognize the jurisdiction of the local courts over any plebiscite.
        The remarks on H.R. 900 are simply to respond to the request by the
    Committee to comment on said bill since the Teachers Association is not
    endorsing said bill.
        Congress also needs to consider the development of an objective
    educational campaign. The State Elections Commission with an advisory
    committee constituted of institutions such as ours would implement a
    campaign to address the political options and the peculiarities of each
    of the options objectively. This campaign could serve to clarify
    concepts debated by the delegates which may need further explanation.
    Again, this goes to further our concern to have an educated electorate.
        We urge you to adopt with amendments H.R. 1230. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you very much. Thank you, panelists,
    for your testimony.
        I am going to recognize myself for five minutes. My first
    question would be to the historian, Mr. Gonzalez.
        How do you respond to the concern of some that by
    prescribing the choices for the people of Puerto Rico, H.R. 900
    dictates a process that doesn't come from the people; and that
    such a process then would be the denial of the fundamental
    right of self-determination?
        Mr. Gonzalez Vales. In my estimation, Madame Chairman, one
    of the basic flaws of all the previous status referendums is
    that the definition of the various alternatives have been left
    up to the political parties on the island to prescribe. And
    therefore, you may engage in wishful thinking by providing
    formulas which will not be acceptable.
        The way that the H.R. 900 states it, these are acceptable
    solutions, constitutionally viable, so the people know exactly
    what they are voting for at the time of exercising their vote.
        Ms. Christensen. So your issue is that the definitions need
    to be clear and accurate, so that people, regardless of the
    process, but the definitions ought to be clear and accurate.
        Mr. Gonzalez Vales. That is clear, Madame.
        Ms. Christensen. You talk about the fear of a deadlock
    under the convention process. Would you be more inclined to
    support 1230 if there were specific parameters included, as you
    say? You make the reference to 1950.
        Mr. Gonzalez Vales. Right.
        Ms. Christensen. Would you be more inclined to support H.R.
    1230 if there were specific parameters?
        Mr. Gonzalez Vales. If the process of selecting the
    delegates is not based on the political affiliations of the
    delegates, then that could be avoided. But right now, under the
    political situation in Puerto Rico, the political forces of the
    two main parties, the PVP and the PNP, are basically pretty
    much the same. So they would tend to offset one another.
        And I would think that a constitutional convention which
    delegates are chosen on the basis of their political
    affiliation may end up in a deadlock, and not have a consensus
    that we did have in the 1950 Constitutional Convention, because
    there was really a consensus as to the fact that we needed to
    do something to organize the local government.
        And therefore, when you look at the results of the
    Constitutional Convention and the vote, it was nearly unanimity
    finally at the end. And that was one of the really fundamental
    differences that I see from a historical perspective between
    one offered choice or the other.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Ms. Diaz, I will ask you this
    question, because as I understand it, for most referenda it is
    recommended that the language be at eighth-grade comprehension
    level so that it is clear, and that the majority of people or
    everyone can really understand it.
        As you look at H.R. 900, do you think that it is, the way
    the two choices are stated, do you think that it is written at
    a level that is clear and understandable to most people?
        Ms. Diaz. Most of the people have to know, we have to get
    into deep discussion of the both, uh----
        Ms. Christensen. Both bills?
        Ms. Diaz. Yes. Because the people know that there is the
    independence and statehood. But what are the advantages? What
    are the disadvantages of each form? What are we going to gain?
    What are we going to lose? How is the future of Puerto Rico
    going to be, through each formula? That is what they need to
    know before that.
        I am not clear. I am not sure that all Puerto Ricans are
    ready to vote to choose from both options, because they need to
    know more. The implications of that decision. And that is what
    I am advocating for that, for a process to educate our people
    what are they going to do, and where it is going to--how it is
    going to be their future after they vote.
        Ms. Christensen. But if Puerto Rico should continue the
    existing form of territorial status, as defined by the
    Constitution, basic laws and policies of the United States, is
    that----
        Ms. Diaz. No, that is not clear.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Fortuno for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. And I thank again the third panel
    this afternoon; thank you for coming up here.
        We have been very fortunate to have everyone who came
    before us, for all three panels. With all due respect to
    everyone, however, only one member of the three panels earned
    his way here. That is Mr. Pedroza.
        He and the people he represents earned their way here,
    because they have been in the line of battle to defend our
    nation. And I salute you, the veterans that you represent, and
    the men and women of uniform also of the world that are
    defending our nation and our values.
        And that brings me to my point. How is it that in the 21st
    Century, we have men and women in uniform that are defending
    democracy, you know, half around the world, and they could not
    elect their Commander in Chief?
        As far as I am concerned, that is unconscionable, and that
    has to end as soon as possible.
        Mr. Pedroza, do you have a position on that
        Mr. Pedroza. Well, as a combat veteran, as a Puerto Rican
    combat veteran, American citizen, I see it as an immoral part
    from the United States toward the Puerto Rican veterans.
        Why do I say this? Because when I was in Vietnam, there
    were many Puerto Ricans who were sick being in Vietnam. They
    had nobody to write to in Congress who would help them get out
    of Vietnam.
        When I have seen a lot of soldiers from the 50 states of
    the Nation who would write to their Congressmen, and they were
    pulled out of Vietnam because of the pull that they had with
    these Congressmen. So I seen that in my own eyes in Vietnam,
    when we could not get out of the field, and soldiers from the
    United States could. So I could see the discrimination right
    there in Vietnam.
        And I am seeing it today in Puerto Rico. At this moment
    there is thousands of Puerto Rican veterans who are trying to
    get in the system of the VA, and we don't have a system in
    Puerto Rico in place. We have a cemetery that has got one year
    left, national cemetery. And when we come to Congress, when we
    come to looking for our rights, we have no rights. We have no
    such rights in Puerto Rico, not like the 50 states in the
    nation.
        So I think that Congress has been dishonest with us. And I
    think that we Puerto Rican veterans resent this very much.
    Until we get the moment to vote for the President who sends us
    to battle, I think that this Congress has to look into that
    very, very seriously.
        Because here we have 20,000 Puerto Ricans at this moment in
    Afghanistan and Iraq fighting the war, and they can't vote for
    their Commander in Chief. And to me, that is immoral.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. And again, I salute you and the
    many heroes from Puerto Rico that have defended or are
    defending this very moment our democracy.
        Ms. Ferraiuoli, you mentioned correctly, as I see it, that
    to this day, oftentimes the court of choice of a lot of people
    in Puerto Rico to seek redress and protection from commonwealth
    actions having to do with civil rights, discrimination, and
    many other cases, is the Federal Court.
        Have you looked at the proposal that has been made under,
    that is viable or feasible under H.R. 1230, that would actually
    eliminate Federal Court jurisdiction in Puerto Rico? And what
    is your opinion on that?
        Ms. Ferraiuoli. I am sorry, Congressman, are you asking me
    if I believe it is viable?
        Mr. Fortuno. If you believe it is viable or not.
        Ms. Ferraiuoli. OK. Well, in my opinion, as long as the
    Constitution of the United States is supposed to be the
    governing law, it would not be a viable alternative. You cannot
    have a state, without a capital S, subject to the Constitution
    of the United States, and have that state be above the
    Constitution and the laws of the United States.
        One of the first things that you learn when you go to law
    school is that the sovereign law of the land is the
    Constitution, and right below that are the statutes of the, the
    Federal statutes. Below that the Constitution of the states,
    and last, the statutes and regulations of the states.
        What the proposal--and I say veiled in the new
    commonwealth, because the fact is that H.R. 1230 talks about it
    in the commonwealth, but doesn't tell you guys what it is that
    you are allowing the people of Puerto Rico to choose.
        The proposal that has been made effectively puts the
    commonwealth above all Federal law, and would allow the
    commonwealth to determine which Federal law applies or doesn't
    apply in Puerto Rico. And would not give the Federal Court
    jurisdiction over any issue in which commonwealth law is
    inconsistent with Federal law, which would basically put our
    constitutional groundwork upside-down.
        So in my opinion, it would not be constitutional so long as
    Puerto Rico is supposed to be part of the United States.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you again. And actually, as you
    mentioned, it is veiled in H.R. 1230, but it is very clear in
    the Governor's platform. Thank you again. And I yield back,
    Madame Chair.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
    Serrano for five minutes.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. Ms. Romany and Ms. Diaz,
    unless I misread what you said, you confused me.
        You say that El Coredo do Gatos [ph] has always been for
    ending the colonial status, but you support H.R. 1230, which
    includes a colonial status as an option.
        Would you be in favor, say, of a first step to get rid of
    the colony before we move to a constitutional convention?
        Ms. Romany-Siaca. I think, Congressman, that one of the
    issues that we have to discuss here is to trust the ability of
    the people of Puerto Rico in the liberation process, that that
    is what constitutes that convention and the subsequent
    assembly, to come up with solutions that are non-colonial and
    non-territorial.
        I think we are putting the cart before the horse. I think
    that the discussion here is about what is the mechanism to
    actually facilitate that expression. What comes up and comes
    out of that discussion, I trust that the people of Puerto Rico
    and those delegates, which are going to have the ability to
    deliberate, negotiate, expand, study constitutional laws----
        Mr. Serrano. I don't doubt that for a minute, that they
    have the ability to do that. In fact, if I can jump to Ms. Diaz
    a second and I will be back to you, this education process you
    talk about is necessary, of course. But from what I know,
    Puerto Ricans discuss the status issue more than they discuss
    baseball. So I think we may be the most educated people in the
    world on what it is we want and don't want. But you are right,
    there are still certain adjustments that have to be made as to
    the information.
        But my question to you, Ms. Romany, is, you trust, and I
    do, too. But if we are truly for ending the colonial status,
    and that is my position--that is not Ms. Velazquez's position
    perhaps, it is not Mr. Gutierrez'--my position is cualquier
    cosa pero al colonia. So how can you offer the colonial status
    as a, how can you even allow the people to trust them to come
    back and ask for the colony? Then we are in the same place
    again.
        Ms. Romany-Siaca. I think I have a lot of trust in the
    ability of the constitutional convention to really come out
    with an outcome that is non-colonial. I think that, you know,
    the frustration of the status debate throughout the 20th
    Century is precisely because we haven't been able to exercise a
    real democratic process. And I think that that democratic
    process has to take place.
        Mr. Serrano. And I respect that. I just know how formidable
    the Popular Democratic Party is, and they may get a convention
    that says no lo digo que somo colonia, porque no somo colonia.
    But that is OK. I mean, I am not cutting you off; I respect
    that.
        Ms. Romany-Siaca. Remember also that this is a convention
    that is supposed to have a starring role for civil society. And
    I think we should not underplay that, too. Proprieties and
    politics also is something that has----
        Mr. Serrano. Well, but that is true, but you know, that is
    not the reality. The fact of life is that if you have a
    plebiscite or a constitutional convention, the people running
    the delegates or the people running the direct vote are the
    parties. That is what we have going on.
        I would love to tell you that, you know, pro se Joey,
    McClinto, de Ruen, Iarotto are not going to be involved. Of
    course they are going to be involved, and I insist that they be
    involved. After all, they have been fighting that fight for
    1,000 years.
        In fact, there was a way to bring back both Don Luis, they
    should be able to be involved, you know, politically. Of course
    that is going to happen.
        Now, just a correction, Ms. Diaz. You started off by saying
    that 1230 was the bill you prefer.
        Ms. Diaz. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. Then you end up supporting my bill. And I will
    explain what I mean by that.
        You say that the fair bill has to have free association. I
    refer you to H.R. Section [c], which says if a majority in the
    first initial plebiscite favors permanent non-territorial
    status, then a plebiscite will be held only between the two
    following options: statehood, one, on equal footing with other
    states; two, sovereign nation, either fully independent or in
    free association with the U.S. I have included free association
    as an option for separating from the Union, if you want to call
    it that. We were never in the Union.
        And I have always said that free association has to be
    there, because I am no fool. That is where I think ilela should
    come. You know, la comina asion de lela el libre associacion,
    that is my belief. Most leaders don't believe that, but that is
    my belief.
        So it is there, it is written there. I can get you another
    copy.
        Ms. Diaz. OK, no. You say that there are going to be more
    than one plebiscites. And I say we don't need more than one
    plebiscite. With only one, we can decide. And that is why----
        Mr. Serrano. Oh, if that was up to----
        Ms. Diaz.--that with equal process----
        Mr. Serrano. If that was up to me, you are right. That was
    my original bill a few years ago, that people in this audience
    read and reread. But you know something? We are having a heck
    of a time getting the commonwealthers to go along with anything
    like this.
        If we cut them out totally, it would be the uproar that you
    could never get two votes around here.
        Ms. Diaz. No, I think the people, it varies the process.
    That is what I am advocating for, where people would be
    educated in the different formulas, the results will be
    different right now.
        Mr. Serrano. She supports H.R. 901, my next----
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Romany-Siaca. No, no. I told you what I believe.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Flake for five minutes.
        Mr. Flake. Mrs. Diaz, you mentioned that you thought that
    H.R. 1230 would be less prone to manipulations of politicians.
        Ms. Diaz. Yes.
        Mr. Flake. How so?
        Ms. Diaz. Because you are going to have delegates from
    different organizations, and you must be sure that we, as
    teachers, are going to endorse and promote that teachers will
    be in that assembly; and not politicians, but teachers.
        I am not telling you, I am not saying that the politicians
    shouldn't be members of the assembly, but there should be a
    balance between politicians and the rest of the people of the
    country of Puerto Rico. Do you understand me?
        Mr. Flake. I guess I understand what you are trying to say.
    But it seems to me that when you have a situation where some
    have said that they feel that H.R. 1230 may not be
    constitutional, it certainly might be unenforceable; I just
    fail to see how it is less prone.
        I mean, politics is going to be involved no matter what.
        Ms. Diaz. Maybe. But they won't be deciding.
        Mr. Flake. Even to make the case that it would be less
    prone would seem to be, I don't know, I don't see what you have
    behind that, that claim.
        Ms. Diaz. OK. Right now we have had several plebiscites.
    Those who educate the people, those who deliver the campaigns
    are politicians, and they confuse. Everyone is saying or
    telling what they believe.
        What we are saying is, let us have an assembly where we
    have politicians, but the majority are not politicians. And
    people who the people trust, leaders of our country who have
    contributed to our country, but who believe in the capacity of
    our people to decide after they are educated.
        Mr. Flake. Right. But just so I understand, you believe
    that that is less prone to political manipulation than a
    plebiscite?
        Ms. Diaz. Yes, yes.
        Mr. Flake. You mentioned in your testimony that you want
    gender equality.
        Ms. Diaz. Yes.
        Mr. Flake. And that females represent more. How do you set
    about achieving that? Is it just through education? Or is it
    through set-asides? Or what?
        Ms. Diaz. How to achieve that? It might be through
    education, education of the public, but we have to establish a
    formula. I don't know how we are going to achieve that, but the
    reality is that more than 50 percent of our voters are women.
        Mr. Flake. Right. And so you----
        Ms. Diaz. It is 54 percent.
        Mr. Flake. But you would have some kind of formula then
    that would guarantee a certain number of slots for----
        Ms. Diaz. A formula.
        Mr. Flake. All right, thank you.
        Ms. Christensen. Is he gone already? Yes, OK. So we are on
    our last round. I am going to recognize myself for five
    minutes.
        I just wanted to, on the issue of gender equality, as we
    prepare for the National Presidential Conventions, it is
    designed to achieve gender equality. And so there are formulas,
    there are examples that can be used.
        I basically have two questions. The first one is for Ms.
    Ferraiuoli, because your concern about H.R. 1230 is that there
    is no guarantee that the Federal Court would continue to exist.
    But H.R. 1230 does not specify any outcome. It doesn't say that
    the outcome must not have a Federal Court.
        So my understanding is that, as the people decide what that
    particular status proposal might be, it is very possible that
    the Federal Court system could be in there. And then while in
    H.R. 900, if free association or independence were chosen,
    definitely the Federal Court system would cease to exist.
        So can you explain your position?
        Ms. Ferraiuoli. Yes, Madame Chairman. Our concern is having
    the population of Puerto Rico continue to be U.S. citizens
    protected by the Constitution of the United States, and
    presumably by the Federal laws, and not have an adequate forum
    to seek out those protections.
        While you are correct that if independence or free
    association is chosen, there will not be a Federal Court, we do
    know that if statehood is chosen, there will be a Federal
    Court.
        The gray area that we are talking about here is the new
    commonwealth. H.R. 1230 completely throws away the commonwealth
    that we have right now, and it will only permit a new
    commonwealth. The only proposal we have seen for a new
    commonwealth right now is the PDP's 1998 proposal for the new
    commonwealth, which specifically would limit the Federal
    Court's jurisdiction.
        It is even more radical than the 1976 proposal that was
    presented to this Congress, and was rejected. That 1976
    proposal would continue the Federal Court's jurisdiction as it
    is right now.
        So our concern is that Congress will allow an option in
    which the United States citizens, residents in Puerto Rico,
    would be left without a forum to seek out their constitutional
    claims.
        Ms. Christensen. So the Federal Court will have
    jurisdiction over matters that arise from provisions of the
    Constitution of the United States? And all of the Federal laws
    that apply to Puerto Rico, consistent with the covenant that
    has not been negotiated yet, and not in violation with the laws
    of the Constitution of Puerto Rico, that is not satisfactory to
    you?
        Ms. Ferraiuoli. No, Madame Chairman. The problem is there
    is another section in that proposal which allows Puerto Rico to
    veto the application of Federal law within the commonwealth.
        Ms. Christensen. I know.
        Ms. Ferraiuoli. And basically what Puerto Rico, what the
    commonwealth can say is, well, that Federal law doesn't apply.
        The jurisdiction granted by that one section, if you see,
    it only says the U.S. Constitution. It doesn't talk about
    Federal law.
        Ms. Christensen. It does, it does. But I need to get to
    my--it says the Constitution and Federal laws applicable to
    Puerto Rico. I understand that there may be some veto power
    inherent in the proposal.
        Attorney Romany, can I ask you, you were here for the
    previous panels. What is your reaction to the statement of
    Attorney Goldstein that a Federal Court would allow Congress to
    possibly remove even the Governor of Puerto Rico or some other
    elected official?
        Ms. Romany-Siaca. I definitely disagree with that
    statement. I think that again, Professor Pildes' analysis opens
    a door, an interesting door, for an expansive interpretation of
    the Constitution and the plenary powers of the territorial
    clause.
        I think that the Supreme Court at the beginning of the 20th
    Century is not the Supreme Court of today. And I think we have
    to deal with a dynamic interpretation of the Constitution. For
    example, for many years, separate but equal was valid under the
    constitutional analysis. And there has been a lot of examples
    in which the Court has really risen to the occasion and
    interpreted the Constitution in a much more expansive way.
        It seems to me that the territorial clause allows for that
    opportunity in light of the recognition that Congress, in
    matters of foreign policy, should have flexibility and
    pragmatism. So I don't think it is going to be, we are going to
    have that end result. That sounds more like the interpretation
    of the President's Task Force, which is a very rigid reading
    and construction of the Constitution, which is actually
    inconsistent with many of the expansive constitutional analyses
    that we have witnesses in this past century, too.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Mr. Fortuno, you are recognized
    again for five minutes.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. Thank you again, and certainly I am
    puzzled by Ms. Diaz's interpretation of, number one, how does
    one bill provide for a better educational experience?
        I can't see how one bill may provide for a better process,
    legal process, political process, educational experience. I
    really don't understand it. And certainly I could not agree
    more with Mr. Flake's statements as to how can this be, the
    Constitutional Commission be less prone to manipulation by
    politicians?
        What we will be doing--and I will ask the Official
    Historian of Puerto Rico to see when was the last time we had a
    constitutional convention in Puerto Rico, and what happened.
    But as I see it, we will have politicians running for these
    positions, and they will get into a smoke-filled room and
    decide for us that is a better educational experience, and that
    is less prone to handling by politicians.
        So I ask Mr. Gonzalez Vales, who is the Official Historian
    of Puerto Rico, what happened in the fifties, early fifties,
    when we had a constitutional convention, after we were
    authorized to have one by the master, the U.S. Congress? What
    happened? Who were elected, and what kind of process we had.
        Mr. Gonzalez Vales. The delegates to the Constitutional
    Convention were selected pretty much on the basis of the
    political parties then. They were representatives of the two
    main political parties at that time, which were the PVP and the
    Partigos Directa Republicano, the Republican Party.
        Nevertheless, I think, and you could probably get that from
    the reading of the minutes of the Constitutional Convention,
    that there was a sense, a consensus as to the way that we
    should go about organizing the local government of Puerto Rico.
    And at the end, when the time for voting the proposals that
    constituted the various articles of our commonwealth's
    constitution, they reached almost unanimity. There were very
    few, I think, I can't recall exactly, but I don't think there
    were more than three abstentions, and possibly one vote against
    the Constitution.
        So that there was consensus among the people there, that
    even though they represented different political views, there
    was consensus on that particular issue.
        Now, on a constitutional convention today, unless the
    makeup of the constitutional convention is predetermined to
    ensure that there is a balance between the political parties
    and the other forces in the civil society, we stand the fact
    that we may end up in a deadlock, because the political forces
    of the island are pretty much even.
        Mr. Fortuno. And does H.R. 1230 provide for that
    ``balance'' between the political parties and the different
    groups out there, to guarantee that we will not experience
    again what we indeed experienced the last time we had one,
    which is when we were authorized to draft our local governing
    rules that we call our Constitution at the state level?
        Mr. Gonzalez Vales. I think as I read it, and if I
    understood it correctly, the project, H.R. 1230, doesn't spell
    out how is the constitutional convention going to be assembled,
    and on what basis is the representation to that convention be
    made. So that would be something that would have to be very
    clearly stated in whatever project is approved if we want to go
    that way, the way of a constitutional convention.
        Mr. Fortuno. But certainly it is not. I have read the bill.
        Mr. Gonzalez Vales. That is right.
        Mr. Fortuno. And as you were saying, that is not what it
    says.
        Mr. Gonzalez Vales. That is correct.
        Mr. Fortuno. The problem that I have, and this happens all
    the time, is that when we are dealing with commonwealth, it is
    better to have as the least possible information and the least
    possible details, because it is the best of both worlds. And
    that is exactly what I feel that is the flaw here, that we
    cannot embark in a process and have our people embark in a
    process, and then not, and telling each one what they want to
    hear.
        People must know what they are going to be voting on. And
    that is why Mr. Serrano and I have filed H.R. 900, so that
    people know up front what to expect. What are they voting for.
    What are the pros and cons.
        There is no perfect world. There are pros and cons in every
    option. I favor one certainly, but there are pros and cons in
    every one, and people should come in with their eyes wide open,
    understanding what is it that they are going to be voting on.
    And that is why I favor, and I hope all my colleagues will
    support, H.R. 900.
        Again, thank you very much.
        Ms. Christensen. Mr. Fortuno----
        [Laughter.)
        Ms. Christensen. Mr. Serrano, do you wish to be recognized
    for five minutes?
        Mr. Serrano. Yes. Thank you for the Fortuno thing, but I am
    not running for Governor any time soon. I am trying to figure
    out if I can run for President, but that is another issue.
        Let me just use my time to first of all thank you for
    holding this hearing. This is again a historic moment. I don't
    think it is yet another exercise; I really think that there is
    a will to reach a conclusion on all sides of this issue. And I
    thank you for that.
        I would also like, I know we are being heard live in Puerto
    Rico, for people in Puerto Rico to understand that my desire to
    end the present status is in no way a disrespectful statement
    about those who have given so much to maintain the present
    status. I understand the historical significance of it. I
    understand that at one time it served a major purpose.
        But I am a Member of the U.S. Congress, and I have a dual
    responsibility. One is to wish for the best for my birthplace,
    and the place that, who knows if I may retire there some day,
    or be taken there after all of this is over. And also to do the
    best job that I can, so that the country whose Congress I serve
    in, where my parents are buried, where my children were born,
    where I grew up, is the best country that it can be.
        And my country has held my birthplace, mi patria, for 109
    years in an improper political position. So perhaps I, more
    than a lot of other people, have the ability not to wear two
    hats, but to think with a heart that at times feels divided,
    not in allegiance, but certainly in fully understanding
    everything.
        I want this country not to ever be accused again of holding
    a colony anywhere, especially a colony called Puerto Rico. And
    I want that to end.
        I also think that it would be improper to believe that
    there wouldn't be political involvement. You can't have had 109
    years of involvement with the United States, and then think you
    are going to hold a process to pick a constitutional convention
    that would not have political involvement in it.
        The State Department, much to my dismay, criticized the
    Constitutional Convention that took place in Venezuela right
    after President Chavez's victory. They said well, he controlled
    the convention. Well, of course. The 30-odd party coalition
    that got him elected, with the same fervor elected his
    delegates, and they changed the constitution to deal with the
    issues of the poor and the injustice that Venezuela had been
    facing. And that was a direct result of that.
        So to suggest that the same parties who for all these years
    have been discussing the status issue would have great
    influence over who gets elected is not facing reality. I doubt
    that Dona Juan Eron Pepe would be elected to this convention. I
    doubt it.
        You could set some parameters, like we do for the
    Democratic party, when you say from the 16th Congressional
    District you must elect three women and two men, according to
    what the--you can do that. But I assure you, those three women
    and two men will be picked by the parties, because the parties
    have the resources to campaign for them and to get them
    elected.
        We wish it was another system. I would support that. But we
    don't have it.
        Then there is my last concern. If a constitutional
    convention says to Congress we want statehood, and it is only a
    matter of a yes or no from Congress, there is no negotiating
    what statehood is. We already know that. If a constitutional
    convention says give us free association or give us
    independence outright, there is no negotiating, other than when
    or shall we grant it, if we decide to be arrogant about it and
    not grant the wish, which is always a possibility. But there is
    no negotiating as to what it is.
        But this new commonwealth, this best of two worlds, is not
    a final statement. It is, I am asking you to consider giving me
    this laundry list of items that I would like for a new
    covenant. That will never happen. That will take years to
    negotiate. That would leave the issue off the table, so we
    would have gone through that whole process only to have
    something en gavitado because you can't get 218 votes to pass
    it in one House, and 51 votes to pass it in the Senate.
        We must come back with clear options. We must offer clear
    options, and the people of Puerto Rico can come back from clear
    options. Il mejor de lovo mundo. And this thing about a dream
    that could be a new commonwealth is not practical, does not
    exist, will not resolve the problem.
        If we go that route, then Jose Carlos Serrano, my grandson,
    and my son, Jose Marcos Serrano, the State Senator, will be
    sitting here years from now discussing the issue of Puerto
    Rico.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. I would like to
    thank my colleagues; in particular, my colleague Mr. Fortuno,
    the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee.
        I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony,
    and the Members for their questions. Members of the
    Subcommittee may have some additional questions for the
    witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing.
        The hearing record will be open for 10 days for these
    responses, as well as for testimony, written testimony, from
    other people in Puerto Rico or of Puerto Rico descent who would
    want to have their opinions heard.
        Certainly we are very sensitive, as a person coming from
    another territory, to the issue of not being fully represented
    or having the full rights of the Constitution extended to us.
    But we are also very sensitive to the need for the people of
    Puerto Rico to freely decide what their future political status
    might be, and we are extremely sensitive to that of our
    veterans who put their lives on the line for this country. And
    so I thank you for your service. And my husband was also a
    Vietnam veteran, and now resides in the U.S. Virgin Islands,
    where he cannot vote, either. So I understand your issue, I
    understand your passion.
        I hope that this hearing has not only been informative to
    Congress, but that it has also served as part of the
    educational process for the people in Puerto Rico who have been
    listening. So once again, I want to thank our witnesses. And
    would you like to say something?
        Mr. Fortuno. If I may, yes. I just want to thank you.
        Ms. Christensen. I want to recognize my Ranking Member.
        Mr. Fortuno. If I may, I want to thank you for your
    leadership, and commend you for having this hearing today.
        I want to thank Mr. Rahall and Mr. Young, as well. I want
    to thank the staff of the committee really, for the phenomenal
    job they are doing. And if I may, mi mano, Jose Serrano, thank
    you for everything you are doing for tu patria.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. If there is no further business
    before the Subcommittee, the Chair again thanks the Members of
    the Subcommittee and our witnesses. And the Subcommittee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:36 p.m, the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   * * * * *

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 900, TO PROVIDE FOR A FEDERALLY SANCTIONED
     SELF-DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO (PUERTO RICO
     DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2007); AND H.R. 1230, TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF THE
    PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO TO CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION THROUGH WHICH
     THE PEOPLE WOULD EXERCISE THEIR NATURAL RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION,
     AND TO ESTABLISH A MECHANISM FOR CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF SUCH
             DECISION (PUERTO RICO SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2007).

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, April 25, 2007

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                        Subcommittee on Insular Affairs

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:28 p.m. in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Donna M.
    Christensen [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Christensen, Fortuno,
    Faleomavaega, Grijalva, and Bordallo.
        Ms. Christensen. The legislative hearing by the
    Subcommittee on Insular Affairs will come to order.
        I thank everyone for your patience. There was sort of an
    emergency meeting called at the White House very late in our
    planning, and my Ranking Member, the Resident Commissioner,
    will be here shortly.
        I ask unanimous consent that Members of the full committee
    wishing to participate in the proceedings of the Subcommittee
    be allowed to sit on the dais. And hearing no objection, so
    ordered.
        I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New
    York, Mr. Serrano, the gentlewoman from New York, Ms.
    Velazquez, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Sanchez, the
    gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, the gentleman from
    Indiana, Mr. Burton, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Wexler,
    the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Sali, and the gentleman from
    Mississippi, Mr. Wicker, be allowed to sit on the dais and
    participate in the hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        Under Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairman and Ranking
    Minority Member can make opening statements. If any other
    Members have statements, they can be included in the hearing
    record under unanimous consent. Hearing no objection, so
    ordered.
        The Subcommittee is convened to conduct its second of two
    legislative hearings on H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. H.R. 900,
    sponsored by Mr. Serrano, will provide for a Federally
    sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto
    Rico. HR. 1230, sponsored by Ms. Velazquez, will recognize the
    right of the people of Puerto Rico to call a constitutional
    convention, through which the people would exercise their
    natural right to self-determination, and to establish a
    mechanism for Congressional consideration of such a decision.
        I want to say at the outset, I am going to recognize myself
    for my opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

        Ms. Christensen. And good afternoon, once again. It is a
    pleasure and honor to welcome all of the Puerto Rican elected
    and past-elected officials, and all the other political
    leaders, opinion-makers, representatives from the Department of
    Justice to the House today. And it is a special honor and
    pleasure to welcome the distinguished Governor of La Isla del
    Encanto, The Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila, and Mrs. Acevedo-
    Vila.
        And while all of you are distinguished in your own right, I
    also want to recognize our former colleague, The Honorable
    Carlos Romero Barcelo.
        We are pleased that the Administration is able to be here
    this afternoon. You are an important part of this process. So
    welcome, Governor. Welcome to everyone.
        The two bills before us take very different paths to a
    decision on the future status of Puerto Rico. One provides for
    a series of two referenda with straight up or down votes, and
    the other is a constitutional assembly. I have been assiduously
    reading not only your prepared testimonies, but various
    newspaper articles and editorials from Puerto Rico, and they
    have raised certain questions and concerns.
        For example, the White House Task Force suggested H.R. 900
    is designed to get a clear outcome. But I am more concerned
    that the people of Puerto Rico have a clear choice, clear in
    the definitions of the options and in the pros and cons of
    each, so that they can decide for themselves which more closely
    addresses their hopes and aspirations for their home, and would
    make the most positive difference in their lives. For me, that
    kind of transparency is even more important than the process
    itself.
        I also want to reiterate, because it remains important
    today, as it was two years ago at a hearing and last month, I
    want to reiterate my concern that this process and the debate
    has the potential to confuse, I think, the satisfaction of the
    people of Puerto Rico with the economic, educational, health,
    safety and other concerns with the status question. And while I
    know many of you who will testify today will disagree with me,
    in my opinion these important issues can be resolved under any
    one of the status options.
        I would even be concerned that these very serious
    circumstances, all of which are longstanding, inherited by this
    and prior Administrations, and recounted in every newspaper
    daily because they are so predominant in the minds and the
    lives of the people, that these circumstances may even be an
    impediment to the ability of the people of Puerto Rico to
    freely, to freely make a status decision.
        At the last hearing, in a few commentaries the question of
    who would be allowed to vote has been raised. It is a question
    that is being debated right now in my own Congressional
    district, your neighbors to the south, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
    with regard to our own Constitution.
        It is my hope that you will also help us understand not
    only why an almost equal number of native Puerto Ricans who
    have chosen to make their lives elsewhere would be able to vote
    in the referendum, but what you understand to be the position
    of those who live on Puerto Rico now, on this provision.
        It is also an often-recanted complaint that the failure of
    a status decision in Puerto Rico lies with the Congress of the
    United States. I understand very well that unincorporated
    territories were not intended to live on in that state forever.
    But given the fact that Congress has long ceded the right to
    the people of Puerto Rico to decide their status, does that
    failure to successfully change this lie with the Congress and
    the White House, as some may suggest, or with the people's
    satisfaction with the present political arrangement, if not the
    socioeconomic one?
        The issue of the status of Puerto Rico has always been a
    very divisive one. But today, given the sense of urgency that
    the status question be decided, I am hopeful that although we
    are starting with two very different bills and two very
    different processes, that we will reach consensus in the end.
        This is slated to be our last hearing, so your testimony
    today and your answers, building on that of the first hearing,
    is very important to informing and guiding the Subcommittee in
    its work. So I want to thank everyone who is here to testify,
    and those who are here to listen, and the media as well, for
    taking the time to accommodate the Subcommittee today.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]

               Statement of The Honorable Donna M. Christensen,
                  Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Insular Affairs

        Good afternoon.
        It is a pleasure and an honor to welcome all of the Puerto Rican
    elected and past elected officials and other political leaders and
    opinion makers to your House today. And it is a special honor and
    pleasure to welcome the distinguished Governor of La Isla de la
    Encanta--The Honorable Anibal Acevedo Vila. And while all of you are
    distinguished I your own right, I want to also recognize our former
    colleague, The Honorable Carlos Romero Barcelo.
        We are also pleased that the administration is able to be here. You
    are an important part of this process.
        Welcome governor. Welcome all!
        The two bills before us take very different paths to a decision on
    the future status of Puerto Rico. One provides for a series of two
    referenda with straight up or down votes, and the other is a
    constitutional assembly.
        I have been assiduously reading not only your prepared testimonies
    but various newspaper articles and editorials from Puerto Rico and they
    have raised certain questions and concerns.
        For example, the White House Task Force suggests that H.R. 900 is
    designed to get a clear outcome. But I am more concerned that the
    people of Puerto Rico have a clear choice. Clear in the definitions of
    the options and in the pros and cons of each so that they can decide
    for themselves which more closely addresses their hopes and aspirations
    for their home and would make the most positive difference in their
    lives. For me, that kind of transparency is even more important than
    the process itself.
        I also want to reiterate--because it remains as important today as
    it was 2 years ago and last month--my grave concern that this process
    and debate has the potential to confuse the dissatisfaction of the
    people of Puerto Rico with the economic, educational, health and other
    concerns with the status question. While I know that many of you who
    will testify here today will disagree with me, in my opinion these
    important issues can be resolved under any status.
        I would even be concerned that these very serious circumstances--of
    long standing, inherited by this and prior administrations--and
    recounted in every newspaper daily because they are so predominant in
    their minds and lives, may be an impediment to the ability of the
    people of Puerto Rico to ``freely'' make a status decision.
        At the last hearing and in a few commentaries, the question of who
    should be allowed to vote was raised. It is a question that is being
    debated right now in my own Congressional District--your neighbor--with
    regard to writing our constitution.
        It is my hope that you will also help us understand not only why an
    almost much equal number of native Puerto Ricans who have chosen to
    make their lives elsewhere should be able to vote in the referenda, but
    what you understand to be the position of those who live there on this
    provision.
        It is also an often recanted complaint that the failure of a status
    decision in Puerto Rico lies with the Congress of the United States. I
    understand that unincorporated territories were not intended to live on
    in that state forever. But given the fact that Congress has long ceded
    the right to the people of Puerto Rico to decide their status, does the
    failure to successfully change this lie with the Congress and the White
    House as many suggest, but with the people's satisfaction with the
    present political arrangement, if not the socio-economic one.
        The issue of the status of Puerto Rico has always been a very
    divisive one. Given the sense of urgency that the status question be
    decided, I am hopeful that although we are starting with two very
    different bills and processes, we will reach consensus in the end.
        This is slated to be our last hearing so your testimony and
    answers--building on that of the first hearing is important to
    informing and guiding the Subcommittee in its work.
        Thank you for making the time to accommodate the subcommittee.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. I would like to now thank those
    individuals and organizations specifically who were not able to
    appear before the Subcommittee, but have submitted statements
    for our hearing record.
        If there are no objections, I would like to take this
    opportunity to enter into the record the statements of Philip
    Arroyo, the New Progressive Party Youth; The Honorable Eudaldo
    Baez Galib of the Puerto Rican Senate; Mr. Noel Colon Martinez;
    Lt. Col. Dennis Freytes; Mr. Gregorio Igartua; Ms. Irmgard
    Pagan, the National Federation of Democratic Women, Puerto Rico
    Chapter; Mr. Manuel Rodriguez-Orellana, Puerto Rican
    Independence Party; Mr. Walter Rodrigue; The Honorable Maria de
    Lourdes Santiago-Negron, Puerto Rican Independence Party Senate
    Minority Leader; The Honorable Victor Garcia San Inocencio,
    Puerto Rican Independence Party's House Minority Leader; The
    Honorable Walter Torres-Maldonado, Mayor of Penuelas and
    President of the Mayors Association of Puerto Rico; and The
    Honorable Luis Vega Ramos of the Puerto Rican House of
    Representatives.
        Hearing no objections, so ordered.
        [NOTE: The statements submitted for the record referenced
    above have been retained in the Committee's official files.]
        Ms. Christensen. OK. When Mr. Fortuno arrives, we will
    recognize him at an appropriate time for his opening statement.
        At this time I would like to recognize the first panel. The
    Honorable Kevin C. Marshall, Co-Chair of the President's Task
    Force on Puerto Rico's Political Status, and Deputy Assistant
    Attorney General, Office of the Legal Counsel, U.S. Department
    of Justice.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Marshall to testify for five
    minutes. The timing lights on the table indicate when your time
    has concluded. And your entire statement will be included for
    the hearing record.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. C. KEVIN MARSHALL, CO-CHAIR OF THE
       PRESIDENT'S TASK FORCE ON PUERTO RICO'S POLITICAL STATUS,
      DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL,
                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Mr. Marshall. Thank you for this opportunity for the
    Administration to discuss pending legislation concerning the
    future political status of Puerto Rico.
        The work and report of the President's Task Force on Puerto
    Rico's Status have contributed to renewed attention to this
    question recently, including a hearing in April 2006 before the
    full committee, in which I participated.
        As you mentioned, I am a Deputy Assistant Attorney General
    in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. As the
    Attorney General's designee on the task force, I have served as
    its co-chair. Today, I appear because of that work, but also as
    a representative of the Administration.
        President Clinton, in establishing the task force in 2000,
    made it the policy of the Executive Branch to help answer the
    questions that the people of Puerto Rico have asked for years
    regarding the options for the island's future status and the
    process of realizing an option. The task force was required to
    consider and develop positions on proposals without preference
    among the options for the Commonwealth's future status.
        Its recommendations were limited, however, to those options
    permitted by the Constitution. In establishing the task force,
    President Clinton also expressly recognized that Puerto Rico's
    ultimate status has not been determined, and noted the
    different visions for that status within Puerto Rico. Although
    Puerto Rico held a plebiscite in 1998, none of the proposed
    status options received a majority. Indeed, none of the above
    prevailed, because of objection of the ballot definition of the
    commonwealth option.
        Seeking to determine the constitutionally permissible
    options and recommended process for realizing an option, the
    task force considered all status options objectively, without
    prejudice. It sought input from all interested parties, and met
    with anyone who requested a meeting.
        The task force issued its report in December 2005, and
    concluded that there were three general options under the
    Constitution for Puerto Rico's status.
        One. Continue its current status as a largely self-
    governing territory.
        Two. Admit Puerto Rico as a state.
        Three. Make Puerto Rico independent.
        The primary question regarding options was whether the
    Constitution allows a new commonwealth status that could not be
    altered without the mutual consent of Puerto Rico and the
    Federal government. Since 1991, the Justice Department has
    consistently held that the Constitution does not. The Task
    Force report reached that conclusion, as well. The report is,
    of course, not a legal brief, but it does outline the
    reasoning, and it includes as appendices two extended analyses
    by the Clinton Justice Department, one of which was sent to the
    full committee in 2001.
        Puerto Rico may remain in its current status indefinitely,
    but it would remain subject to Congress's authority under the
    Constitution to regulate U.S. territories.
        The report provides additional detail on the other two
    permissible options: statehood and independence. Regarding
    independence, the report explains that there are several
    possible ways of structuring it, including freely associated
    status. With regard to process, the task force sought to
    ascertain the will of the people of Puerto Rico in a way that,
    as we put it, provides clear guidance for future action by
    Congress. Keys to providing clear guidance are, first, to speak
    unambiguously about the Constitutional options; and second, to
    structure the process so that popular majorities are likely.
        The task force therefore recommended a two-step process.
    The first is simply to determine whether the people of Puerto
    Rico wish to remain as they are.
        The task force recommended that Congress provided for a
    Federally sanctioned plebiscite on this question. If the vote
    is to remain as a territory, then the second step would be
    periodic plebiscites to inform Congress of any change in views.
    If the first vote is to change Puerto Rico's status, than the
    second step would be another plebiscite in which the people
    would choose between statehood and independence.
        Three points about this process merit explanation in
    connection with the two bills that the Subcommittee is
    considering. First, consistent with the Presidential mandate to
    the task force, the recommended process does not seek to
    prejudice the outcome, even though it is structured to produce
    a clear outcome.
        Puerto Ricans have before voted by a majority to remain as
    a commonwealth. They may do so again. But it is critical to be
    clear about what commonwealth status is and may be. H.R. 1230,
    in referring to a new or modified commonwealth status as among
    the status options that are not subject to the plenary powers
    of the territorial clause of the Constitution, does not further
    the necessary clarity.
        Second, the process does not preclude action by Puerto Rico
    itself to express its views. H.R. 900, without something like
    the approach of the task force in allowing the Puerto Rico
    Elections Commission, until the end of 2009, to hold the first
    plebiscite.
        Finally, the Administration supports the task force report.
    The report correctly identified the Constitutional options and
    sets out a process so Puerto Ricans are heard on the critical
    question of Puerto Rico's status. The Administration therefore
    also supports legislation consistent with the report, and
    recognizes that H.R. 900 sets out a process closely resembling
    that which the report recommends.
        We will work with Congress to ensure that any process to
    solicit the views of the people of Puerto Rico is transparent,
    understandable, and fair.
        Thank you for this opportunity to share the views of the
    Administration. I have submitted my written statement for the
    record. I look forward to taking your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]

      Statement of C. Kevin Marshall, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
              Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice

        Thank you, Madame Chairman and Ranking Member Fortuno, for inviting
    the Administration to discuss pending legislation concerning the future
    political status of Puerto Rico. The work and report of the President's
    Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status have contributed to renewed
    attention to this question in the last few years, including a hearing
    in April 2006 before the full Committee, in which I participated.
    President Clinton established the Task Force in December 2000, and
    President Bush has continued it through amendments of President
    Clinton's Executive Order. The Executive Order as amended provides for
    the Task Force to consist of designees of each member of the
    President's Cabinet, and the Deputy Assistant to the President and
    Director for Intergovernmental Affairs. I am a Deputy Assistant
    Attorney General in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.
    As the Attorney General's designee on the Task Force, I have served as
    its Co-Chair. Today I appear because of that work but also as a
    representative of the Administration.
        The status of Puerto Rico, and the options regarding that status,
    have been issues for many years. In 1992, for example, President George
    H.W. Bush issued a Memorandum that recognized Puerto Rico's popularly
    approved Commonwealth structure as ``provid[ing] for self-government in
    respect of internal affairs and administration,'' described Puerto Rico
    as ``a territory,'' and directed the Executive Branch to treat Puerto
    Rico as much as legally possible ``as if it were a State.'' He also
    called for periodically ascertaining ``the will of its people regarding
    their political status'' through referenda.
        President Clinton, in his order establishing the Task Force, made
    it the policy of the Executive Branch ``to help answer the questions
    that the people of Puerto Rico have asked for years regarding the
    options for the islands'' future status and the process of realizing an
    option.'' He charged the Task Force with seeking to implement that
    policy. The Task Force was required to ``consider and develop positions
    on proposals, without preference among the options, for the
    Commonwealth's future status.'' Its recommendations are limited,
    however, to options ``that are not incompatible with the Constitution
    and basic laws and policies of the United States.''
        On the same day that he issued his Executive Order, President
    Clinton also issued a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments
    and Agencies regarding the Resolution of Puerto Rico's status. That
    memorandum added that ``Puerto Rico's ultimate status has not been
    determined'' and noted that the three major political parties in Puerto
    Rico were each ``based on different visions'' for that status. Although
    Puerto Rico held a plebiscite in 1998, none of the proposed status
    options received a majority. Indeed, ``None of the Above'' prevailed,
    because of objection to the ballot definition of the commonwealth
    option.
        Some in Puerto Rico have proposed a ``New Commonwealth'' status,
    under which Puerto Rico would become an autonomous, non-territorial,
    non-State entity in permanent union with the United States under a
    covenant that could not be altered without the ``mutual consent'' of
    Puerto Rico and the federal Government. In October 2000, a few months
    before President Clinton established the Task Force, the House
    Committee on Resources held a hearing on a bill (H.R. 4751)
    incorporating a version of the ``New Commonwealth'' proposal. William
    Treanor, who held the same position in the Office of Legal Counsel that
    I now hold, testified that this proposal was not constitutional.
        Thus, the Task Force's duties were to determine the
    constitutionally permissible options for Puerto Rico's status and to
    provide recommendations for a process for realizing an option. We had
    no duty or authority to take sides among the permissible options.
        The Task Force considered all status options, including the current
    status and the New Commonwealth option, objectively and without
    prejudice. It also attempted to develop a process for Congress to
    ascertain which of the constitutional options the people of Puerto Rico
    prefer. It sought input from all interested parties, including Governor
    Acevedo-Vila. The members met with anyone who requested a meeting. I
    myself had several meetings with representatives of various positions,
    and also received and benefited from extensive written materials.
        The Task Force issued its report in December 2005 and concluded
    that there were three general options under the Constitution for Puerto
    Rico's status: (1) continue Puerto Rico's current status as a largely
    self-governing territory of the United States; (2) admit Puerto Rico as
    a State, on an equal footing with the existing 50 States; or (3) make
    Puerto Rico independent of the United States.
        As indicated in my discussion of the 1998 plebiscite and the
    origins of the Task Force, the primary question regarding options was
    whether the Constitution currently allows a ``Commonwealth'' status
    that could be altered only by ``mutual consent,'' such that Puerto Rico
    could block Congress from altering its status. Since 1991, the Justice
    Department has, under administrations of both parties, consistently
    taken the position that the Constitution does not allow such an
    arrangement. The Task Force report reiterates that position, noting
    that the Justice Department conducted a thorough review of the question
    in connection with the work of the Task Force. The report is of course
    not a legal brief. But it does outline the reasoning, and it includes
    as appendices two extended analyses by the Clinton Justice Department.
    The second of these is a January 2001 letter to the Senate Committee on
    Energy and Natural Resources, a copy of which was sent to the House
    Committee on Resources on the same date. The report also cites
    additional materials such as Mr. Treanor's testimony and the 1991
    testimony of the Attorney General.
        The effect of this legal conclusion is that the ``New
    Commonwealth'' option, as the Task Force understood it, is not
    consistent with the Constitution. Any promises that the United States
    might make regarding Puerto Rico's status as a commonwealth would not
    be binding. Puerto Rico would remain subject to Congress's authority
    under the Territory Clause of the Constitution ``to dispose of and make
    all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory...belonging
    to the United States.'' Puerto Rico receives a number of benefits from
    this status, such as favorable tax treatment. And Puerto Rico may
    remain in its current Commonwealth, or territorial, status
    indefinitely, but always subject to Congress's ultimate authority to
    alter the terms of that status, as the Constitution provides that
    Congress may do with any U.S. territory.
        The other two options, which are explained in the report, merit
    only brief mention here. If Puerto Rico were admitted as a State, it
    would be fully subject to the U.S. Constitution, including the Tax
    Uniformity Clause. Puerto Rico's favorable tax treatment would
    generally no longer be allowed. Puerto Rico also would be entitled to
    vote for presidential electors, Senators, and full voting Members of
    Congress. Puerto Rico's population would determine the size of its
    congressional delegation.
        As for the third option of independence, there are several possible
    ways of structuring it, so long as it is made clear that Puerto Rico is
    no longer under United States sovereignty. When the United States made
    the Philippines independent in 1946, the two nations entered into a
    Treaty of General Relations. Congress might also provide for a closer
    relationship along the lines of the ``freely associated states'' of
    Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. The report explains, with
    a few qualifications, that, ``[a]mong the constitutionally available
    options, freely associated status may come closest to providing for the
    relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States that advocates
    for `New Commonwealth' status appear to desire.''
        With regard to process, the Task Force focused on ascertaining the
    will of the people of Puerto Rico. In particular, it sought to
    ascertain that will in a way that, as the report puts it, ``provides
    clear guidance for future action by Congress.'' The keys to providing
    clear guidance are, first, to speak unambiguously about the options the
    Constitution allows and, second, to structure the process so that
    popular majorities are likely. The inconclusive results of the 1998
    plebiscite, as well as an earlier one in 1993, did not strike the Task
    Force as providing much guidance to Congress.
        The Task Force therefore recommended a two-step process. The first
    step is simply to determine whether the people of Puerto Rico wish to
    remain as they are. The Task Force recommended that Congress provide
    for a federally sanctioned plebiscite in which the choice will be
    whether to continue territorial status. If the vote is to remain as a
    territory, then the second step, one suggested by the first President
    Bush's 1992 memorandum, would be to have periodic plebiscites to inform
    Congress of any change in the will of the people. If the first vote is
    to change Puerto Rico's status, then the second step would be for
    Congress to provide for another plebiscite in which the people would
    choose between statehood and independence, and then to begin a
    transition toward the selected option. Ultimate authority of course
    remains with Congress.
        Three points about this recommended process merit specific
    explanation in connection with the two bills the Subcommittee is
    considering. First, consistent with the presidential mandate to the
    Task Force, its recommended process does not seek to prejudice the
    outcome, even though it is structured to produce a clear outcome. At
    least once before, Puerto Ricans have voted by a majority to retain
    their current Commonwealth status. They may do so again. But it is
    critical to be clear about that status. H.R. 1230, in referring to ``a
    new or modified Commonwealth status'' as among the status options that
    are ``not subject to the plenary powers of the territorial clause of
    the Constitution of the United States,'' does not further the necessary
    clarity.
        Second, the Task Force's recommended process does not preclude
    action by Puerto Rico itself to express its views to Congress. At the
    first step, the report recommended that Congress provide for the
    plebiscite ``to occur on a date certain.'' The Task Force did not, of
    course, specify that date. But if Congress wished to ensure that some
    action occurred but not preclude the people of Puerto Rico from taking
    the initiative, it could allow a sufficient period for local action
    before that ``date certain.'' If such action occurred and produced a
    clear result, there might be no need to proceed with the federal
    plebiscite. H.R. 900 adopts a similar approach in leaving the Puerto
    Rico Elections Commission discretion to set the date of the first
    plebiscite but requiring that it occur by December 31, 2009.
        Finally, I am authorized to state that the Administration supports
    the Task Force report. The report correctly identifies the limited
    options available under the U.S. Constitution for permanent status and
    sets out a process so Puerto Ricans are heard on the critical question
    of Puerto Rico's status. The Administration therefore also supports
    legislation consistent with the report and recognizes that H.R. 900
    sets out a process closely resembling that which the report recommends.
    We will work with Congress to be sure that any process to solicit the
    views of the people of Puerto Rico is transparent, understandable, and
    fair.
        The Administration knows well the importance of the status question
    to the loyal citizens of Puerto Rico and to the nation as a whole. We
    appreciate the Subcommittee's commitment to this matter and the
    opportunity to share our views.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
        The Chair now recognizes myself for five minutes of
    questioning. I would ask that we could try to keep the answers
    concise, so that we could get as many questions in as possible.
    And I know you are anticipating this one, Mr. Marshall.
        Why did it take 16 months for the Administration to say it
    supports a task force report?
        Mr. Marshall. You may be anticipating the answer, as well,
    which is that the internal deliberations that the Executive
    Branch saw on that question; others are not the sort of thing
    that I am free to disclose.
        Ms. Christensen. OK. Well, now, my second question. You
    specifically cite in your testimony that H.R. 900 is being
    consistent with the report. Does that mean that the White House
    would not support a Constitutional assembly to decide on the
    future status? Couldn't that just as easily come up with a
    Constitutionally compatible option?
        Mr. Marshall. The Administration recognized that H.R. 900
    is similar to the approach the Task Force recommends, but that
    doesn't mean the Administration isn't open to other approaches
    that fairly seek out the views of the people of Puerto Rico.
        One requirement I would note, mentioned in my testimony, is
    that alternatives would need to be limited to the
    Constitutionally available options. In addition, it is
    desirable, as the task force set out, to have a process that is
    going to produce some sort of result that would provide
    guidance that Congress might use.
        Ms. Christensen. OK. I would like to talk a little bit
    about the enhanced Commonwealth, the new Commonwealth option,
    and whether or not it is Constitutional or unconstitutional.
        Just taking mutual consent for a moment, if the
    Commonwealth were able to negotiate through a compact or a
    covenant that Puerto Rico would be excluded from certain
    Federal laws, it would seem to me that, given the case of the
    Northern Marianas, which negotiated a covenant with the United
    States which exempted them from certain Federal laws, that this
    would be within the realm of possibility. So I am asking why is
    this something that would be considered not constitutional, or
    not possible to be accepted as a constitutionally recognized
    status option?
        I know that is kind of a convoluted way of asking the
    question. Do you understand the question?
        Mr. Marshall. I think so. I guess we will find out. I think
    there are two distinct issues there. One is whether Congress
    could exempt Puerto Rico from some Federal laws, and there the
    answer is yes. In fact, that is already being done. So I don't
    think the constitutional question precludes that.
        As to mutual consent provision, the Constitution doesn't
    allow that for the reasons set out in the task force report.
    The report does discuss the Northern Mariana Islands some, and
    the short answer is that that compact was entered into at a
    time when the Executive Branch had a different understanding of
    the Constitution.
        Ms. Christensen. So maybe in another Administration, an
    agreement could be reached that would be able to include, I
    mean, compacts--I would have to go back and check whether the
    compact or the covenant that the Northern Marianas developed
    with the U.S. Government can be changed by mutual consent. But
    wouldn't that be possible?
        Mr. Marshall. It would be----
        Ms. Christensen. It is negotiated by mutual consent.
        Mr. Marshall. It would be possible to have mutual consent,
    of course. The constitutional question is whether a Congress
    could bind itself in future Congresses not to act without
    mutual consent. But certainly, some sort of consent would
    presumably be desirable as a matter of policy.
        Ms. Christensen. Let us see. You have been very good at
    answering the questions concisely. Let us see.
        The task force and several of the other testimonies suggest
    that the Puerto Rican people should seek some permanent status,
    either independence or statehood. Isn't it possible that at
    this time the people of Puerto Rico are not ready to pursue
    either independence or statehood?
        And the other assertion is that Congress has somehow stood
    in the way of Puerto Rico deciding on a change of status. Do
    you think that we have stood in the way? Have we prevented
    Puerto Rico from choosing a status? Well, answer that one
    first.
        Mr. Marshall. And so that one, rather than the first one?
        Ms. Christensen. Go ahead and answer both, if you can.
        Mr. Marshall. It is certainly possible that the people of
    Puerto Rico would prefer to stay as they are. The report
    contemplates that, and I have discussed it again in my prepared
    statement.
        In terms of Congress, I wouldn't begin to impugn the
    Congress. And in addition, as the report notes, and again as in
    my prepared statement, I am not aware of any impediment to
    Puerto Rico itself taking action to express its views to
    Congress. And the task force report actually contemplated that
    Congress might want to structure any plebiscites in a way to
    allow time for that to happen.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. My time is up. I would
    recognize Mr. Wicker for five minutes of questions.
        Mr. Wicker. Well, Madame Chair, your questions are so
    pertinent and excellent that I am tempted simply to yield my
    five minutes to you. But I will not do that.
        It is frustrating. We are about to have a series of votes
    which I am told may take some 45 to 50 minutes, and I will not
    be able to come back and hear the rest of the testimony.
        Let me just sort of associate myself with the observation
    of the Chair with regard to the possibility--indeed, the strong
    likelihood--that the people of Puerto Rico do not see the
    necessity of moving toward a permanent status, as defined by
    the Commission; that is, choosing between absolute independence
    and statehood. And so to the extent that the question suggested
    that, I would agree with her.
        If I were to ask every witness that will come before this
    Subcommittee today, Madame Chair, the level of support in the
    polling for the idea of independence, I suspect the answer
    would be that the level of support is certainly less than 5
    percent; maybe 2 percent to 4 percent of the island inhabitants
    support independence.
        Secretary Marshall, would that be about correct? Did you do
    polling by the Commission?
        Mr. Marshall. We did not do any polling, and I wouldn't
    begin to speculate on that.
        Mr. Wicker. So you didn't take testimony to that effect.
        Mr. Marshall. No.
        Mr. Wicker. OK, well, that is fine if you don't know the
    answer. But I think it is fairly clear that there is a very
    small amount of support.
        Let us say it is 5 percent. My problem with the
    Commission's recommendation is that if you move toward what the
    Commission suggests is a permanent solution, either statehood
    or independence, I think this Congress and the people of Puerto
    Rico deserve to know that there is a broad consensus for that
    position. And I would suggest that there is neither a broad
    consensus for independence nor for statehood among the people
    of Puerto Rico at this point.
        Always before when we have brought a state into the Union,
    there has been overwhelming support among the people of that
    territory to come in and be a state. And certainly we know,
    from the polling and from the previous votes, that we do not
    have such a broad consensus at this point. And I don't think
    you get there by H.R. 900, which is the legislative result of
    the Commission's report.
        Essentially, what H.R. 900 does is take two polar
    opposites, statehood on the one hand and independence on the
    other hand, and combine them as option A on the ballot. And
    against those two combined options, then a commonwealth would
    have to compete.
        Although the Commission said that it was attempting to come
    forward without preferences among the options, I think the
    logical consequence of this suggestion would be to pool two
    polar opposites, combine the votes of those, and then achieve a
    runoff between what have always in the past been the number two
    and number three choices among the people of Puerto Rico.
        So I do not see any way that we can get to a consensus, get
    to the sort of overwhelming broad support that we need by this
    method. And I would also just reject the notion, Madame Chair,
    that somehow commonwealth is some form of suspended animation
    that must be quickly done away with. That having that as a more
    or less permanent option is somehow untenable. Just because
    someone says it is so doesn't make it true.
        The people of Puerto Rico probably want a different kind
    of, some sort of enhancements and tweaking of the commonwealth
    position. But I would submit to the Members of this Congress
    and the Members of this Subcommittee that if you look around
    the Caribbean, the best economy in the Caribbean is on the
    Island of Puerto Rico. And to say that the wheels are off of
    the situation, and that absolutely we must move to something
    else, I don't think leaps from the facts.
        So I realize I have made more of a statement than asking a
    question, but I do appreciate the Chair's indulgence, and the
    Subcommittee's indulgence, Madame Chair.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Wicker. The Resident
    Commissioner has agreed to allow Ms. Velazquez to take her five
    minutes' time of questioning now.
        Ms. Velazquez. How sweet that is.
        Ms. Christensen. Because we know that you will be busy on
    the Floor for the rest of the afternoon.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you very much, Chairlady, and to my
    great friend and colleague, Mr. Fortuno. Thank you for allowing
    me to take this opportunity now to question the witness here. I
    have a bill on the Floor, so I will have to excuse myself, and
    that will be good for Mr. Marshall. Because I intended not only
    to use five minutes, but ask for more, since I have so much
    troublings with your testimony.
        Let me start by saying that when you came here last year to
    talk to us about the findings of your report, I questioned the
    lack of substance of the report in terms of the economic,
    social, and cultural considerations. I even compared it to the
    massive and responsible report, reports that were done in the
    late sixties and the late eighties, and it seemed superficial
    in both length and analysis.
        Today you come here and you state that the report is not
    even to be considered a legal brief. Mr. Marshall, what is this
    document? If it is not good as a legal brief, if it is not good
    as a research referral document, it is not even good, adequate
    to illustrate the historical and cultural reality of Puerto
    Rico, then what good is it?
        Mr. Marshall. The document is written with its audience in
    mind, which is to mean written without jargon, written not at
    great length. We were not paid by the word. And I don't think
    it was necessary for us to go on at great length. We have laid
    out the options clearly, and I think we have hit the major
    points. There are details we haven't addressed.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you for your answer. The President's
    Task Force on Puerto Rico Status was comprised of a dozen
    Executive Branch officials chosen to study the issue of Puerto
    Rico's status and prepare a report and recommendations to the
    President and the Congress on the sensitive issues of Puerto
    Rico's political status.
        How many Puerto Ricans, in such an important issue to the
    people of Puerto Rico, I ask you, how many Puerto Ricans were
    part of this task force on Puerto Rico?
        Mr. Marshall. I am not sure, I didn't poll the numbers.
        Ms. Velazquez. I am sorry?
        Mr. Marshall. I don't know.
        Ms. Velazquez. The members from your task force, who were
    they?
        Mr. Marshall. I don't know whether any members were from
    Puerto Rico. I don't think they were, but it is possible.
        Ms. Velazquez. And you don't think that in such an
    important issue on Puerto Rico?
        Mr. Marshall. The task force visited Puerto Rico,
    particularly Mr. Barrales.
        Ms. Velazquez. I am going to deal with Mr. Barrales later.
    How many public hearings did the task force hold in Puerto Rico
    during the five-plus years since it was established? How many?
        Mr. Marshall. The co-chairman of the task force went to
    Puerto Rico and had several meetings, including with political
    leaders in Puerto Rico. I don't know whether those would
    qualify as----
        Ms. Velazquez. Public hearings.
        Mr. Marshall.--these hearings you are talking about.
        Ms. Velazquez. Public hearings, public hearings. Not a
    meeting with the Governor of Puerto Rico or a meeting with
    individual elected officials, I am saying public hearings, to
    listen to the people of Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Marshall. I am not aware of any, as I indicated last
    year at the hearing.
        Ms. Velazquez. How many meetings took place with all, or at
    least a majority, of the task force members present?
        Mr. Marshall. I believe that is information concerning the
    internal workings of the Executive Branch, so I am not free to
    disclose.
        Ms. Velazquez. Why is it that it is such a secret? That is
    the problem, you know? That is the problem, sir. You come here,
    and in your testimony you say that we will work with Congress--
    I am Congress here, I am a Member of Congress--to be sure that
    any process to solicit the views of the people of Puerto Rico
    is transparent, understandable, and fair. And you come in here
    and say that you can't share how many meetings, because those
    are Executive Branch privilege?
        Sir, let me ask you another question. How many official
    visits to Puerto Rico did the task force, as a task force, make
    to Puerto Rico in order to get an in-person assessment of the
    issue the task force members were supposed to study and
    evaluate?
        Mr. Marshall. There were at least two.
        Ms. Velazquez. With the members. Who were the members who
    went to Puerto Rico?
        Mr. Marshall. Mr. Barrales and Mr. Francisco, who is my
    predecessor.
        Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Barrales has been co-chair of the task
    force from the start, and you became co-chair with him after
    your predecessor, Noel Francisco of the U.S. Department of
    Justice, left. Is that right?
        Mr. Marshall. That is correct.
        Ms. Velazquez. It is also well known that he is not
    testifying before us today, and he recently left the White
    House. Through all these years, Mr. Barrales has been the
    public face of the task force, in terms of trips he took to
    Puerto Rico, meetings he may have had with elected officials
    and party representatives, interviews, and comments to the
    media. Isn't that the case?
        Mr. Marshall. I am sorry, is what the case?
        Ms. Velazquez. Isn't that the case that Mr. Barrales was
    basically the public face of the task force? That he was the
    one who gave statements and made comments about the task force,
    either here or in Puerto Rico?
        Mr. Marshall. Mr. Barrales did speak publicly about the
    work of the task force.
        Ms. Velazquez. So my question, then, is the following. Are
    you aware--I have my last question, since I am not coming back.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Madame Chair, will the Chair----
        Ms. Velazquez. Are you aware--if you will allow me.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the Chair yield? Will the Chair
    yield?
        Ms. Christensen. To allow her to finish?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I would love to give a portion of my
    time, even though I haven't yet, to the gentlelady from New
    York to continue the question.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you.
        Ms. Velazquez. Are you aware, Mr. Marshall, that Mr. Ruben
    Barrales, co-chair of the task force until recently, went to
    Puerto Rico in July 2004, and publicly expressed his support
    for Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state? Were you aware of
    that?
        Mr. Marshall. When I testified to the Senate last November
    I was asked that question, and it was based on a newspaper
    article. And I don't know whether that newspaper article's
    quotation was correct.
        Ms. Velazquez. So all the papers in Puerto Rico were wrong?
        Mr. Marshall. Sometimes papers do get things wrong, and I
    wasn't going to----
        Ms. Velazquez. Well, it happens a lot with----
        Mr. Marshall.--testify to what that one said.
        Ms. Velazquez. Yes, mm-hmm. Sir, he went, representing the
    White House, on events in Puerto Rico, and even political
    events in Puerto Rico, and he makes such a statement.
        So you were charged in the Executive Order, signed by the
    President, to create this task force. They say, and the
    President clearly stated, that they will not interfere with the
    political dynamics that should take place in Puerto Rico. That
    they will not, the task force, be charged to express what
    political preference regarding any political status for Puerto
    Rico. And here you have got your co-chair coming to Puerto
    Rico.
        So do you know how the people of Puerto Rico feel about
    this process? They are cynical. It lacks transparency. And it
    is totally unfair and undemocratic. That is what your task
    force report means for half of the people in Puerto Rico, and
    for this Member of Congress. We should be more serious, and
    there should be more honesty when we are dealing with such an
    important issue that is going to affect 8 million Puerto
    Ricans.
        And I invite you to revisit your task force, and come to
    the United States and visit the people of Puerto Rican descent,
    and talk to them, since you didn't do it either here or in
    Puerto Rico.
        Thank you, Madame Chair.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Ms. Velazquez. The Chair now
    recognizes the Resident Commissioner, the Ranking Member of the
    Subcommittee, Mr. Fortuno, for his opening statement.

          STATEMENT OF THE HON. LUIS G. FORTUNO, THE RESIDENT
           COMMISSIONER FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you, Madame Chair. And I ask unanimous
    consent that my full opening statement be introduced into the
    record. Thank you.
        And I apologize, but I was in a meeting with the President.
    We discussed this issue, and I will get into that further in
    this hearing. We have plenty of time. In the meantime, I want
    to make sure that I make some statements.
        Madame Chair, thank you again for calling this hearing. Let
    me begin by welcoming our distinguished witnesses. While some
    of us may differ on what Puerto Rico's relationship with the
    United States should be, we all agree that the current
    territorial status does not serve Puerto Rico or the United
    States well.
        Rather than restating my position on the two bills before
    us today, which I have made clear time and again, I will use my
    time to focus on some fundamental truths Congress should bear
    in mind.
        First, Congress has a constitutional and moral
    responsibility to act seriously to resolve this century-old
    colonial issue. As one former Governor of another local party
    who will testify, or was supposed to testify, today said, it
    would be, and I quote, ``morally unacceptable, unfair, and
    harmful to Puerto Rico and the United States to simply play
    with the status issue, because it undermines Puerto Rico's
    capacity for self-government, inflicts considerable hardship on
    its society, and drains the U.S. Treasury.'' And I end quote.
        Congress has a responsibility to enable Puerto Rico and its
    4 million U.S. citizens to obtain democracy at the national
    government level. As the former Governor also wrote, and I
    quote again, ``All factions do agree on the need to end the
    present undemocratic arrangement whereby Puerto Rico is subject
    to the laws of Congress, but cannot vote in it.'' And I end
    quote.
        The United States took the island, through war, 109 years
    ago. Congress is responsible for the territory status under the
    Treaty of Paris and the Territory Clause of the U.S.
    Constitution. We Puerto Ricans have repeatedly asked Congress
    to clarify our options.
        Presidents have spoken, and one spoke today, and I will get
    into that later.
        It is now time for Congress to act. It is Federal laws and
    policies that are the question in Puerto Rico's status debate,
    not questions of our local aspirations. Puerto Ricans have
    already proposed what they want. The question is what we can
    realistically achieve.
        Madame Chair, you asked at the last hearing whether the
    territory's economic problems couldn't be solve without a
    status change. Reports last year by the Brookings Institution
    and the GAO provide the answer. After decades of closing the
    income gap with the States, it has been widening once again.
    That is why on average 3,000 Puerto Ricans are moving to the
    mainland every month.
        The status issue is not just about democracy for nearly 4
    million U.S. citizens. It is also about our quality of life.
    The desperate proposal of the Governor for an impossible non-
    territory status that is neither a nation nor statehood, but
    combined features of both, is aimed at economic opportunity, as
    well as political power. The problem is that statehood is
    possible, and nationhood is possible; but the attempt to have
    both at the same time is not.
        Our current territory status is failing, with increasingly
    severe consequences. That uncertainty, unpredictability, and
    inherent regulatory and political instability of territory
    status prevents Puerto Rico's full potential and contribution
    to the Nation from being realized. That is why double-digit
    unemployment and a labor participation rate 50 percent less
    than the national average persistently plague our people. That
    is why less than half of us are productively creating the
    wealth that supports the more than half who are under-employed,
    unemployed, and frustrated by the lack of work opportunity.
        Madame Chair, the present territory status took Puerto Rico
    as far as it could, and is now a serious deterrent, banning us
    from attaining our aspirations and dreams. A resolution of this
    matter is badly needed now.
        However, the idea that Puerto Rico can hold a convention
    and define the status it wants is a recipe for continued
    stagnation on the issue. After more than half a century of
    repeated commonwealth proposals rejected in Washington, and
    three local votes confused and made inconclusive by such
    proposals, it would only make things worse to have a convention
    intended and gained to ratify yet another such proposal by a
    coalition of minority faction politicians.
        Puerto Rico can be treated like a state, named a
    commonwealth, as four states are and another territory is in
    English; named a free-associated state in Spanish, and as 100
    other legal, economic, and social policies can be applied by
    Congress and the Courts. But none of this changes the status to
    real nationhood or real democracy or real sovereignty or real
    statehood.
        Puerto Rico remains today a territory. We want every child
    in Puerto Rico to achieve the American Dream: to have the same
    opportunities their counterparts have in the States. To be able
    to go all the way to the top, and to end up better off in life
    than if they did not get that fair shot, playing by the same
    rules as every other child living under the American flag.
        We know Puerto Rican culture is strong enough to continue
    and strive under statehood, and through nationhood it is
    possible. But the steady decline into a failed society because
    of our unincorporated territory status and a local party's
    impossible status ideology make our colonial status destructive
    and intolerable.
        We all want the people to decide on the solution, but only
    Congress can make that happen. H.R. 900 is the only feasible
    way proposed so far for Congress to so empower our people.
        Thank you again.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fortuno follows:]

                   Statement of The Honorable Luis Fortuno,
             the Resident Commissioner in Congress from Puerto Rico

        Madame Chair, thank you, again, for calling this important hearing.
        Instead of repeating my previous specific comments on the bills, I
    will focus on some fundamental truths Congress should bear in mind as
    it addresses this issue.
        The first is that Congress has a responsibility to act seriously to
    resolve this issue--and it would be wrong for it to, in the words of a
    former governor of my territory of another local party who will testify
    today, ``play with it for a while''. As he wrote, ``It is morally
    unacceptable, unfair, and harmful to Puerto Rico and the United
    States--Such insensitivity undermines Puerto Rico's capacity for self-
    government, inflicts considerable hardship on its society, and drains
    the U.S. Treasury.''
        Congress' basic responsibility is to enable Puerto Rico to obtain
    democracy at the national government level--something our country
    stands for around the world. As the former governor also wrote, ``All
    factions do agree on the need to end the present undemocratic
    arrangement, whereby Puerto Rico is subject to the laws of Congress but
    cannot vote in it.''
        The United States took the islands in war 109 years ago. Congress
    is responsible for the territory's status under the Treaty of Paris and
    the Territory Clause of the U.S. Constitution. We Puerto Ricans have
    repeatedly asked Congress to clarify our options. Presidents have
    spoken. It is now time for Congress to act.
        The status issue is not just about democracy for nearly four
    million U.S. citizens; it also is about our quality of life.
        Madame Chair, you asked at the last hearing whether the territory's
    economic problems couldn't be solved without a status change. Every
    leader in Puerto Rico knows it can't be. That was the conclusion of
    hearings our full committee held 22 years ago at the request of the
    former governor that led to the effort to seek federal status choice
    legislation he initiated 18 years ago.
        It is federal laws and policies that are the question in Puerto
    Rico's status debate, not questions of our local aspirations. Puerto
    Ricans have already proposed what they want. The question is what we
    can realistically achieve.
        We all know that the current regime stopped working for us long
    ago--two or three decades ago as indicated by reports issued last year
    by the Brookings Institution and the GAO in fact, after decades of
    closing the income gap with the States, it has been widening. That is
    why 3,000 Puerto Ricans are moving to the mainland monthly. Economic
    need is the primary reason that there are now more people of Puerto
    Rican origin in the States than in the island.
        And that is why our current governor wants his impossible
    ``Development of the Commonwealth.'' It's not just political power, for
    power's sake. Yes, he wants to make Puerto Rico's situation democratic
    by being able to enter into foreign agreements and nullify federal law
    and court jurisdiction. But he also wants the power to enter into
    foreign agreements to establish a different trade situation for Puerto
    Rico than for the fifty States. And there would be economic benefit
    from that. The problem is that he wants the benefits of being American
    at the same time, for example access as a State to the U.S. market.
    There are constitutional problems with this--a U.S. area conducting its
    own foreign policy--as well as policy problems--it would create a giant
    loophole in U.S. trade barriers.
        He wants the power to determine the application of federal laws to,
    for example, exempt Puerto Rico from the application of the laws
    requiring the use of American-crewed, built, and owned vessels for
    cargo between U.S. ports. And that would be economically beneficial
    ``but the federal government is not going to grant it under a U.S.
    status. It will only happen if Puerto Rico becomes a sovereign nation.
        Here the problem is not constitutional, but practical. Puerto Rico
    is too big and represents too much U.S. vessel shipping for an
    exemption. You know, Madame Chair, the challenges to the exemption for
    your much smaller territory that dates to early in the last century.
    Our colleague from Guam knows how impossible it has been for Guam,
    which is also much smaller than Puerto Rico and is even much more
    distant from the States, to get an exemption despite tens of millions
    of dollars of lobbying and decades of effort.
        And a main reason is the size of Puerto Rico.
        You spoke, Madame Chair, about the precedents that Puerto Rico sets
    for the other territories. The main precedents are that the size and
    potential economic impact of Puerto Rico prevents exemptions and
    equality for the much smaller territories.
        The truth is Puerto Rico needs to become a State or a nation to
    substantially improve its economic situation. Both courses offer
    advantages and opportunities we cannot access now.
        So some leaders want nationhood, whether independent from the U.S.
    or in a free association with it. Others of us want the equality of
    statehood within this greatest of nations. The Governor and his bill
    want a ``best of both worlds'' that has never been accepted by the
    federal government and never will be and that would continue to consign
    us to this limbo status of not only a lack of democracy but further
    economic deterioration and social despair.
        Our current territory status is failing with increasingly severe
    consequences. The uncertainty, unpredictability and inherent regulatory
    and political instability of territory status prevent Puerto Rico's
    full potential--and contribution to the nation--from being realized.
        That is why double-digit unemployment and a labor participation
    rate 50% less than the national average persistently plagues our
    people. That is why less than half the residents of Puerto Rico are
    productively creating the wealth that sustains and supports more than
    half the population that is under-employed, unemployed, and frustrated
    by the lack of opportunity. Madame Chair, the present territory status
    took Puerto Rico as far as it could, and is now a serious deterrent
    banning us from attaining our aspirations and dreams. A resolution of
    this matter is badly needed now.
        These are not aliens or immigrants, this is not a debate about
    letting them in or giving them amnesty or guest worker status. These
    are our fellow Americans, fourth generation U.S. citizens, living under
    the American flag within the same national borders as the rest of the
    United States, just like Americans in the non-contiguous states of
    Hawaii and Alaska. Many of them are veterans who served in mortal
    combat alongside the constituents of my colleagues on the Subcommittee,
    from every State in the Union. Unlike Americans from States, my
    constituents come home to an economy that is chronically
    underperforming, in an American colony where they do not even have a
    right to vote in federal elections or voting representation in
    Congress.
        However, the idea that Puerto Rico can hold a convention and define
    the status it wants is a recipe for continued stagnation on the issue.
    After more than half a century of repeated ``commonwealth'' proposals
    rejected in Washington and three local votes confused and made
    inconclusive by such proposals, it would only make things worse to have
    a convention intended to ratify a proposal such as the already-reject
    ``Development of the Commonwealth'' by a coalition of minority faction
    politicians.
        The notion that such a strategy can force the federal government to
    subvert its objections to the ``self-determination will'' of Puerto
    Ricans is folly, if not deception. The example of Guam, where the
    ``commonwealth'' proposal was more moderate and where the stakes were
    much smaller for the U.S., demonstrated this.
        Before concluding, let me say I have read the so-called legal
    analyses that have been submitted in House and Senate hearings on
    Puerto Rico over the last year. The submissions by local party leaders
    and their lawyers claim----
          Statutory territorial status policy can be made
    permanent, and somehow morph into a non-territory status.
          Statutory status policy can be placed beyond the reach of
    Congress by borrowing irrelevant precedents from federal contract and
    property law.
          Puerto Rico is already in free association with the
    U.S.--as the Governor astoundingly suggested to the Senate committee a
    few months ago.
        Enough is enough. What does it take to end this absurd debate--
    other than clarification from Congress? Just this year, in the
    Guantanomo detainee cases, the federal courts have ruled yet again that
    Puerto Rico is subject to federal powers under the Territory Clause.
        We all know Puerto Rico can be treated ``like a State'', named the
    ``Commonwealth''--as are four States and another territory--in English,
    named a ``free associated state'' in Spanish, and a hundred other
    legal, economic, social policies can be applied by Congress and the
    courts, but none of this changes the status to real nationhood or real
    democracy, or real sovereignty, or real statehood, because Puerto Rico
    remains a territory.
        I will conclude today by telling my colleagues what I believe all
    Puerto Ricans really want. We want our children to grow up without
    being obsessed by an esoteric debate about our identity and status
    under the supreme law of the nation in which we live.
        We want every child in Puerto Rico to achieve the American dream,
    to have the same opportunities that their counterparts have in the
    states, to be able to go all the way to the top, and even if they fall
    short of their biggest dream, end up having more of that dream come
    true, and end up better off in life, than if they did not get that fair
    shot, playing by the same rules as every other child living under the
    American flag.
        We want to know that no child in Puerto Rico missed out on a shot
    at the American Dream because the political status of Puerto Rico was
    not resolved.
        We want our economy to thrive not stagnate, so that the God-given
    creativity of our people can find expression in productive
    participation in our society.
        We do not want to bequeath an under-developed and under-performing
    economy and a political, cultural, social identity crisis to our
    children and grandchildren.
        We believe Puerto Rican culture and heritage is strong enough to
    survive a transition to statehood or separate sovereign nationhood, but
    not the slow, twilight decline into a failed society that now threatens
    us under the federal government's unincorporated territory status
    doctrine, and local party doctrines that attempt but fail to make this
    colonial status tolerable.
        We all want the people to decide on the solution, but only Congress
    can make that happen. H.R. 900 is the only feasible way proposed so far
    for Congress to so empower our people.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Fortuno. I now recognize
    Mr. Faleomavaega for five minutes of questions.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentlelady, the Chairwoman of
    this Subcommittee. And in fairness to the process, I noted that
    I actually had one minute left, after giving four minutes of my
    time previously to Ms. Velazquez. But I do thank the
    gentlelady, and I sincerely hope that our Ranking Member will
    accept that slight change of period of time for me to ask
    questions. Is that all right? I just want to be fair to the
    process.
        Mr. Fortuno. Yes.
        Ms. Christensen. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much. Madame Chairwoman,
    this is the second phase now in the process that we have
    conducted these hearings, and I do want to thank my colleague
    and dear friend, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, Mr.
    Fortuno, for his eloquent statement, the positions that he has
    taken, and certainly he has my utmost respect for his deep
    understanding of the politics in the situation developing in
    Puerto Rico.
        I do want to say that we have in our presence former
    colleagues and Members of this committee and Members of
    Congress, the former Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, The
    Honorable Anibal Vila, my dear friend who is now the duly
    elected Governor of Puerto Rico, and also my good friend, the
    former Governor, as well as Resident Commissioner, of Puerto
    Rico, who I see there, and that is Mr. Carlos Romero, who is
    also here with us. Certainly we also note the presence of our
    former Governor of Puerto Rico, Mr. Rossello, and other
    distinguished dignitaries coming from Puerto Rico.
        Madame Chairwoman, I probably consider myself as a deputy
    expert or whatever for 18 years now that I have been a Member
    of this committee, and I consider myself a semi-expert about
    Puerto Rico by this time, with all the hearings, the committee
    meetings, and so much that we have undertaken in trying to
    resolve the problem and trying to resolve the issue of what is
    best for the people and for the leaders of Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Marshall, I have listened closely to your testimony.
    And, as you may have noted, Ms. Velazquez has asked you some
    initial questions about how the task force came about, and the
    recommendations the task force has made.
        In order to give any sense of credibility to any task force
    report or recommendations, I cite the 9/11 Commission and the
    Iraq Study Group as examples of commissions or task forces,
    however you want to call it. And as you may have noted, a lot
    of credibility is given to the substance and recommendations of
    the Iraq Study Group because they were composed of both
    Democrats and Republican leaders, especially the national
    caliber of former Secretary of State Jim Baker. Former
    Congressman Lee Hamilton has the utmost respect of our
    colleagues here in the Congress.
        My point here is that recommendations offered by the Iraq
    Study Group was unanimously accepted, and it was made because
    it had the substance of clear expert advice from the best on
    both sides of the aisle, so to speak.
        Now, as I listen to your testimony and the position that
    the Administration and the White House has given, that your
    task force supports H.R. 900. And I just wanted to share with
    you my concern to the effect that if there is anything that it
    is my sincere hope that this committee, as well as the
    Congress, would hope to achieve is that we have to provide a
    process unfettered by any leanings or any tiltings, if you
    will, so that the process is truly democratic in scope; so that
    the people of Puerto Rico truly are given that choice free, and
    without any encumbrances to suggesting that I am for statehood,
    I am for commonwealth, or I am for independence.
        And I just wanted to ask you, in the process of selecting
    the members of this task force, was there any consideration
    given to asking maybe people from another political persuasion
    to be members of this task force? How were the members of the
    commission or the task force selected?
        Mr. Marshall. The composition of the task force is set out
    in the Executive Order that President Clinton established, and
    then it was not substantially changed on this point by
    President Bush when he continued the task force. And the way it
    is created is each cabinet head designates one member for the
    task force.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And I think Ms. Velazquez asked
    previously, were there any hearings held, public hearings held
    in Puerto Rico concerning the activities of this task force?
        Mr. Marshall. With the understanding that Ms. Velazquez
    seems to have for that term, the answer would be no.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So the task force just met among
    themselves, and deliberated on the legal aspects, everything
    that relates to the status of Puerto Rico? Is this how you
    conducted your hearings or meetings?
        Mr. Marshall. Members of the task force went to Puerto
    Rico. And when they were down there, my understanding is they
    primarily met with political leaders there, and this was
    covered in the press.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So there were no public hearings held or
    anything.
        Mr. Marshall. I believe that is correct.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And of the members, how many members in
    the task force again? For the record.
        Mr. Marshall. Well, for the record----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. You are co-chair of the task force. Was
    it 20 members? Thirty?
        Mr. Marshall. Well, I would say about 12.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Twelve members of the task force.
        Mr. Marshall. The front of the task force report lists all
    the members.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Would you say that all the members are
    from the Republican-oriented Administration?
        Mr. Marshall. I don't know.
        Ms. Christensen. Well, I mean, you are co-chair.
        Mr. Marshall. I had no hand in selecting the members of the
    task force. I was selected by the Attorney General. I don't
    know how other cabinet heads went about selecting their
    members.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So when you say other cabinet heads,
    meaning this Administration.
        Mr. Marshall. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. For the recommendation?
        Mr. Marshall. An approach under President Clinton to the
    Executive Order, President Bush followed the procedure that
    President Clinton set up for composing the task force.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. My last question. I am just trying to,
    let us see if I can make the question better.
        Ms. Christensen. Please make it brief, because you have
    already exceeded your time. Quickly.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. The members of the task force, they are
    all members of the Administration, were they not?
        Mr. Marshall. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
    Fortuno for questions.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. First of all, just to clarify one
    matter brought up by my colleague from Mississippi, majority
    rule and not consensus is the standard in self-determination.
    And actually, there are a number of examples in the case of
    Wisconsin. In the beginning there was only 25 percent, 30
    percent in favor of statehood. Once Congress clarified the
    options for the voters, that number went up significantly. That
    is exactly what this Administration is trying to do. The same
    thing happened to Washington State, and there are many other
    examples.
        However, I want to say something before I ask any
    questions, Madame Chairwoman. I must recognize for the record
    that it makes a material contribution to the deliberations of
    this body and the record upon which Congress must act in this
    matter when the Administration participates in our hearings, as
    it has today. To some, this is not perceived to be arrogant in
    the short term, because there are many other issues. But I
    truly believe that the manner in which our nation addresses the
    issues of Puerto Rico's status will have a much greater impact
    on the future of our nation than many other issues that we are
    taking care of today.
        What is at stake here is whether the years ahead, we have a
    free, democratic, and prosperous Puerto Rico that can pay its
    own way, or a dependent colonial state which people must leave
    if they want a better life, if they still can under whatever
    positions prevail.
        Today's Administration witness, I want to thank him for
    being available, and for being forthcoming on this legislation
    on behalf of the Administration. We all know that there were
    many powerful forces and pressures to stop the progress and
    impede a solution on this issue, because there is always
    someone with a vested interest in the status quo no matter how
    many people, or if the Nation itself, would be better served by
    a real solution.
        And as I told the President today, the Administration
    should make no apologies whatsoever to anyone for standing up
    by a task force report and supporting legislation consistent
    with the findings and recommendations adopted by the
    departments and agencies of the Administration responsible for
    Puerto Rico affairs.
        Full engagement in this debate, based on the principles
    confirmed in this report, is the only way to align the
    Administration with a policy of full, informed, honest, and
    legitimate democratic self-determination. That is what is best
    for Puerto Rico and America. So I thank the Administration for
    coming today and doing what is right for the nation, and what
    is right for Puerto Rico.
        I want to ask you, first of all, in order to be here on
    behalf of the Administration, there was a process that you had
    to go through, is that right?
        Mr. Marshall. Yes.
        Mr. Fortuno. And your statements had to be cleared probably
    with OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, and the office,
    the White House?
        Mr. Marshall. Our testimony is cleared through the White
    House.
        Mr. Fortuno. OK. So when you come here, and you talk, and
    you speak on behalf of the Administration, you are fully
    authorized to do that on this issue.
        Mr. Marshall. Everything I have said in my statement is
    fully authorized, yes.
        Mr. Fortuno. And what you said today is the official
    position of the Bush Administration?
        Mr. Marshall. Yes.
        Mr. Fortuno. Can there be a commonwealth status that is not
    subject to Federal territory clause powers? Is there such a
    thing as a commonwealth as described by H.R. 1230, a supersized
    commonwealth, or enhanced commonwealth, as they are trying to
    portray?
        Mr. Marshall. No. I should qualify that. The task force
    report does say that Congress has flexibility in determining
    what exactly commonwealth status means, and what powers of
    self-government Puerto Rico has.
        Mr. Fortuno. But can that bind future Congresses?
        Mr. Marshall. No.
        Mr. Fortuno. And is that permanent in nature?
        Mr. Marshall. Congress's power is permanent, under the
    territorial clause.
        Mr. Fortuno. No, but the status, that supersized or
    enhanced commonwealth, is that permanent in nature?
        Mr. Marshall. No.
        Mr. Fortuno. Congress could take away whatever it gives.
    The next Congress could do that any time, unilaterally.
        Mr. Marshall. Yes, it could.
        Mr. Fortuno. And is it your position, and the
    Administration's position certainly, that this supersized or
    enhanced commonwealth proposal cannot be a status option, to
    solve this once and for all, for constitutional and other
    reasons? Is that what you have said today?
        Mr. Marshall. It is the Administration's position that a
    commonwealth provision, including a mutual consent clause,
    would not be constitutional.
        Mr. Fortuno. And what happens, then, if a convention,
    constitutional convention in Puerto Rico says that yes, that
    supersized or enhanced commonwealth is what we want? Does that
    solve the problem? Does that provide for a permanent status for
    Puerto Rico that is non-territorial in nature?
        Mr. Marshall. I guess the precise answer would be that that
    convention would think of itself as so providing, but that
    wouldn't be lawful under the Constitution.
        Mr. Fortuno. So would it be misleading to Puerto Ricans to
    enact legislation, including a status proposal, that the
    Federal government cannot, and will not, implement?
        Mr. Marshall. I wouldn't want to impugn motives, but it
    would be unclear.
        Mr. Fortuno. At the very least, certainly. So essentially
    what you are telling me, and I assume you are--and actually,
    you must be, because I certainly read your statement this
    morning, and I certainly have read several times the task force
    report and the recommendations.
        So essentially, you went over what these supersized or
    enhanced commonwealth proposals are. And when you state, very
    clearly in your report, that actually that is not doable, that
    those options are not encompassed under the U.S. Constitution,
    I assume that you looked back at what the Justice Department
    has stated, under at least three consecutive Administrations--
    Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43--and that you certainly looked
    back at that. And that you still stand by that, by what you
    stated in the report, regarding that enhanced or supersized
    commonwealth status option.
        Mr. Marshall. On the constitutional question, we did look
    at the views of the Clinton Administration and the first Bush
    Administration; considered the matter further for ourselves;
    stand by it. The task force report also does recognize that the
    Justice Department had a different view dating from the 1960s.
        Mr. Fortuno. Of the two bills that are before the
    Subcommittee, is there one bill that is actually closer
    resembles the recommendations that actually presents to the
    Puerto Rican voters clear options that are doable under the
    U.S. Constitution?
        Mr. Marshall. I believe closely resembles would be an
    accurate description of H.R. 900.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you very much. I guess we will have
    another round. Thank you.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Fortuno. The Chair now
    recognizes Mrs. Bordallo for five minutes.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Madame Chairman, and thank you for
    calling this hearing. We have been hearing about a status issue
    for Puerto Rico for many, many years.
        I represent the Territory of Guam, Mr. Marshall, and we
    have gone through a similar process. And believe it or not, we
    still do not have our future status. The bill came before
    Congress for over 10 years; we spent millions of dollars, and
    we just couldn't agree here in the U.S. Congress.
        Now, just for clarification, and I think some of the
    Members have already answered this, but I wanted to go on
    record very clearly. Does the report of the task force
    represent the Administration's official position? And I think
    Mr. Fortuno asked you that.
        Mr. Marshall. It does, now.
        Ms. Bordallo. Was this report vetted through the OMB
    process?
        Mr. Marshall. This report?
        Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
        Mr. Marshall. The report was prepared by the task force on
    its own.
        Ms. Bordallo. Did it go through the OMB? Did they look at
    it? Was there somebody representing OMB on the task force?
        Mr. Marshall. No.
        Ms. Bordallo. Did it receive unanimous approval of the task
    force members?
        Mr. Marshall. Yes.
        Ms. Bordallo. What is the Administration's position on both
    bills? And I think you did answer that earlier. H.R. 900, you
    said, was that compatible to their views?
        Mr. Marshall. What I said is that the Administration
    supports legislation on this question, and believes that the
    task force report is a good place to start. And recognizes that
    H.R. 900 is very similar to what the task force----
        Ms. Bordallo. Closely resembles their views, all right.
        Mr. Marshall. And I would just add, and then on H.R. 1230,
    it takes the view of the Constitution with which we disagree.
        Ms. Bordallo. Are there any particular aspects of the task
    force report or recommendations which were cause for serious
    deliberation, or which are the product of consensus?
        Mr. Marshall. All of the task force report is the product
    of consensus, because all members of the task force agreed with
    the final report.
        Ms. Bordallo. If so, in other words, were these conclusions
    easily reached? Or did they take some compromise?
        Mr. Marshall. I don't think I am free to get into that
    question in terms of deliberations. I will just say it is
    evident from the timeframe that we did take a while to reach
    the final report.
        Ms. Bordallo. So what you are saying to the committee,
    then, is many aspects of the task force are not public? Is
    that----
        Mr. Marshall. The final product is a public document. The
    deliberations that went into getting into it, to developing
    that final report, are not. Or at least I don't have the
    authority to make them public.
        Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Marshall, did the task force consider an
    enhanced commonwealth as an option for the plebiscite?
        Mr. Marshall. The task force considered enhanced
    commonwealth as an option generally, concluded that it wasn't
    allowed under the Constitution, and therefore, did not include
    it in the recommended plebiscites.
        Ms. Bordallo. Can you tell us what the deliberations of the
    task force were with respect to this option?
        Mr. Marshall. Again, I am not authorized to get into that.
        Ms. Bordallo. My comment before closing here is, I can't
    imagine a task force without representatives from Puerto Rico,
    the people of Puerto Rico. I just can't imagine that. I mean,
    certainly this is going to be a status or an option that will
    be with the people for the entire future, and they don't have
    any voice in this? You just took representatives from different
    Federal agencies, and put them together, and this was the task
    force to consider the status or to recommend what type of
    status for the Puerto Rico people? Is this what you are saying?
        Mr. Marshall. As I indicated in response to the prior
    question, the composition of the task force was determined by
    an Executive Order set up by President Clinton. And I would
    refer you to him for more details on why it was created that
    way.
        Ms. Bordallo. Well, thank you, Mr. Marshall. I don't think
    I am going to go up to the former President and ask him. In
    your own personal opinion, do you think this is fair?
        Mr. Marshall. I stand by the task force report, and think
    it is a good product.
        Ms. Bordallo. I didn't ask that question. I said do you
    think this is fair, without any representative, direct
    representation from the people of Puerto Rico on the task
    force?
        Mr. Marshall. Sorry to be picky, but could you explain what
    you mean by this?
        Ms. Bordallo. Yes. Well, I said, do you feel personally. I
    mean, if they were to consider your future, wouldn't you think
    that your state or your territory would be represented in a
    task force that is going to discuss the future status?
        Mr. Marshall. It would depend on the purpose of the task
    force. The purpose of the task force set out by President
    Clinton, continued by President Bush, was to be an internal
    Executive Branch advisory body to give a recommendation to the
    President.
        Ms. Bordallo. So you feel it was fair.
        Mr. Marshall. Given that purpose, I believe it was fair.
        Ms. Bordallo. All right. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. I will now
    recognize myself for some questions in a second round.
        I want to ask you a question about something that gives me
    a great deal of concern. The task force stated that Congress
    can cede a territory to another nation. Now, you can understand
    why I would be concerned about that, right? If it so desired.
    To me, that is a pre-Civil War view of territories as property
    that really shouldn't have any place in this century.
        Do you think it is credible for a task force of this
    nature, coming out of the White House, to suggest that our
    Courts would allow Congress to cede territory where U.S.
    citizens reside without their saying so? Or agreeing to it?
        Mr. Marshall. Well, in this area in particular, Madame
    Chairman, there is probably a large gap between what the law
    would technically allow, and what would be desirable. I have
    addressed this in some questions for the record I have answered
    in response to the prior hearings.
        The fact of the matter is that under the Territorial
    Clause, Congress has powers to dispose of its territories,
    which would include relinquishing them. It does not at all
    argue that that would be a good thing, nor does it appear to be
    something that is likely to happen without the territory being
    consulted.
        Ms. Christensen. I am not a lawyer, and my father, who was
    one, always reminded me of that. But in the same vein, you said
    the law can technically provide, but that doesn't mean it is
    allowable. Wouldn't that also apply to the Congress changing a
    status that was decided by the people of the territory? Because
    we keep coming back to if the people of Puerto Rico decided to
    stay a commonwealth, Congress can change it. Wouldn't that same
    principle that you just stated to me apply there?
        Mr. Marshall. I take it you mean the principle that it is
    desirable not to make changes in the way people are governed
    without consulting them.
        Ms. Christensen. Yes. The law may provide, we are provided
    with the authority to do so, but it is not likely to happen.
    That is basically how you answered Ms. Bordallo in her
    question.
        Mr. Marshall. I can't remember the precise phrasing of your
    question, but I think it is certainly the Administration's
    view--and the President has said this before--that any change
    in Puerto Rico's status, which would include changing the
    details of the commonwealth within the limits of the
    Constitution should ultimately be up to the people of Puerto
    Rico.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. The question really was, even
    though Congress has the authority, the President in likelihood
    would not suggest that they would step in and change something
    that the people of Puerto Rico decided arbitrarily, without
    consulting the people of Puerto Rico. OK.
        Mr. Marshall. OK.
        Ms. Christensen. You also said something to the effect, and
    I know I may not be quoting you exactly, that the new
    commonwealth--in the response to that answer, no, there is
    nothing like the new commonwealth as proposed that exists now,
    or you may have even said likely to exist. But I think you said
    at least that it doesn't exist now.
        Now, no less a legal scholar than Felix Frankfurter once
    stated that in deciding the form of the relationship between
    the United States and its unincorporated territories, the
    Constitution has left the field wide open to inventive
    statesmanship that can help evolve new kinds of relationship,
    so as to combine the advantages of local self-government with
    those of a confederated union.
        Why should Congress pay more attention to the drafters of
    this report than exercising that that inventive statesmanship
    defines solutions to relationships that were not contemplated
    at the time of the Constitution? Do you disagree with Justice
    Frankfurter?
        Mr. Marshall. The Administration is all for inventiveness,
    as I indicated in stating the Administration's view on this
    question. But it needs to be done within the limits that the
    Constitution sets. All powers under the Constitution have
    limits. And I believe we have presented a good argument, as
    before as to the Clinton Administration, for where those limits
    are in this area.
        Ms. Christensen. OK. The report also recommends a two-step
    process that would put the votes for the two extreme options of
    statehood and independence competing together against the votes
    for commonwealth. If this combined vote of statehood and
    independence defeats commonwealth, we would then have a runoff
    between statehood and independence.
        How can that be fair, to have a process that excludes the
    option that most of the people, that has the most support in
    Puerto Rico, by having two other options gang up against that
    option? Why not have an independence yes-or-no vote, or a
    statehood yes-or-no vote? And I have other things that I would
    suggest maybe in asking the question.
        Mr. Marshall. There may well be other ways to structure
    this. The constraints that the task force looked to were first
    the limits of the Constitution, but also taking into account
    the inconclusive results of prior votes; trying to create a
    structure that would produce clear results that would provide
    some sort of guidance that Congress could use in enacting or
    not.
        Ms. Christensen. What would be a clear result, to you?
        Mr. Marshall. A majority vote in favor of an outcome.
        Ms. Christensen. Does a 50 percent plus one, voting for one
    status or another? I mean, what is a clear----
        Mr. Marshall. That would be clear. Whether it would be
    sufficient as a policy matter to justify Congress in taking
    some action I can't speak to. There was earlier reference to
    consensus, and prior admission of states. And it would
    certainly be prudent to consult that before acting based on a
    vote of 50-plus-one.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. And I recognize Mr. Fortuno for
    further questions.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. I ask the question, does H.R. 900
    include all the real status options which have been discussed
    in the context of Puerto Rico? That is, continuing the current
    territory status, independence, nationhood and free association
    with the U.S., and U.S. statehood.
        Mr. Marshall. I believe so. I am hesitating on whether free
    association is separately in there as a flavor of independence.
    I think so.
        Mr. Fortuno. But it is included there. So would you say
    that H.R. 900 states clearly to the voters of Puerto Rico what
    the real options are, under the U.S. Constitution?
        Mr. Marshall. Yes.
        Mr. Fortuno. The Governor has proposed an enhanced
    commonwealth, or supersized commonwealth, under which the
    United States would be permanently bound to Puerto Rico, a
    Puerto Rico that could enter into international agreements,
    honorary sanctions, and that states that it cannot--sorry--it
    would be bound to granting a substitute to the insular
    government additional to what is presently granted. It would be
    replacing, repealing incentives for U.S. investments, and
    continue to grant free entry to the U.S. market of any goods
    shipped from Puerto Rico. All current assistance programs
    would, actually will continue, and U.S. citizenship will
    continue to apply.
        Is all that possible under a non-territorial enhanced
    commonwealth status? Is that doable under the U.S.
    Constitution?
        Mr. Marshall. It may be that some of those possibilities
    are allowed through Congress's power under the Territorial
    Clause, and I wouldn't want to guess on that right now.
        Mr. Fortuno. But can't they be taken away by a future
    Congress?
        Mr. Marshall. Yes.
        Mr. Fortuno. So it would not be permanent.
        Mr. Marshall. Correct.
        Mr. Fortuno. Actually, in addition to that, they have
    proposed that Puerto Rico would have veto power over Federal
    legislation, and would be able to curtail Federal court
    jurisdiction. Is that something that is doable and permanent in
    a new enhanced commonwealth, under the U.S. Constitution? If it
    is going to be permanent?
        Mr. Marshall. It is not something that could be made
    permanent, assuming that it could be done.
        Mr. Fortuno. Is it still your position, and the position of
    the Administration, that this supersized or enhanced
    commonwealth proposal cannot be a status option, for
    constitutional and other reasons, if we want to solve this once
    and for all? To make it permanent?
        Mr. Marshall. It is still the Administration's position
    that a commonwealth provision with a mutual consent clause
    would not be constitutional.
        Mr. Fortuno. Having a Puerto Rican convention, would that
    change your opinion?
        Mr. Marshall. No.
        Mr. Fortuno. How do you respond to the constitutional flaws
    of H.R. 1230, as outlined in the testimony that actually Ken
    Thomas from the Congressional Research Service stated in our
    last hearing here on March 22? Have you read that statement?
        Mr. Marshall. I have not.
        Mr. Fortuno. You have not? OK. Could you provide to us, to
    the committee, an answer to, once you have analyzed and studied
    that statement, if there are any responses on your behalf
    regarding the constitutional flaws that were underlined and
    underscored by Ken Thomas?
        Mr. Marshall. We will look at Mr. Thomas's statement.
        Mr. Fortuno. Can we make sure that the full committee
    receives that?
        Ms. Christensen. Without objection.
        Mr. Fortuno. OK, thank you. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Marshall, in Governor Acevedo's statement of today, he
    cites Professor Aleinikoff. And he states a number of things
    about how sovereignty can be actually enhanced or develop into
    something that you have already stated that at least the
    position of the Administration is that it cannot. Can you
    enlighten us, and answer whether the Administration, does the
    Administration, including the Department of Justice and State,
    agree with the Governor and the professor, that Puerto Rico
    should have its own foreign policy and legal capacity to enter
    treaties, and lead to obligations of laws and treaties as to
    the U.S.? Treaties that the U.S. enters into, under an enhanced
    commonwealth status, would you be able to actually enlighten us
    with that?
        And if you need more time, could you submit in writing to
    this committee the Administration's position on this?
        Mr. Marshall. I am sorry, can I unpack that question a
    little bit?
        Mr. Fortuno. Sure. The idea really is for you to put this
    in writing, to be very honest. But certainly, if you were to
    read Governor Acevedo's statement of today, he is stating that
    indeed, Puerto Rico could enter into foreign treaties. And,
    under that theory, that this professor states, citing a 19th
    century concept of sovereignty. And I would like for you to
    look at Governor Acevedo's statement of today, and provide us
    with your reaction and the Administration's reaction to those
    statements, as to whether Puerto Rico could enter into this
    international treaties under an enhanced commonwealth status,
    as he is suggesting that we can enter into. And actually
    suggesting, as well, that that could be a permanent solution to
    our status problem.
        Mr. Marshall. I am happy to entertain questions for the
    record, which I assumed I would be receiving.
        Mr. Fortuno. Exactly, as well. I know my time is up.
    Certainly with those two requests, I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
    Faleomavaega for five minutes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madame Chair. And I appreciate
    Mr. Marshall's patience.
        Mr. Marshall, not wanting to put any words in your mouth,
    but also to take it out of context, but I would like to, if you
    could restate, if I heard it correctly, you did say that
    commonwealth status is not constitutional?
        Mr. Marshall. What is often referred to as enhanced or new
    commonwealth status----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. No, no, no. The current commonwealth
    status of Puerto Rico. Did I hear it correctly, you saying that
    it is not constitutional?
        Mr. Marshall. I did not say that. The current status is
    constitutional.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you state that again? Let me ask the
    question again.
        Mr. Marshall. The current commonwealth status is
    constitutional. It is also subject to revision by Congress.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. Well, as I noted here clearly, you
    did say, verbatim, commonwealth is not constitutional. that is
    why I am trying to ask you to follow up on this. If this is
    what you----
        Mr. Marshall. If I said that, I misspoke.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. So you didn't mean that. Because my
    next question was, if commonwealth is not constitutional, why
    hasn't the Department of Justice issued an opinion clearly
    saying that commonwealth status is not constitutional. But you
    say that that is not the case.
        Mr. Marshall. No. I may have misspoken. I refer you to the
    report, which may be clearer on that.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. What is your understanding of a territory
    being an unincorporated territory?
        Mr. Marshall. That generally means a territory that isn't
    on the road to statehood.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. A territory on the road to statehood? An
    unincorporated territory?
        Mr. Marshall. That is the meaning that the Supreme Court
    developed after the Spanish-American War.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I beg to differ with you, Mr. Marshall.
    My understanding is that a territory that has an unincorporated
    status, it means that it will never see the day of ever
    becoming a state. That was the result of the Supreme Court
    decisions on the insular cases, one being Downes v. Bidwell.
        Mr. Marshall. I have stated--sorry, go ahead.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. No, I just wanted to ask you if that is
    your understanding of what an unincorporated territory means.
        Mr. Marshall. My understanding of the concept of
    unincorporated territory is not that an unincorporated
    territory can never become a state. Congress is free to admit
    an unincorporated territory. It is rather an assessment that,
    given all the circumstances to date, it doesn't appear that the
    territory is on the way to statehood.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So my concern for this is because Puerto
    Rico is an unincorporated territory, according to the legal
    definitions that I have read.
        Mr. Marshall. That is correct. And the report also says
    that.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And the irony of this is that one of the
    given options for Puerto Rico's future is that it can become a
    state, even though it is an unincorporated state. Territory,
    rather. Do you see my problem?
        Mr. Marshall. I see your point, but again, I don't think
    there is anything in the Supreme Court's cases, including
    Downes, that says Congress cannot later change its mind and
    decide that an unincorporated territory should be incorporated,
    including as a state.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. My understanding of the Doctrine of
    Incorporation was by judicial legislation. It was a series of
    cases that were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which led to
    the Doctrine of Incorporation. And one of the concerns here,
    like the territories of Alaska and Hawaii, they were both
    incorporated territories, which meant that at some future time
    in these territories' future, that they would eventually become
    states. And that is what they have become now; they are both
    states.
        And one of the questions that I raise is, if I am correct--
    and my reading is limited, it really is an understanding--is
    that historically, Puerto Rico has always been known as an
    unincorporated territory. And that is why I raise the question,
    if it is an unincorporated territory, then how does that square
    with the idea that if that is the case of the status, then
    where does statehood come into it? Because that is not being,
    that hasn't been the tradition or the practice of the Doctrine
    of Incorporation.
        Mr. Marshall. Again, I agree that Puerto Rico is now
    unincorporated, but Congress can change that.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So am I correct? And I don't want to put
    words in your mouth, sir. What you are saying now, a territory
    can be unincorporated, and can also be a state if Congress
    rules it?
        Mr. Marshall. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. OK, thank you. In essence, Mr. Marshall,
    could it be fair to say that, as the official representative of
    the President of this Administration, the Administration does
    support statehood as an option?
        Mr. Marshall. The President himself has said publicly, and
    I think this goes back at least to 1999, that his personal
    preference is for statehood. But he has also been quick to say
    that the ultimate decision is for the people of Puerto Rico.
        So in the task force, the Executive Order didn't say please
    implement the personal preference of the President; it was
    please figure out what options the Constitution allows, and
    find a way to ascertain the will of the people on that
    question.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Thank you,
    Madame Chair.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Burton for--I welcome you to the hearing, and
    recognize you for five minutes.
        Mr. Burton. Well, thank you very much. I have been for
    Puerto Rican statehood for a long time, and I believe this bill
    provides a mechanism through which we can ascertain what the
    people of Puerto Rico want. And then it also provides a
    mechanism to get us to a vote in the Congress regarding
    statehood.
        So I don't have a long statement, other than to say I would
    like to see the next generation of children in Puerto Rico grow
    up to be United States citizens, and Puerto Rico to be the 51st
    state. And with that, I will shut up.
        Ms. Christensen. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bordallo for
    five minutes.
        Ms. Bordallo. I have no further questions. If I could, I
    would like to yield my time to Mr. Serrano. Can I do that?
        Ms. Christensen. Certainly.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. Thank you. First of all,
    Madame Chairwoman, and to the Members of the committee, I thank
    you for the opportunity to participate, and I thank you for the
    opportunity that you have given us by having this hearing.
        This indeed is a very important hearing, because you can't
    discuss this subject enough. In fact, we have been discussing
    it for over 100 years. And one of these days we are going to
    come to a conclusion.
        I want to, from the onset, be very clear, as I was at the
    last hearing. When I introduced H.R. 900, I did it because H.R.
    900 brings about the solution in the way that I think is right,
    not only for the people of Puerto Rico, but also for this
    Congress and the people of the United States. For you see, I
    find myself in a unique situation.
        I was born in the Commonwealth, but I am a Member of the
    Congress of the United States. And so, at any given moment, I
    see Puerto Rico, its political status, as a Puerto Rican. But
    at the same time, I can see its political status as a Member of
    the U.S. Congress.
        And as a Puerto Rican, I think it is not proper that 108
    years later we are still a colony of the United States, a
    territory. But I can also tell you that, as an American
    Congressman, I think it is pretty embarrassing that my country
    still has a territory in the Caribbean in 2007.
        And so to me, this bill resolves those needs that I have,
    both as a Puerto Rican and as a Member of Congress, to deal
    with this issue.
        Interestingly enough, what the bill does is something that
    speaks to what Mr. Wicker, who is not here, spoke to before.
    The bill asked the public very clearly, do you wish to remain
    as you are, or change your relationship to the United States.
    Those who say that my bill opposes commonwealth have not given
    me credit for having to compromise my beliefs in the first part
    of the bill by allowing the question, do you wish to remain a
    colony of the United States. That is what it says.
        If they vote to change, then I think the only logical,
    sensible, and legislatively moral question should be, do you
    want to integrate into the Union, or do you wish to separate
    from the Union. Again, those who oppose our legislation say
    that I give no break, no opportunity for an enhanced
    commonwealth status.
        Well, I answer in two ways. I will support any option that
    ends the colonial status of Puerto Rico. An enhanced
    commonwealth, as presented in my sister's, Ms. Velazquez's,
    bill does not accomplish that.
        But there is an enhanced commonwealth. It exists already,
    and it is in my bill. It is called free association. It is one
    of the independence options, to negotiate a new status which
    will allow Puerto Rico and the U.S. at any moment to pull out
    of the relationship, but which could give the people of Puerto
    Rico sovereignty within a relationship with the United States.
        Now, this is not something I made up. Statehood is
    recognized internationally as giving people sovereignty.
    Independence is recognized internationally as giving people
    sovereignty. And as associated, or free association, is
    internationally recognized as sovereignty.
        You cannot, at this stage of the game, come back to the
    people of Puerto Rico, after a process, and say I offer you to
    remain a colony. I offer you the opportunity not to vote for a
    President. I offer you the opportunity not to elect your own
    President. I offer you the opportunity not to have Members of
    Congress with a vote representative of your island, and I don't
    give you the opportunity to elect your own Congress on the
    island. That is morally improper to come back.
        It also attacks everything we stand for. How can we
    continue to promote our brand of democracy through the
    Caribbean and through Latin America, and indeed throughout the
    world, and hold a colony for 108 years?
        Mr. Wicker spoke to a very interesting point. He said my
    bill is unfair because the final decision will be made by the
    two options that are so opposed to each other: statehood and
    independence. Not true. It is possible that statehood and
    independence are totally in agreement, because they are the
    only two options that end the colonial status of Puerto Rico.
    Either way, statehood or independence ends that colonial
    status.
        And so, as we sit here today, in recognition of something I
    said before, I am the leader of a movement that has one member:
    me. Which is statehood or independence. For years Puerto Ricans
    I think have made the mistake on the island of being for
    something; for independence, for statehood, for this, for that.
    That is a mistake. I think what Puerto Ricans should do is be
    against something, jointly, together be against the colonial
    status.
        But interestingly enough, even those who support the
    commonwealth are against the commonwealth, because they don't
    support this commonwealth. They support a letter to Santa
    Claus, guaro ferere llamado, saying give me all of these things
    which will make me look like a state, without the
    responsibilities of a state. Give me all of these things that
    will make me look like an independent nation, without really
    being independent.
        My friends, it is time to just reach a conclusion. And my
    conclusion is that what is good for the people of Puerto Rico
    is good for the people of the United States. The United States
    cannot hold a colony in 2007. Puerto Rico cannot be a colony in
    2007.
        And in concluding, my bill agrees with the other bill in
    only one way. I am very happy that they accepted the well known
    Serrano Amendment, which would allow those of us born on the
    island who reside in the 50 states to be able to vote in this
    vote.
        And I know that that is a controversial issue, but here is
    my issue, here is my point. Puerto Ricans moved out of Puerto
    Rico not because they bothered them or because the palm trees
    were a problem, or because the beaches were too hot, or because
    the sand bothered their feet. They left because there was an
    economic condition that created a problem, and that is why they
    left.
        That condition was a direct result of the relationship
    between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. When that relationship is
    settled once and for all, and my bill settles it once and for
    all, then all the children of the colony should be able to
    vote.
        I am not proposing later that I vote for Governor of Puerto
    Rico if it is a state, or that I vote for President of Puerto
    Rico if it is a republic. But I am proposing that this one
    time, in this process, all the children of the colony
    participate.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
        Ms. Christensen. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Madame Chair, I believe the gentlelady
    from Guam gave five minutes to the gentleman from New York.
        Ms. Christensen. We have two more panels, and we have other
    people who have to ask questions. So Mr. Serrano was wrapping
    up.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I do have a very important question that
    I want to ask the gentleman.
        Ms. Christensen. I need to move to the, I do need to move
    to the next Member.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. And we did give him almost
    eight minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
    Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart, be allowed to sit on the dais and
    participate in the hearing. And if there are no objections, so
    ordered. And I now recognize Mr. Diaz-Balart for five minutes.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madame Chair, and all
    distinguished colleagues, for the ability to address you today
    as though I were a member of this distinguished committee. This
    is a subject not only of great interest, but close to my heart.
        I think that one thing that strikes me in analyzing the
    Puerto Rican reality is how there is a longing for, change is
    the word, because of dissatisfaction with the status quo, even
    from my friends who support the talalio de social over
    commonwealth.
        In other words, what I am trying to say is that I sense, I
    sense a longing for a final solution, if you will; a permanent
    solution from the entire spectrum in Puerto Rico. And that is
    one thing that strikes me as unavoidable.
        And so I think that we in Congress should do what we can to
    allow the final status, the voice of the Puerto Rican people to
    be heard with regard to the issue of the final status, of a
    final status.
        And that is why I support H.R. 900. It is, I think, a very
    well-thought-through, amended piece of legislation that is
    seeking to listen to the people of Puerto Rico with a
    Congressionally designed framework, so that obviously there is
    a chance of Congressional action once the people of Puerto Rico
    speak. Because that is one thing to keep in mind. What we want
    to avoid is debate here for the sake of debate.
        If we want to resolve this issue, then let us try to devise
    a structure where, when the Puerto Rican people speak, Congress
    accepts. And I have said--and my approach is somewhat different
    from prior speakers, both Mr. Burton and Mr. Serrano, who have
    very strong opinions with regard to the final decision of the
    Puerto Rican people. My point is I support self-determination.
    I support the decision of the Puerto Rican people, whatever the
    Puerto Rican people decide.
        And as I have said, once the Puerto Rican people speak,
    there will be no one in this Congress who will be more adamant,
    stronger in defense of their decision, than me. But I don't
    think it is proper for me, as a non-Puerto Rican, to have an
    opinion with regard to how the people of Puerto Rico should
    speak, should decide this issue.
        I do think this is a fair, Congressionally designed
    framework for their decision, though. And it says are you for
    status quo? And it is very respectable. In my view, it is a
    very respectable option, status quo.
        But if not, if you are for a permanent, non-territorial
    solution, then you have the option of expressing so, and ending
    the territorial reality, which is the status quo. In other
    words, this is realistic, in my view. In addition to realistic,
    a well-thought-through, appropriate, Congressionally designed
    vehicle framework for a final decision by the people of Puerto
    Rico with regard to their status.
        Congressman Fortuno has worked as I have seen few Members
    in my 15 years here ever work an issue. In my 15 years here, I
    don't remember ever meeting a Congressman, a representative,
    who has worked an issue so diligently, so intensely, so
    passionately, with arguments that are persuasive; logical,
    respectable arguments that respect all his colleagues, and have
    the effect of persuading them, as Mr. Fortuno has done and
    continues to do.
        And I know that Congressman Serrano and I often don't
    agree. But on H.R. 900, we agree. And I simply want to
    reiterate, Madame Chair, my respect for the people of Puerto
    Rico. My best wishes for them. And that I think that this
    Congress should provide them the respect and the deference of
    this Congressionally designed framework to let them decide on a
    final status decision. That is why I support H.R. 900. Thank
    you very much.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Kennedy for five minutes.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Madame Chair. I think the greatest
    evidence to where we are today, as to where Puerto Rico is
    politically, is the fact that Puerto Rico cannot decide to even
    decide what to do, without coming to Congress first.
        The proof is in the pudding. You are here before us. If you
    were so sovereign, why not just go and do this? Why bother with
    us?
        The fact is, you can't. Because you are under the United
    States of America's jurisdiction, so far as the Constitution is
    involved in the Territorial Clause. And you can put as many
    plebiscites of your own on the ballot, but they are not worth
    the paper they are written on if the U.S. Congress doesn't
    sanction them.
        Now, I don't like that any more than you do. And that is
    why I am behind the Serrano bill. Because I think it is about
    time that the U.S. Congress actually sanctioned an election
    where the people of Puerto Rico finally have a choice about
    their future; where they do not have to wonder whether this
    plebiscite is going to mean anything, because it is just a
    mockery of the political process, because everybody knows that
    it will have no real effect because it isn't sanctioned by
    Congress. And Puerto Ricans can do whatever they want, but it
    is not going to mean anything if the U.S. Congress doesn't OK
    it.
        That is why we are here today. Because the U.S. Congress
    has to give a Federal acknowledgment and OK to this plebiscite
    for it to be a constitutionally recognized process, by which
    Puerto Rico then takes the next step for it to choose among
    those constitutionally recognized options of free association,
    independence, or statehood.
        So people can argue whatever position they would like to
    argue about Puerto Rico's political status of being a co-equal
    here, but it seems to me they do not have co-equal footing if
    they are really at the mercy, if you will, of a Congress where
    they only have one vote as a Member, where they should have six
    others if they were a state, for example. Where they do not
    have the representation that they would otherwise have. And
    where, frankly, they will not have any say over whether they
    have the choice or not until Congress says they have the
    choice. That is pretty insulting.
        I find it offensive that they have to wait on us to give
    them the choice to decide themselves as to whether they have a
    future or not. So I would like to ask Mr. Marshall to explain,
    because I think there has been some question here as to how the
    whole process was arrived at, at which commonwealth was
    determined to be unconstitutional. Could you take us through
    that process, as to how, you know, what the legal process is by
    which you determined that commonwealth was unconstitutional?
        Mr. Marshall. Let me first start by clarifying in response
    to some earlier questions that our view is not that
    commonwealth is unconstitutional; our view is that a provision
    that couldn't be changed without the mutual consent of Puerto
    Rico and the United States, commonly known as new commonwealth
    or enhanced commonwealth, is unconstitutional.
        With regard to that status, the report lays out in some
    detail what that status means, what the prior view of the
    Justice Department is, and what the current view is. And then
    it outlines the reasons for that view. There are also several
    appendices to the task force report that include much more
    extended analyses by the Clinton Justice Department.
        The short answer is that one Congress is generally not able
    to bind a future Congress, and that general rule applies to
    Congress's regulation of territories under the Territory
    Clause.
        Mr. Kennedy. So that if Puerto Rico wants to have any
    sovereignty, permanent sovereignty, it could not bank on a
    commonwealth status, because that status would change in any
    given Congress if that future Congress decided to change the
    status.
        Mr. Marshall. Correct.
        Mr. Kennedy. That is a pretty telling reason why
    commonwealth does not work as a permanent status. Thank you.
        Ms. Christensen. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank
    you, Mr. Kennedy.
        The Chair now recognizes Ms. Sanchez for five minutes.
        Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Madame Chair. And first let me
    thank you for allowing me to sit up here with this committee
    today.
        My interest in Puerto Rico, aside from the fact that of
    course I am Latina, and so I love everybody south of here, but
    in particular because sitting as one of the Ranking Senior
    Members of the Armed Services Committee, it just always amazes
    me what Puerto Ricans are doing for our country.
        I just went in March, the beginning of March, to Iraq. And
    there was a group, large group, led by a woman, Puerto Rican,
    but all of them were from Puerto Rico, who were going out every
    night and finding the IEDs on the roadways, clearing the
    roadways in Iraq so that our troops could travel the next day.
    I mean, really difficult and dangerous work. And there were the
    Puerto Ricans.
        And I remember the Vieques challenge that we had a few
    years ago, and the fact that our colleague at the time didn't
    even have a vote of what was going on, and what we were trying
    to do. And the Navy pulling out, and the devastation of the
    economy, the local economy for Puerto Rico.
        And do you know, there wasn't anything that could be done
    here, in a sense. Because really, it is, in a sense, Mr.
    Serrano, a colony, as you have said before.
        So we have this great group of people who are U.S.
    citizens, but really don't have a say. And, you know, I am born
    and raised and have grown up in California, so I am a
    statehooder in that sense. That is what I come from, that is
    the background I have. I know myself as the rights we have as
    the great State of California. But at the same time, I would be
    remiss to tell Puerto Ricans what they should look like. And I
    understand that.
        So I want you to have that vote to decide what you want to
    be, with respect to the United States. And I hope, because I
    know that the Congress has to do it, I hope that we can get
    that done. Because this issue has been here in the 11 years
    that I have been in the Congress, and still no resolution to
    it.
        I have just one question for Mr. Marshall, if you will. Can
    there be a commonwealth status not subject to Federal Territory
    Clause powers? I am trying to understand why we would put up a
    vote on something that can be impacted by the Federal
    government, where even this island doesn't have a vote.
        So can there be a commonwealth status not subject to
    Federal Territory Clause powers?
        Mr. Marshall. No, unless Puerto Rico were made a state and
    decided to call itself a commonwealth, like Virginia has.
        Ms. Sanchez. So is commonwealth status, as described in my
    good colleague's bill at H.R. 1230, a real possibility? Is that
    a real possibility? Or are we just putting out something to the
    people of Puerto Rico that really is not going to work?
        Mr. Marshall. Your description is correct as to what that
    bill calls new commonwealth status. New or modified, sorry.
        Ms. Sanchez. New modified?
        Mr. Marshall. The bill's language is new or modified
    commonwealth status. And your description is correct as to
    that.
        Ms. Sanchez. So would you consider that to be misleading? I
    mean, I want the Puerto Ricans to have a vote. I just would
    feel badly if we, as a Congress, sanctioned something, and had
    them vote on something; or they thought they could vote on
    something that then they would turn around and we would do
    nothing with, or we would say it is unconstitutional, we are
    not going to do that, or you can't have unilateral power on
    this.
        Is something like H.R. 1230 then misleading, if one would
    take a vote on that?
        Mr. Marshall. It is inaccurate and unclear, and it could
    cause confusion.
        Ms. Sanchez. OK. Just trying to figure out the differences
    and what it means for us.
        I would like to thank you, Mr. Marshall. I missed your
    testimony earlier, but I, for myself, am trying to figure out
    how we get this done and find some common ground. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madame Chair, for the time.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. I ask unanimous
    consent to include the written opening statement of Mr. Serrano
    for the record. OK. You have other statements, OK. I recognize
    you to enter the statements.
        Mr. Serrano. Madame Chairwoman, I have a statement from my
    colleague from the Bronx, New York, Representative Eliot Engel,
    in support of H.R. 900 that I would like to turn over to you.
        Ms. Christensen. Without objection?
        Ms. Sanchez. Madame Chair?
        Ms. Christensen. Ms. Sanchez?
        Ms. Sanchez. May I also submit an opening statement for the
    record?
        Ms. Christensen. Yes, without objection. For Fortuno?
        Mr. Fortuno. Yes. Mr. Don Young from Alaska will not be
    able to join us, but he asked me to ask for unanimous consent
    to introduce his written statement into the record.
        Ms. Christensen. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Fortuno. It is in support of H.R. 900, as well.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

             Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Ranking Member,
                         Committee on Natural Resources

        First off, I welcome my many friends and the distinguished leaders
    from Puerto Rico who have traveled so far to be here with us today.
        Thank you all for coming:
          The Honorable and current Governor Anibal Acevedo-Vila,
    also a former Member of Congress;
        The distinguished former Governors:
          The Honorable Pedro Rossello;
          The Honorable Rafael Hernandez-Colon; and
          The Honorable Carlos Romero-Barcelo, also a former Member
    of Congress.
        I also warmly welcome my fellow legislators:
          The Honorable Kenneth McClintock, President of the Puerto
    Rican Senate;
          The Honorable Jose Aponte-Hernandez, Speaker of the
    Puerto Rican House of Representatives;
        And their distinguished counterparts:
          The Honorable Jose Dalmau-Santiago, Senate Minority
    Leader; and
          The Honorable Hector Ferrer Rios, the House Minority
    Leader.
        Finally, I welcome all of our other distinguished witnesses,
    including from President Bush's Administration, The Honorable Kevin
    Marshall, Co-Chair of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's
    Political Status and Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
        Thank you all for making a very important day in Puerto Rico's and
    the United States' history.
        Madame Chairwoman, thank you for holding this second hearing on the
    political status of Puerto Rico and to consider H.R. 900, ``The Puerto
    Rico Democracy Act of 2007'' of which I am a proud co-sponsor, a bill
    authored by my good friend, Mr. Fortuno, the Ranking Republican of this
    Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, and Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY).
        Now there is an alternative bill, H.R.. 1230; but I believe it is
    not a realistic alternative.
        As I stated at the previous hearing on March 22, I believe H.R.
    1230 is ``DOA-Dead on Arrival'' in this Congress.
        It is constitutionally flawed and it is politically flawed.
        H.R. 1230 would give Puerto Rico a chance to have a ``new
    Commonwealth'' status that gives it all the benefits of statehood but
    without the same application of federal law as all other states must
    bear.
        As my good friend from across the aisle Mr. Serrano pointed out at
    the last hearing, there are 435 Members of Congress who would want the
    same deal.
        It's just not possible to move that bill thru this House and the
    Senate.
        I have been a strong supporter of Puerto Rico for a long, long
    time.
        In the 105th Congress, I sponsored a bill, H.R. 856, to resolve the
    political status of Puerto Rico.
        After three Committee hearings, including two in Puerto Rico, the
    Committee passed the bill, and so did the House.
        While H.R. 900 is somewhat different from the bill I sponsored in
    1997, it conforms to my basic goal, which is to enable the people of
    Puerto Rico to determine their status in a manner that is democratic
    and consistent with historic, legal, and constitutional precedents.
        The opportunity for Puerto Rico to move forward, however its
    citizens may choose, is here now and is embodied in H.R. 900.
        If Puerto Ricans wish to seize democracy today, and exercise their
    rights to choose their destination, whatever that might be, then
    embrace and support a bill that can move the self-determination process
    forward for all Puerto Ricans.
        And win, lose, or draw; or rather, commonwealth, statehood,
    independence, or free association, Puerto Rico will have the best
    democratic process available for everyone to participate in-and not one
    for just a handful of convention delegates.
        Thank you Madame Chairwoman.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. I would like to thank the witness for his
    valuable testimony, and the Members for your questions and you
    for your answers, Mr. Marshall. Members of the Subcommittee may
    have some additional questions, as you have heard, and we will
    submit them to you in writing, and we would ask for you to
    respond in writing.
        You are now excused, Mr. Marshall, and I would like to
    recognize the second panel of witnesses.
        On the next panel will be The Honorable Anibal Acevedo-
    Vila, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and also
    the President of the Popular Democratic Party. Also, Mr. Ruben
    Berrios-Martinez, President of the Puerto Rican Independence
    Party. And finally, The Honorable Pedro Rossello, former
    Governor and current Senator, as well as the President of the
    New Progressive Party.
        The Chair, if we are settled, the Chair would now recognize
    our former colleague, The Honorable Governor Anibal Acevedo-
    Vila, to testify. The timing lights will indicate when your
    time is concluded. And your formal, full statement will be
    submitted for the hearing record.

         STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, GOVERNOR,
     COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO AND PRESIDENT, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC
                                 PARTY

        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Thank you for
    this kind opportunity, and it is really a pleasure to be back
    in Congress and now testifying on these important issues as
    Governor of Puerto Rico, and also as the President of the
    Popular Democratic Party.
        As you just mentioned, my written statement is already part
    of the record, and I will make reference to some part of it.
    And now, in my written statement I wasn't addressing too much
    about the White House Task Force report, because that was an
    issue that has been discussed a lot in the past. But I have to
    say that after what I have heard just today, I have to make
    some expressions about that report.
        Number one, it is a report that nobody knows how many
    meetings they had, if they ever met as a group, what kind of
    internal discussions they had. It didn't go through OMB or any
    other agency.
        Number two, no public hearings nowhere. Just some private
    meetings in Puerto Rico. And then, when Mr. Marshall was asked
    by Congresswoman Velazquez why the report was so simplistic, so
    shallow, his answer was because we were thinking about the
    audience. And I can only imagine two audiences of that report:
    this Congress and the people of Puerto Rico. So I take that, as
    a former Member of Congress, as an insult, and as the Governor
    of Puerto Rico, as an insult to the people of Puerto Rico. The
    report was simplistic because apparently we cannot read and
    understand complex issues with legal arguments.
        But then, when he was asked by Congressman Faleomavaega,
    now we discover that he doesn't know the difference between an
    unincorporated territory and incorporated territory. So in
    terms of that report, which is the basis of H.R. 900, I will
    use an expression we use in Puerto Rico, in Spanish. [Spanish
    phrase.] That is the seed of this process. A report that had to
    be written simplistic because apparently maybe Congress or the
    people of Puerto Rico would not have understood it if it was
    more complicated or more elaborated.
        So I think that in terms of what you have heard today
    really, really--and then we go to H.R. 900. And the way the
    votes are counted, every plebiscite has been held in Puerto
    Rico has been won by commonwealth. You might think that that is
    a mistake that the people of Puerto Rico voted for that. So
    now, since there is no way that can statehood win, what they
    are proposing is let us add the second and the third place
    jammed in together, so we can defend the first place, and then
    we will have a runoff election between the second and third
    place. That is not only undemocratic; that is un-American. I
    have never heard of a runoff election between the second and
    third place.
        And then, in terms of all those legal arguments about
    commonwealth, whether it is constitutional or not
    constitutional, mutual consent, let me first say that until
    1991, the position of the Department of Justice was that it was
    constitutional; that you could agree mutual consent clause. And
    then that changed. Did the Constitution change? Do we have a
    different Constitution now than the one we had in 1990, 1989,
    1987, 1970? So that just points out that this is basically an
    issue of political will.
        And I have quoted, and I am going to take some time to
    quote some, some of them, some important callers. And yes, they
    have written, and I invite all of you to read them, because I
    believe you can understand them, and you can have a good
    discussion about what those callers says.
        Professor Alexander Aleinikoff, Dean of Georgetown Law
    School, actual Dean today, published this book in 2002. And he
    says, ``The commonwealth opponent reasoning seems to be this.
    The United States Constitution knows only the mutually
    exclusive categories of state and territory. States and full
    and equal members of the Union, but territories are subject to
    plenary Federal power. Such plenary power may be surrendered
    only by moving outside the territory clause by granting
    statehood or independence.''
        And then he says, to me what is a challenge to this
    Congress, ``The infamous insular cases recognize the need for
    Congressional flexibility in handling the unanticipated
    situation of empire. When flexibility is now by mutual consent
    of Capitol and former colony exercised to restore dignity and
    self-government, why should Congressional power suddenly be
    read narrowly?''
        And more specifically, he asked Congress, ``The question is
    whether we can think of solving two notions of sovereignty that
    permit overlapping and flexible arrangements attuned to complex
    demands of enhanced autonomy with a broader regulative system
    of generally applicable constitutional and human rights and
    norms.''
        Responding that, if both Congress and the people of Puerto
    Rico seek to establish a new relationship that recognizes space
    within the American constitutional system for autonomous, it
    will behoove either the Executive Branch or the Judiciary to
    set such efforts aside in the name of 19th century conceptions
    of sovereignty.
        The Constitution should not be read out of fear and
    loathing of new understandings of sovereignty, to prevent
    promising power-sharing arrangement that provide space for
    political and cultural autonomy.
        And Professor Michael Weisman from Yale University says,
    ``The barriers to enhanced commonwealth status are more
    political than legal.'' It is said also by Professor Pildes
    from NYU that testified before this committee, I think it was
    last month. So this is basically a political argument, not a
    legal argument.
        If you want, if Congress wants to force the people of
    Puerto Rico to vote for statehood, even though you are not
    making a compromise to grant it, just say so. That is H.R. 900.
    It will force the people of Puerto Rico to vote for statehood.
    But don't use the Constitution as an excuse for that.
        But if you are going to do that, then tell the people of
    Puerto Rico whether we can have a state in which Spanish is the
    main language in public schools. I learned that Puerto Rico was
    discovered by Christobal Colon, not Christopher Columbus.
        A judicial system that is in Spanish, if one Member of this
    Congress has an accident in Puerto Rico on the roads, and for
    some reason have to go to court, that case is going to be in
    Spanish. We will give you a translator.
        So if you are going to force the people of Puerto Rico to
    vote for statehood, then you have to respond to those questions
    before the people of Puerto Rico exercise their right of self-
    determination.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Acevedo-Vila follows:]

                Statement of The Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila,
                  Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

        Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee. Once
    again, I come before you to talk about the political and constitutional
    relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. Very briefly, I
    want to put into perspective the concrete proposals and recommendations
    I will make today regarding the two bills pending before this Congress:
    H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. As Governor of Puerto Rico, it is my obligation
    to place the current debate in the right context, to help the Committee
    overcome the temptation of rushing to conclusions that may bring bigger
    problems to Puerto Rico and the United States in the long run.
        For more than a century, Puerto Ricans have lived through a
    challenging and emotional debate about our political relationship with
    the United States. However, outside of the 1950-52 process which led to
    the adoption of Commonwealth status, the relationship between Puerto
    Rico and the United States has largely been absent from the U.S.
    national debate, and has produced no movement here in Congress.
        For this, Puerto Ricans have paid a high price. Some political
    parties on the Island have taken full advantage of the situation,
    basing their existence almost exclusively on their stance regarding
    status. They have gone so far as to manipulate the process toward their
    preferred option or to halt progress when they feared the final outcome
    would not favor them. Now, as the statehood party moves aggressively to
    re-open this debate in Washington, Congress is placed in a difficult
    position. Should you repeat the same mistakes of the past, the result
    is clear: the full array of tricks will be played to reach that party's
    preferred outcome.
        So, after many years of discussion about the right to self-
    determination of the people of Puerto Rico, there are some principles
    that we should respect. Every citizen should have an equal say. The
    system for determining Puerto Rico's political status should be fair
    and unbiased. Each political status option must be considered on the
    same footing. And the clear choice of the people should win. That,
    Madam Chairwoman, is the true definition of democracy.
        Today this Congress has before it two fundamentally different
    approaches. One repeats the same mistakes of the past, allowing and
    even encouraging the same Puerto Rican political parties to play trick
    politics with Congress and the people of Puerto Rico. The other brings
    to the table a new and totally fair process, open equally to all
    options, putting power in the hands of the people themselves, as
    opposed to the local political parties.
        Let me first discuss H.R. 900, the pro-statehood bill that is
    ``more of the same.''
        In previous plebiscites to determine the Island's future,
    participation from our citizens has been high. And for more than five
    decades, the winner in each referendum has been Commonwealth. Now, the
    same people who could not convince the citizens of the Island to vote
    for statehood, are trying--again--to change the rules of the game,
    crafting a system to force statehood upon Puerto Rico. Rather than give
    every Puerto Rican an equal opportunity to have his or her voice heard,
    these statehood advocates have designed a series of referendums that
    would distort the will of the people.
        Supporters of Commonwealth have held a narrow but notable edge over
    the second-place finisher, statehood, for decades, with the smaller
    independence movement finishing third. H.R. 900 proposes a two-stage
    vote. In the first round, our citizens would select either a
    continuation of an ill-defined Commonwealth or a category that combines
    statehood and independence.
        That would create a merger between those two fundamentally opposite
    parties and options, with the goal of building a tiny majority over
    Commonwealth. Once Commonwealth has been knocked out, voters would then
    choose between only statehood and independence, with statehood
    assuredly winning. The math is very simple. If you add the second
    place--statehood--to the third place--independence--then you can
    fabricate an artificial majority. And that helps eliminate the true
    popular choice of the people, Commonwealth.
        This is the first time I have seen a process in which the run-off
    election would be held between the second and third place! To support
    that plan would be destructive and anti-democratic.
        It is time for a new, and better, approach. An approach that is
    fair to everyone and removes the total responsibility and control from
    the hands of the political parties. This is why I recommend that we
    entrust the people of Puerto Rico to organize a Constitutional
    Convention, as proposed by H.R. 1230. This gathering would represent
    the true will of our citizens, not the political parties determined to
    promote their own factional interests, even at the expense of fairness
    or respect. The delegates would be free to consider proposals,
    eventually proposing an ideal solution to our citizens and then to
    Congress.
        Congress would retain the right to approve, negotiate, modify, or
    simply reject the proposal coming from the Constitutional Convention.
    But it would also have the obligation to do the right thing--to assure
    that it respectfully considers the option presented, and recognizes the
    Convention's right to propose such an alternative.
        In contrast, if Congress decides to define the status options for
    Puerto Rico, then it has no choice but to follow principles of honest
    statesmanship and fair play. It would be senseless to do otherwise. If
    you yield to the tricky games proposed by some politicians, the process
    will lose credibility, or worse, die stagnated.
        As you know, one of the first tricks to come out of the bag in the
    partisan-driven debates on Puerto Rico's political status is typically
    camouflaged in legal wrappings. The argument is that that Commonwealth,
    which historically has been preferred by Puerto Ricans, has no place in
    the American constitutional framework; that the Constitution is so
    rigid and formalistic that, just as we if we were living back in the
    late eighteenth century, it can deal with nothing but states and
    traditional colonies; that, accordingly, the United States cannot
    constitutionally produce new arrangements to meet the country's
    emerging needs. That is the basic premise of the White House Task Force
    report and of H.R. 900.
        I feel a particular need to address this issue today, since it
    collides head-on with many years of opinions from the best legal minds
    in the United States. From Judge Magruder in Mora v Mejia, to Justice
    Breyer in Cordova & Simonpietri, to Justice Brennan in Calero Toledo to
    so many other landmark decisions. And now, as the new century unfolds,
    top modern thinkers and scholars are following that same line or
    analysis. For example, Dean Alexander Aleinikoff from Georgetown Law
    School, in his 2002 book, Semblances of Sovereignty, devoted an entire
    chapter to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. He wrote:
        The (Commonwealth Opponents') reasoning seems to be this: the
    United States Constitution knows only the mutually exclusive categories
    of ``State'' and ``Territory.'' States are full and equal members of
    the Union, but territories are subject to plenary federal power. Such
    plenary power may be surrendered only by moving outside the territory
    clause by granting statehood or independence. To recognize
    congressional power to create new categories--such as ``enhanced
    commonwealth''--violates the structure of the Constitution and
    potentially weakens the position of the states...''
        Rejecting that approach and making an implicit challenge to
    Congress, Aleinikoff states: ``The infamous Insular Cases recognized
    the need for congressional flexibility in handling the unanticipated
    situation of Empire. When flexibility is now, by mutual consent of
    capital and former colony, exercised to restore dignity and self-
    government, why should congressional power suddenly be read narrowly?''
        And more specifically he asks Congress: ``the question is whether
    we can think ourselves into notions of sovereignty that permit
    overlapping and flexible arrangements attuned to complex demands of
    enhanced autonomy with a broader regulative system of generally
    applicable constitutional and human rights norms,'' responding that
    ``if both Congress and the people of Puerto Rico seek to establish a
    new relationship that recognizes space within the American
    constitutional system for ``autonomous'' entities, it ill behooves
    either the executive branch or the judiciary to set such efforts aside
    in the name of nineteenth-century conceptions of sovereignty...The
    Constitution should not be read--out of fear and loathing of new
    understandings of sovereignty--to prevent promising power-sharing
    arrangements that provide a space for political and cultural
    autonomy.''
        Similarly, in a recent memorandum, Professor W. Michael Reisman,
    Professor of International Law at Yale (2006), states:
        ``Yet in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, all
    three branches of the U.S. federal government maintain legal positions
    on Puerto Rico rooted firmly in a nineteenth-century paradigm of
    international law....This binary division (between states and
    territories),...is in fact, anachronistic: It neither accurately
    reflects nor properly accommodates the diverse political arrangements
    embodied in the freely associated state of Puerto Rico, the CNMI, and
    the FAS. Legally created at a later date, those arrangements better
    represent current law.''
        And Reisman further concludes: ``Should Puerto Rico decide that an
    ``enhanced'' commonwealth status best serves its long term interests,
    U.S. constitutional law, to our view would likely be able to
    accommodate that arrangement...; the barriers to enhance commonwealth
    status are more political than legal.''
        Another scholar, Constitutional Law Professor Richard Pildes from
    NYU testified recently before this same committee that ``were the
    United States Congress and the people of Puerto Rico to prefer
    expanding the existing Commonwealth relationship, in a way that
    provides greater autonomy for Puerto Rico on the basis of mutual
    consent, it would be unfortunate, even tragic, for that option to
    disappear due to confusion or error about whether the Constitution
    permits Congress to adopt such an option.''
        And he clearly concludes: ``Congress does have the power, should it
    choose to use it, to enter into a mutual-consent agreement that would
    create and respect more autonomous form of Commonwealth status for
    Puerto Rico, in which Congress would pledge not to alter the
    relationship unilaterally.''
        Finally, Charles Cooper, a former head of the Office of Legal
    Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, in a recent memorandum
    stated that ``there is no support for a reading of the Constitution
    that unnecessarily restricts the political arrangements available to
    the President and Congress in fashioning binding consensual solutions
    to the Nation's relations with the people of its territories,'' and
    that ``the relevant Supreme Court cases confirm that Puerto Rico's
    commonwealth status is predicated upon a binding compact, created
    through the mutual consent of the sovereign parties and revocable, only
    by mutual consent of the parties.''
        As you can see, in the last five years, many distinguished
    constitutional law scholars have rejected the basic assumptions of H.R.
    900. Each of them has re-validated the 1914 vision of later Justice
    Felix Frankfurter that ``the form of relationship between the United
    States and unincorporated territory is solely a problem of
    statesmanship.... Luckily, our Constitution has left this field of
    invention open.''
        Members of Congress, with that in mind, if you want to impose upon
    the people of Puerto Rico a petition for statehood, without any
    commitment to grant it, H.R. 900 accomplishes that. And if you seek to
    deprive the people of Puerto Rico of a valid Commonwealth option, H.R.
    900 does that as well. But please do not use the Constitution as an
    excuse. Be straightforward, and just say that you support imposing
    statehood on my people of Puerto Rico, even against the expressed will
    of our four million citizens, as H.R. 900 pre-determined outcome
    intends. But if you want to be fair and creative, discard anachronisms,
    offer our residents a true process for self-determination and deal with
    this issue with statesmanship, I recommend H.R. 1230 is right
    alternative.
        In any case, if the future of the Commonwealth is to be subjected
    to a legalistic, why-not scrutiny, what shall we expect regarding
    statehood? Many issues come to mind: Are we planning to entitle the
    fifty-first state to keep forever the Spanish language as its principal
    language in public schools, in the local courts and in everyday
    business? Would it be kept immune from the English-only movement? Is
    the United States ready and willing to accept into the union a distinct
    society with all the sociological characteristics of a nation like
    Puerto Rico? What about federal income taxation? How will the federal
    income taxation system apply in Puerto Rico? Is the local system to be
    dismantled? If so, how is the government of the fifty-first state to be
    financed? If you choose to support the statehood bill, H.R. 900, the
    people of Puerto Rico will deserve, and demand, clear answers to these
    and many other questions.
        Madam Chairwoman, the tricks of H.R. 900 are more than tricks: they
    are the poison pills that, in the past, account for the death of
    processes like this one. Our people have rejected statehood over and
    over, but statehood supporters have returned again and again--adjusting
    their approach, rephrasing their rhetoric or making minor changes to
    their proposal, with hopes of obscuring the flaws of their intentions.
        It's time for something better, for Congress to decisively help
    Puerto Rico overcome the status dilemma through a fair and unbiased
    process. If you are serious about meeting that goal, I urge you to
    approve H.R. 1230.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Governor. It is an honor to
    have you before us again this afternoon.
        The next person that we would recognize for five minutes is
    Mr. Berrios-Martinez of the Puerto Rican Independence Party.

     STATEMENT OF RUBEN BERRIOS-MARTINEZ, PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICAN
                           INDEPENDENCE PARTY

        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Madame Chairwoman and Members of the
    Subcommittee and other Members of Congress, today I speak
    before you not only as President of the Puerto Rican
    Independence Party, but as a member of the Latin-American
    Committee for Puerto Rican Independence, representing 33 living
    political parties of the region, 15 of which are in government,
    as is the case, for example, of Chile, Argentina, and Brazil.
        I quote The Honorable Martin Torrijos, President of Panama,
    in his address to the Latin-American Congress in support of
    Puerto Rican independence held last November, and which elected
    the Latin-American Committee.
        I quote. ``Puerto Rico is the only Hispanic-American nation
    that remains under colonial regime. For Latin-Americans,
    correcting this anomaly must be a matter of principle and a
    priority of continental proportions. What remains is to agree
    on whatever is necessary to concrete the Puerto Rican right to
    constitute an independent republic; to agree as soon as
    possible on a transition schedule that will, once and for all,
    solve the problem in a dignified and efficient manner for all
    involved. Latin America can offer its good offices, promote
    that agreement, and guarantee compliance for that schedule.'' I
    end quote.
        Puerto Rico's colonial status constitutes a problem of
    hemispheric dimensions. Congress is now considering H.R. 900
    and H.R. 1230. Any bill that, like H.R. 900, proposes a
    referendum that includes statehood is doomed to failure.
    Statehood is a poison pill. Even though you may not publicly
    admit it, you know that Congress, and particularly the Senate,
    will not approve a law that implicitly promises statehood for
    Puerto Rico.
        H.R. 1230, on the other hand, is fatally ambiguous as to
    the nature of existing relationship. How can you decolonize if
    you are not willing to recognize the existence of the colony?
        The Puerto Rican Independence Party proposes a consensus
    alternative to both bills. First, a yes-or-no referendum on the
    following question: Do you want Puerto Rico to have a non-
    colonial, non-territorial, fully democratic sovereign political
    status, instead of the present or any other territorial status?
    This first step, contemplated in H.R. 900, is absolutely
    necessary.
        Commonwealth is the problem, and thus, it cannot be the
    solution. We must unambiguously put an end to ambiguity.
        Second. Congress should express its commitment that once
    the territorial option is discarded, it will respond promptly
    to the status option that is chosen by the people of Puerto
    Rico through a sovereign constitutional convention, convened
    under the laws of Puerto Rico, among alternatives recognized by
    international law. By definition, such alternatives exclude not
    only the present status, but also any form of modified
    territorial commonwealth status.
        Needless to say, the Puerto Rican people have an inherent
    right to convene a constitutional convention at any time,
    without the prior approval of Congress. And if the choice were
    for independence, Congress must not only respond, but it is
    obligated to grant such a request.
        Third. If within a period of six months after the
    referendum, a sovereign constitutional convention is not
    convened, is not convened, the President of the United States,
    in consultation with representatives of the Puerto Rican
    people, shall, within an additional six-month period, recommend
    fast-track legislation to Congress. In this legislation
    Congress would be required to discharge its obligation so that
    the people of Puerto Rico can exercise their inalienable right
    to self-determination and independence. The Presidential
    recommendation could include, among others, one or several
    referenda in which one or various alternatives would be
    presented.
        In 1950 to 1952, the United States engineered the process
    of consent to colonialism through a yes-or-no referendum in
    order to justify and legitimize territorial status. Now, as
    then, your interests dictate your policies; but now, U.S.
    interests in Puerto Rico have changed, and commonwealth, an
    undemocratic, bankrupt status, serves no useful purpose to
    anyone.
        Moreover, commonwealth breeds dependency and statehooders,
    and Congressional inaction regarding Puerto Rico will
    inevitably lead to an unwanted statehood petition, sooner
    rather than later. Now you must undo your own deed. Now it is
    time to dispose of the territory. Now you need a process to end
    colonialism.
        To summarize, the first referendum proposed in H.R. 900 is
    a critical step in the right direction. It is the essential
    element contained in both the Serrano bill and in the White
    House Task Force recommendations. After all, the White House
    also knows that a bill that promises statehood has no future.
        Approval of a consensus bill along the lines we have
    proposed will do justice to the Puerto Rican people, and
    constitute a gesture of good will toward Latin America that
    could contribute to bring about an era of mutual understanding
    to our hemisphere.
        I have presented before you, for the record, the Panama
    Proclamation of Latin-American and Caribbean Countries for the
    Independence of Puerto Rico, and it is before you for your
    consideration, also.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Berrios-Martinez follows:]

      Statement of Ruben Berrios-Martinez, Former Minority Leader in the
         Puerto Rico Senate, President, Puerto Rican Independence Party

        Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee and other Members of
    Congress:
        Today I speak before you, not only as president of the PIP, but
    also as member of the Latin American Committee for Puerto Rican
    Independence representing 33 leading political parties of the region,
    fifteen of which are in government, as is the case, for example, of
    Chile, Argentina and Brasil.
        I quote The Honorable Martin Torrijos, President of Panama and
    Secretary General of the governing party in his keynote address to the
    Latin American Congress in support of Puerto Rican Independence held
    last November and which elected the Latin American Committee.
            Puerto Rico is the only Hispanic American nation that remains
            under a colonial regime. For Latin Americans, correcting this
            anomaly must be a matter of principle and a priority of
            continental proportions. What remains is to agree on whatever
            is necessary to concrete the Puerto Rican right to constitute
            an independent republic...to agree as soon as possible on a
            transition schedule that will ``once and for all--solve the
            problem in a dignified and efficient manner for all involved.
            Latin America can offer its good offices, promote that
            agreement, and guarantee compliance and the durability of that
            schedule.
        Puerto Rico's colonial status constitutes a problem of hemispheric
    dimensions that must be confronted and overcome.
        Congress is presently considering H.R 900 and H.R 1230.
        Any bill that, like H.R.900, proposes a referendum that includes
    statehood is doomed to failure. Statehood is a poison pill. Even though
    you may not publicly admit it, you know that Congress--and
    particularly, the Senate--will not approve a law that implicitly
    promises statehood to Puerto Rico.
        H.R 1230, on the other hand, is fatally ambiguous as to the nature
    of the existing relationship. How can you decolonize if you are not
    willing to recognize the existence of the colony? Moreover, the
    potential efficacy of H.R. 1230 hinges on the uncertain outcome of the
    next general election of the Puerto Rico.
        The Puerto Rican Independence Party proposes a consensus
    alternative.
        First: A yes or no referendum on the following question:
        Do you want Puerto Rico to have a non colonial, non territorial,
    fully democratic sovereign political status instead of the present or
    any other territorial status?
        This first step--contemplated H.R 900--is absolutely necessary,
    since territorial commonwealth is the problem that must be discarded in
    order to arrive at a solution. Commonwealth is the problem and thus it
    cannot be the solution. We must unambiguously put an end to ambiguity.
        Second: Congress should express its commitment that once the
    territorial option is discarded, it will respond promptly to the status
    option that is chosen by the people of Puerto Rico through a sovereign
    constitutional convention convened under the laws of Puerto Rico among
    alternatives recognized by international law. By definition, such
    alternatives exclude not only the present status but also any form of
    modified territorial status. Needless to say, the Puerto Rican people
    have an inherent right to convene a constitutional convention without
    the prior approval of Congress; and if the choice were independence,
    Congress must not only respond but is obligated to grant such a
    request.
        Third, if within a period of six months after the referendum a
    sovereign constitutional convention is not convened in Puerto Rico, the
    President of the US, in consultation with representatives of the Puerto
    Rican people shall, within an additional six month period recommend
    fast-track legislation to Congress. In this legislation Congress would
    be required to discharge its obligation so that the people of Puerto
    Rico can exercise their inalienable right to self determination and
    independence. The presidential recommendation could include, among
    others, one or several referenda in which one or various alternatives
    would be presented.
        In 1950-52, the United States engineered a process of consent to
    colonialism through a yes-or-no referendum in order to justify and
    legitimize territorial status. Now, as then, your interests dictate
    your policies; but now U.S. interests in Puerto Rico have changed and
    ``Commonwealth,'' an undemocratic, bankrupt status, serves no useful
    purpose to anyone. Moreover, Commonwealth breeds dependency and
    statehooders; and congressional inaction regarding Puerto Rico's
    territorial status will inevitably lead to an unwanted statehood
    petition, sooner rather than later. Now you must undo your own deed.
    Now is the time to dispose of the territory. Now you need a process to
    end colonialism.
        To summarize: the first referendum proposed in H.R. 900 is a
    critical step in the right direction. It is the essential element
    contained in both the Serrano bill and in the White House Task Force
    recommendations; after all, the White House also knows that a bill that
    promises statehood has no future.
        Approval of a consensus bill along the lines we have proposed will
    do justice to the Puerto Rican people and constitute a gesture of good
    will towards Latin America that could contribute to bring about an era
    of mutual understanding in our Hemisphere.
        Appendix: The Unanimous Official Pronouncement, or
    ``Proclamation,'' of the Latin American and Caribbean Congress in
    Solidarity with Puerto Rico's Independence (November 18-19, 2006,Panama
    City, Panama) is appended here to, and made part hereof.
                                     ______

                Appendix to Statement by Ruben Berrios-Martinez

                Former Minority Leader in the Puerto Rico Senate

                   President, Puerto Rican Independence Party

            Latin American and Caribbean Congress in Solidarity with

                           Puerto Rico's Independence

                              November 18-19, 2006

                              Panama City, Panama

                           Proclamation 1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \1\ Unanimously approved by 33 political parties from 22 nations
    attending the Congress.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Commemorating 180 years of the Peoples' Associative Congress of
    Panama called by the Liberator, Simon Bolivar, to finalize and secure
    our America's Independence, the Latin American and Caribbean political
    parties gathered in Panama City in support of Puerto Rico's
    Independence, and in harmony with the convocation for this event hereby
    Resolve:
        To reiterate to the World our solidarity and support for the cause
    of Puerto Rico's independence, an historic and principled claim of our
    America. Latin America and the Caribbean will not be truly independent
    until all its nations are.
        To create a Permanent Working Committee for Puerto Rico's
    Independence 2 to coordinate and implement this Congress'
    resolutions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Committee was constituted by senator Ricardo Nunez, of
    Chile's Socialist Party; The Honorable Raul Alfonsin, former President
    of Argentina; The Honorable Ricardo Alarcon, President of the National
    Assembly of Cuba; Horacio Serpa, of Colombia's Liberal Party; Rolando
    Araya, President of the Socialist International for Latin America;
    Gustavo Carvajal, Founding President of the Permanent Conference of
    Latin American Political Parties (COPPPAL); senator Hugo Rodriguez
    Filippi, of Uruguay's Socialist Party; Ruben Giustiniani, President of
    the Socialist Party of Argentina; Tomas Borges, of the Sandinista Front
    of National Liberation of Nicaragua; Nils Castro, Secretary for
    International Affairs of Panama's Revolutionary Democratic Party (PRD);
    Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, of Mexico's Foundation for Democracy, Alternatives
    and Debates; senator Antonio Cafiero, of Argenitna's Justicialista
    Party and President of COPPPAL; and Ruben Berrios Martinez and Fernando
    Martin, President and Executive President, respectively, of the Puerto
    Rican Independence Party. Subsequently, an additional and final member
    from Brazil's Workers Party (PT) will be selected by that party and
    join the Committee.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To establish Solidarity and Support Committees in each of our
    nations to educate and create awareness regarding the need to integrate
    Puerto Rico, through its full sovereignty and independence, to the
    concert of free nations and thereby promote the best relations among
    the nations of this Hemisphere.
        To offer to both the Puerto Rican nation as well as the Government
    of the United States, our cooperation and good offices, including the
    role of interlocutors and the tasks to lay the groundwork that may be
    necessary at the several levels of the Government of the United States,
    leading to a Hemispheric dialogue to resolve Puerto Rico's colonial
    problem.
        To urge our respective governments that the Latin American and
    Caribbean community of nations promotes, as a region, the General
    Assembly of the United Nations Organization's urgent re-examination of
    the case of Puerto Rico in light of new international and regional
    conditions.
        To espouse by all possible means the cause of Puerto Rico's
    independence.
        To support the liberation of Puerto Rican political prisoners, a
    claim already made by the most diverse ideological sectors of the
    people of Puerto Rico.
        To express to the Puerto Rican Independence Party our support,
    solidarity, and recognition, upon its 60th anniversary, for its
    constant and selfless struggle for Puerto Rico's freedom.

    Panama City
    November 19, 2006

    Translated by the Secretariat for North American Relations of the
    Puerto Rican Independence Party.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes
    the former Governor and current Senator, Pedro Rossello, to
    testify for five minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. PEDRO ROSSELLO, FORMER GOVERNOR AND
    CURRENT SENATOR, COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO AND PRESIDENT, NEW
                           PROGRESSIVE PARTY

        Mr. Rossello. Chairwoman Christensen, Members of the
    Insular Affairs Committee, Members of Congress, for the record,
    my name is Pedro Rossello. I have come here today to express my
    support for H.R. 900.
        And in so doing, I have likewise come to exercise my right,
    under the United States Constitution First Amendment, ``to
    petition the government for a redress of grievances.''
        As some of you know, perhaps all too well, my grievances
    are many, and in that regard I must acknowledge that I have
    grown a bit weary of petitioning the government for a redress
    of grievances. Because I have now been obliged to do it for
    pretty close to two decades.
        Still, others have been doing it for much longer. Going
    back for 106 years--that is five generations of Puerto Ricans--
    have been petitioning Congress. And even after 106 years, we
    have yet to see our principal grievance redressed.
        For the record, together with my testimony I have submitted
    a chronology of constitutional actions on Puerto Rico's status.
    The chronology's earliest entries pertain to the 57th Congress,
    which convened during 1901 to 1902. With respect to this issue,
    Congressional action may be a misnomer, because no final action
    on Puerto Rico's status has ever been taken by Congress.
        Nevertheless, the topic has been broached in no fewer than
    66 bills or resolutions on the House side, while in the Senate
    a total of 27 legislative measures have been filed.
        The Constitution empowers the people of the several states
    that govern our nation through elected officials. But that same
    Constitution grants you and the other Members of Congress
    unilateral power to govern every resident of Puerto Rico and
    every other territory.
        We, the people of Puerto Rico and the other territories,
    have absolutely no tangible authority at the Federal level,
    direct or indirect. Never once since 1989 has Congress deigned
    to inquire of the people of Puerto Rico whether they are
    content with this arrangement.
        Congress has listened. Congress has tinkered. And Congress
    has tried at times to be supportive. And Congress has
    frequently been generous with public monies. Yet never once,
    since 1989, has Congress deigned to seek the consent of the
    governed.
        The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007 is only a small,
    single step in that direction. If enacted, though it will be an
    historic step because it will mark a long-overdue first step, a
    first step in the direction of converting a colonial empire
    back into a democratic republic. And let us not forget that the
    founders of that democratic republic committed their lives,
    their fortunes, and their sacred honor to a protracted
    revolution against the inherent inequities of colonial empire.
        It has been alleged that I have occasionally waxed a little
    testy, a little bit testy on Capitol Hill. Perhaps that is
    true, and perhaps today is such a day.
        For example, how, one may ask, can I justify brazenly
    brandishing a term so provocative as colonial empire. Well,
    here is how. Nowhere does the Constitution so much as imply,
    let alone proclaim, that the United States shall ever have the
    authority to betray its own revolutionary origins by acquiring
    and indefinitely possessing colonies.
        So how is it possible that 53 years after Brown v. Board of
    Education we live in a land whose Supreme Court continues to
    hold that the civil rights of U.S. citizens can be capriciously
    curtailed by means of geographic segregation, just as it once
    shamefully embraced the validity of separate but equal as a
    racial segregation doctrine?
        The Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine that legalized racial
    segregation has been dead and buried since 1954. Yet its sister
    doctrine of geographic segregation, promulgated by the Supreme
    Court in Downes v. Bidwell, incredibly to this day lives on.
    Somehow that judicial atrocity has survived no fewer than 106
    years of steady progress on virtually every other front in
    America's never-ending struggle to form a more perfect union.
        The exclusionary mindset manifested in Downes v. Bidwell
    explains how Puerto Rico has acquired the dubious distinction
    of being the jurisdiction that holds the all-time record for
    most years as an American territory.
        And the questions are, what do we, the people of Puerto
    Rico, want. What do we, the people of the United States, want?
    Do we, the people, support the perpetuation of a policy of
    colonial imperialism? Or do we favor having our nation
    rediscovery its roots as a democratic republic?
        Geographical discrimination is no less insidious and no
    less odious than any other type of arbitrary injustice. But in
    one important respect, geographical discrimination, what I call
    the American territorial ghetto, is downright bizarre.
        A U.S. citizen of any ancestry, including Puerto Rican,
    retains the right to vote for President if he or she moves from
    any state to any foreign country. A U.S. citizen of any
    ancestry, including Puerto Rican, acquires the right to vote in
    local and Federal elections if he or she establishes residence
    in one of the 50 states, even if the person in question was
    born and raised in a territory or in a foreign country.
        Nevertheless, there exists one grotesque corollary to these
    rules. Any American citizens who relocate from a state to a
    U.S. territory is immediately stripped of all political rights
    at the Federal level. This person automatically loses the right
    to vote for President, loses the right to voting representation
    in Congress, and loses the protection of the full panoply of
    civil rights that the Constitution guarantees to citizens
    residing anywhere else.
        Even though the stars and stripes flies over Puerto Rico,
    an American citizen's full constitutional rights are summarily
    denied entry there. It was this outrageous catch-22 that
    prompted me, six months ago, to deliver a petition to the
    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a body that was
    created by, and which reports to, the Organization of American
    States.
        That petition articulates a grievance; namely, that by
    denying full democratic participation in national affairs to
    its Puerto Rico-domiciled citizens, the Government of the
    United States is clearly violating the civil and human rights
    of those citizens. For the record, I have submitted a copy of
    our grievance to the Subcommittee.
        All across the globe, perennially subjugated people are
    today either breathing free or advancing hopefully in that
    direction. The United States is applauding and promoting this
    inspiring trend. Brave Americans, including thousands of Puerto
    Ricans, are putting their lives on the line to support this
    cause in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Well, over 50
    Puerto Ricans have died in those conflicts since 2001. Numerous
    others have been wounded and/or decorated for their valor.
        However, there is a powerful irony in all of this, because
    the Pentagon is sending Puerto Rican military personnel----
        Ms. Christensen. Gov. Rossello.
        Mr. Rossello.--the Middle East for the purpose of defending
    liberties that are denied to those very same Puerto Ricans in
    their own----
        Ms. Christensen. Governor, could I ask you to wrap up,
    please?
        Mr. Rossello. I would be glad to do so. I understand that
    after 106 years of testimony, you need no more than five
    minutes of my testimony. Therefore, I would also take my leave
    at this point, if I cannot finish my statement.
        Ms. Christensen. Well, to be perfectly honest, and for the
    record, I gave the Governor just short of eight minutes. Mr.
    Berrios finished his in about six, and you are now a little
    over eight minutes. And so I think I have been very fair. So I
    am asking you to wrap up, not to--you have a few seconds to
    wrap up your testimony.
        And please remember also that your full testimony is a part
    of the official record of the committee.
        Mr. Rossello. Madame Chairwoman, I will conclude, and I
    will take my leave at this point. I submit the rest of my
    remarks for the record. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rossello follows:]

     Statement of Pedro Rossello, MD, MPH., Governor of Puerto Rico, 1993-
    2001, Member of the Senate of Puerto Rico, 2005-, President of the New
               Progressive Party of Puerto Rico, 1991-1999; 2003-

        Chairwoman Christensen: good day to you, as well as to Ranking
    Member Fortuno and to each of the other members of the Insular Affairs
    Subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
        For the record, my name is Pedro Rossello. I am President of the
    New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico. From 1993 until 2001, I was
    Governor of Puerto Rico and I am currently a Senator in the Puerto Rico
    Legislative Assembly.
        I have come here today to express my support for H.R. 900, the
    Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007; in so doing, I have likewise come to
    exercise my right--under the United States Constitution's First
    Amendment--``to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''
        As some of you know--perhaps all too well--my grievances are many;
    and in that regard, I must acknowledge that I have grown a bit weary of
    petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances, because I have
    now been obliged to do it for pretty close to two decades.
        Still, others have been doing it for much longer: going back 106
    years--that's five generations, Puerto Ricans have been petitioning
    Congress; and even after 106 years, we have yet to see our principal
    grievance redressed.
        For the record, together with my testimony, I have submitted a
    chronology of Congressional actions on Puerto Rico's status. The
    chronology's earliest entries pertain to the 57th Congress, which
    convened during 1901 and 1902. Its most recent entries pertain to the
    109th Congress, which adjourned at the end of 2006.
        With respect to this issue, ``Congressional actions'' may be a
    misnomer, because no final action on Puerto Rico's status has ever been
    taken by Congress. Nevertheless, the topic has been broached in no
    fewer than 66 bills or resolutions on the House side, while the total
    number of Senate measures filed is 27.
        The Constitution empowers the people of the several states to
    govern our Nation through elected officials; the people of those states
    have democratically delegated the task of governance to you and to the
    other members of the Congress, as well as to our President.
        But that same Constitution grants you and the other members of the
    Congress unilateral power to govern me, along with every other resident
    of Puerto Rico and every other U.S. territory!
        We the People of Puerto Rico and the other territories have
    absolutely no tangible authority at the federal level--direct or
    indirect.
        Never once, since 1898, has Congress deigned to inquire of the
    Puerto Rican people whether they are content with this arrangement.
        Congress has listened; and Congress has tinkered; and Congress has
    tried, at times, to be supportive; and Congress has frequently been
    generous with public monies.
        Yet never once, since 1898, has Congress deigned to seek ``the
    consent of the governed'': never once has Congress inquired of the
    Puerto Rican people whether they are satisfied with an arrangement
    under which Congress ultimately holds all of the cards, and under which
    Puerto Ricans perennially possess zero votes on how those cards will be
    played.
        The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007 is only a single, small step.
    If enacted, though, it will be an historic step because it will mark a
    long-overdue first step--a first step in the direction of converting a
    colonial empire back into a democratic republic; and let us not forget
    that the Founders of that democratic republic committed their lives,
    their fortunes and their sacred honor to a protracted revolution
    against the inherent inequities of colonial empire.
        It has been alleged that I have occasionally waxed a bit testy on
    Capitol Hill. Perhaps that is true, and perhaps today is such a day.
    For example: how, one might ask, can I justify brazenly brandishing a
    term so provocative as ``colonial empire''?
        Well, here's how...
        The Constitution clearly envisions territories as being prospective
    states. That's why the Constitution's ``territorial clause'' appears in
    the same two-paragraph Section that sets forth the process for
    admitting new states.
        Nowhere does the Constitution so much as imply--let alone
    proclaim--that the United States shall ever have the authority to
    betray its own revolutionary origins by acquiring and indefinitely
    possessing colonies.
        So how is it possible that--53 years after Brown versus Board of
    Education--we live in a land whose Supreme Court continues to hold that
    the civil rights of U.S. citizens can be capriciously curtailed by
    means of geographic segregation, just as it once shamefully embraced
    the validity of ``separate but equal'' as a racial segregation
    doctrine?
        The Plessy versus Ferguson doctrine, that legalized racial
    segregation, has been dead and buried since 1954. Yet its sister
    doctrine of geographic segregation, promulgated by the Supreme Court in
    Downes versus Bidwell, incredibly lives on. Somehow, that judicial
    atrocity has survived no fewer than 106 years of steady progress--on
    virtually every other front--in America's never-ending struggle to form
    a more perfect Union!
        The exclusionary mindset manifested in Downes versus Bidwell
    explains how Puerto Rico has acquired the dubious distinction of being
    the jurisdiction that holds the all-time record for most consecutive
    years as an American territory; Oklahoma held the record, at 104 years,
    until we broke it in 2003; and since then, of course, we have been
    setting a new record every year.
        What do We the People of Puerto Rico want?
        What do We the People of the United States want?
        Do We the People support the perpetuation of a policy of colonial
    imperialism? Or do we favor having our nation rediscover its roots as a
    democratic republic?
        Filed on February 7, 2007 and sponsored by--among scores of
    others--a majority of the members of this Subcommittee, H.R. 900 will
    at last pose those questions; and if I may say so, it's about time--
    better late than never!
        Geographical discrimination is no less insidious, and no less
    odious, than any other type of arbitrary injustice. But in one
    important respect, geographical discrimination--what I call ``the
    American territorial ghetto''--is downright bizarre.
          A U.S. citizen of any ancestry, including Puerto Rican,
    retains the right to vote for President if he or she moves from any
    state to any foreign country.
          A U.S. citizen of any ancestry, including Puerto Rican,
    acquires the right to vote in local and federal elections if he or she
    establishes residence in one of the 50 states--even if the person in
    question was born and raised in a territory or a foreign country.
        That's all well and good.
        Nevertheless, there exists one grotesque corollary to those rules.
        Any American citizen who relocates from a state to a U.S. territory
    is immediately stripped of all political rights at the federal level!
        This person may never ever have set foot outside U.S. soil--yet he
    or she automatically loses the right to vote for President; loses the
    right to voting representation in Congress; and loses the protection of
    the full panoply of civil rights that the Constitution guarantees to
    citizens residing elsewhere.
        Even though the Stars and Stripes flies over Puerto Rico, an
    American citizen's full constitutional rights are summarily denied
    entry there--and it is Uncle Sam himself who mans the barricades!
        It was this outrageous ``Catch 22'' that prompted me, six months
    ago, to deliver a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human
    Rights--a body that was created by, and which reports to, the
    Organization of American States [OAS].
        That petition articulates a grievance: namely, that--by denying
    full democratic participation in national affairs to its Puerto Rico-
    domiciled citizens--the government of the United States is clearly
    violating the civil and human rights of those citizens. For the record,
    I have submitted a copy of our grievance to the Subcommittee.
        In addressing the Human Rights Commission, my fellow petitioners
    and I contend that the United States stands in clear violation of
    commitments contained in two unequivocal documents that the entire
    membership of the OAS has adopted--both collectively and individually.
    Those documents are the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties
    of Man and the Inter-American Democratic Charter.
        All across the globe, perennially subjugated peoples are today
    either breathing free or advancing hopefully in that direction.
        The United States is applauding and promoting this inspiring trend.
        Brave Americans, including thousands of Puerto Ricans, are putting
    their lives on the line to support this cause--in Iraq, in Afghanistan,
    and elsewhere. Well over 50 Puerto Ricans have died in those conflicts
    since 2001; numerous others have been wounded and/or decorated for
    their valor.
        However, there is a powerful irony in all of this--because the
    Pentagon is sending Puerto Rican military personnel to the Middle East
    for the purpose of defending liberties that are denied to those very
    same Puerto Ricans in their own homeland!
        As I mentioned a moment ago, all across the planet, perennially
    subjugated peoples are today either breathing free or advancing
    hopefully in that direction; and the United States is applauding and
    promoting that ongoing phenomenon.
        Nevertheless--incongruous though it be--the law of our own land
    persists in contradicting this inspiring global trend.
        Where the United States is concerned, it seems that democracy does
    not begin at home; instead, the law of our own land persists in
    mandating geographical discrimination against certain communities of
    American citizens who reside on American soil; in other words, American
    law gives its blessing to the indefinite existence of an American
    constitutional-rights ghetto.
        Herein lies a truly national conundrum; herein lies the unfinished
    business of American democracy.
        Colonialism, on planet Earth, is nearly extinct. Nobody, anywhere,
    has a kind thing to say about it.
        Imperialism is a dirty word. Nobody, anywhere, has a kind thing to
    say about it.
        So how on Earth can the United States of America conceivably
    countenance its retention of a colonial empire, without at least asking
    its subject peoples for their consent on the supremely sensitive matter
    of their inferior civic status?
        The answer is that it cannot; and that is why passage of the Puerto
    Rico Democracy Act of 2007 is long overdue.
        I plead guilty to waxing testy at times. But I plead innocent to
    any accusations of wanton hyperbole.
        So when I say ``long overdue,'' I mean exactly that.
        In my defense, I offer a quotation. Its source is a person with
    whom some of you may be personally acquainted. Here are his words:
        ``Puerto Rico has a long history of petitioning the Congress. They
    have had elections down there. They have had petitions. They have had
    ad hoc commissions. They have had petitions signed by a third of their
    voters''.
        ``What the problem has been is not a problem with Puerto Rico. The
    problem has been with the Congress. We have had over 30 bills
    introduced. We have had statehood bills, 16 of them; independence
    bills, seven of them; enhanced commonwealth bills, three of them. We
    have had combination bills. And they never get anywhere.''
        The person who said that was The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston.
        As the then-Chairman of the U.S. Senate panel that is responsible
    for territorial affairs, J. Bennett Johnston uttered those words during
    an executive session of his Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
    Resources more than 16 years ago--on February 27, 1991.
        Before the 20th century expired, additional Puerto Rico status
    bills were filed. They never got anywhere, either.
        In the autumn of 2005, I published a book wherein the preceding
    quotation appears. For your perusal, I am herewith submitting a copy of
    that book--which is appropriately entitled, The Unfinished Business of
    American Democracy.
        Immediately after quoting Senator Johnston, my book contains a
    paragraph wherein I make the following statement:
        ``Glib souls that they tend to be, Members of Congress customarily
    are able to concoct reasonable-sounding explanations for their failure
    to accomplish anything on this front. Yet there is no escaping the fact
    that their collective lack of political will is the principal cause of
    the inertia in which Puerto Rico's status dilemma has been mired for a
    full century. Congressional foot-dragging has undercut, undermined,
    eroded and ultimately doomed a whole succession of Puerto Rico-
    originated initiatives aimed at eradicating the territory's colonial
    limbo.''
        Since I wrote that paragraph, several more Puerto Rico status bills
    have been tossed into the Congressional hopper. One of those bills is
    H.R. 900.
        Distinguished members of the Insular Affairs Subcommittee, you know
    better than I that significant legislative action is rarely easy to
    achieve.
        H.R. 900 is unquestionably significant, because it would begin to
    address the legitimate grievances of the American citizens of Puerto
    Rico.
        However, H.R. 900 has the uncommon virtues of also being simple and
    straightforward and eminently meritorious. The enactment of this
    significant piece of legislation should be easy to achieve.
        On behalf of a century-plus of Congressional witnesses from Puerto
    Rico, I respectfully ask that you succeed where more than 50 previous
    Congresses have failed. I ask that you resoundingly recommend approval
    of the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007, and I respectfully request
    that you adopt the following amendment that will expedite the self-
    determination process: in Section 3(a) of H.R. 900, I ask that you
    replace the phrase, ``December 31, 2009,'' with the phrase, ``December
    31, 2008.''
        Thank you very much.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. And as all written testimony,
    it is accepted for the record. I would hope that you would stay
    for questions. Anyway, thank you for your testimony.
        I will now recognize myself for five minutes for questions,
    maybe not even five minutes. As a matter of fact, let me revise
    that. Mr. Serrano is here; he will have to go and vote. Let me
    recognize Mr. Serrano for his questions.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. Let me just say how honored
    I am to have these distinguished leaders, including the one
    that just left, in front of me. We Puerto Ricans do have a
    temper at times, and I think after 108 years it is possible
    that the behavior can be different in different ways.
        Mr. Berrios, just a quick question for you, because I do
    have a vote pending. You may not be wrong. There are days when
    I wake up and realize or feel that statehood is never a
    possibility in this Congress. Are you suggesting that there is
    a way we can address this issue without including statehood in
    a bill? Obviously the easiest way would be to have a bill that
    says get rid of the territory, you know, dispose of it. That is
    not being presented right now.
        Do you think we could do this without including statehood?
    In other words, the two options.
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. I will answer shortly. I only want to
    say I am very sorry Gov. Rossello is not here, but I just hope
    that when Congress slams the door on statehood, he walks out
    also with me, because that is the way to do it. I cannot
    understand neither him nor any other leader that--and I must
    say this--talks as clearly as he has done today, and
    nevertheless insists on wanting to marry that person that
    doesn't want to marry him. That falls under the political
    Stockholm Syndrome. You don't ally yourself with the oppressor
    and with the empire. You struggle against the empire. I am
    sorry he is not here, but I was going to say it before him.
        Yes, I think there is a way. If you insist on including
    statehood, no bill will be approved here. You all know that,
    basically. Privately, most of you have told me that--and I am
    not referring to you. Everybody knows that.
        A nation that is building a wall on its southern frontier
    with Mexico will never accept 4 million Latin-Americans as a
    state of the Union, with 4 million more inside the United
    States. That will not happen in the foreseeable future.
        Therefore, I think you must find a way to get around this
    if you want to approve a bill. And the way I have proposed I
    think is the way out.
        I must be completely frank regarding my proposal. The first
    part obviously does not include statehood, my first point, my
    first step. The second step regarding the constitutional
    convention includes, indirectly, very indirectly, statehood,
    because statehood can participate, and I hope they do, in the
    constitutional convention in Puerto Rico. But that is very
    indirectly.
        Now, if the constitutional convention is not convened in
    six months, then in the other step, the third step, you don't
    have to include statehood. You didn't include statehood in 1950
    to 1952. You didn't include anything except the territorial
    colonial government. And then you argued before the U.N. that
    Puerto Rico had self-determined itself. And it was false. You
    gave Puerto Ricans only one choice: either this bad system, or
    this bad system. And Puerto Rico chose the ones, the system
    they thought was not as bad as the other one.
        But why don't you do it again? Why don't you make a good
    offer? Like other colonial powers have done. A good offer of
    independence. If there is no, if the Puerto Rican people in a
    constitutional convention do not opt for another alternative,
    sovereign alternative, why not? Your obligation is to dispose
    of the territory. You didn't ask anybody in Puerto Rico whether
    you come in, in 1898. You came in through the force of arms. So
    why not fully exercise your obligation to expose of the
    territory, and make an offer to the Puerto Rican people? An
    offer we cannot resist.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. I wanted to clarify that, thank
    you.
        Gov. Acevedo-Vila, with all due respect, I think you made
    quite a bit of news here today. You said that my bill forces
    people in Puerto Rico to vote for statehood.
        Now, if they are given a choice in the second round,
    assuming they reject commonwealth in the first round, between
    statehood and independence, then you must know something I
    don't know; that most people who vote for commonwealth now will
    vote for statehood. So I guess your statement today, and the
    big news in the Puerto Rican press tomorrow, will be that
    Governor Acevedo-Vila said that given a choice between
    statehood and independence, most populares will vote for
    statehood.
        And I tell you, it is my bill, but I am not sure that will
    happen. It might be that you are so autonomous, your party,
    that you will vote for independence.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. You know me better than that, but I
    describe what your bill does. It sums the second and third
    place in order to defeat the first place.
        Mr. Serrano. No. It brings the non-colonial second and
    third options, and it----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. We have discussed this many times.
        Mr. Serrano. That is right. But you have never clarified
    the first point.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. We don't agree. What I see is that on
    every opportunity, since you are so intelligent and so smart,
    you come up with a different way of summing up the votes just
    to eliminate commonwealth.
        Mr. Serrano. You know, that got Joe Biden into a lot of
    trouble, that comment you just made. But that is OK, I accept
    it as a compliment, because I am from Puerto Rico.
        Now, listen to me again. Listen to my----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. And, and----
        Mr. Serrano. I can ask you in Spanish or I can ask you in
    English. It is up to you. How do you know what we don't know?
    How do you know the outcome of the second vote? Are you telling
    us that you know----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Because you are making the second----
        Mr. Serrano. No. How do you know that populares are
    secretly statehooders? How do you know that? I don't know that.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. No. Maybe, maybe, you know what? Maybe
    populares and commonwealth are one vote. One vote. Remember, we
    want a plebiscite with none of the above, precisely because
    they were trying to impose tricks on the people of Puerto Rico.
    We want with none of the above.
        Mr. Serrano. Let me conclude----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. So in that sense, in that sense, and I
    say this with due respect, if H.R. 900 is approved, and that is
    the process that is given to the people of Puerto Rico, what
    you are going to have is really uncertainty. What you are going
    to have is the people of Puerto Rico getting the feeling that--
    it is two theories. Either you are imposing statehood, or,
    after Mr. Berrios just explained, you are imposing
    independence.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, no, my----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. So that is the process that the people of
    Puerto Rico are rejecting today, and will reject tomorrow. So
    that is not the way of addressing this important issue.
        Mr. Serrano. OK, my time is up. So let me just conclude by
    saying that I agree with you; I am pretty smart and
    intelligent.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Serrano. And I can see a colonial status in any way,
    shape, or form. And your so-called enhanced commonwealth may be
    a good deal, but it is a colonial status. Give me a non-
    colonial status, and I will support it, because I am
    intelligent and smart.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. That conclusion is based on legal
    interpretations that I firmly believe are wrong. And in that
    sense, I think that the challenge that you have, as Members of
    Congress, is to come up with new, with new schemes, legal
    schemes, that will give dignity, sovereignty to the people of
    Puerto Rico, and that will allow improve the current
    relationship. And that is possible. You have that power, we
    have that power. It is a matter of political will.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Not of using the Constitution----
        Mr. Serrano. Madame Chairwoman, thank you for your time and
    for your patience with me. And let me just for the record say
    that dignity and respect is either joining the family or
    declaring your independence. There is no other colonial status
    that can be dignified.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. And the Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Fortuno for questions.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chair. Governor,
    I am reading your platform, 2004 platform. And it states very
    clearly that you and your party adopt as the supersized or
    enhanced commonwealth proposal the one that was approved by the
    governing board of your party on October 15, 1998. Is that
    correct or wrong?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes.
        Mr. Fortuno. So I have it here, and that is exactly what
    you all said that would be your proposal. If we may look at
    your proposal, I am trying to make this easier for everyone,
    you are saying that Puerto Rico will be a sovereign nation, but
    in permanent union with the United States; that the covenant
    will permanently bind the U.S. to its terms, when we have heard
    not just one, not two, but three Administrations, from two
    Republicans and one Democrat, telling you no, that is not
    doable.
        Puerto Rico will be able to veto most Federal laws. I am
    just reading what you all put together. That Puerto Rico will
    be able to invalidate Federal court jurisdiction. It will be
    able to enter into trade and other agreements with foreign
    nations and join international organizations separate from the
    U.S. The U.S. will provide new incentives for investment
    without paying any Federal taxes. The U.S. will continue all
    current assistance programs without paying Federal taxes, plus
    an annual block grant. The U.S. will continue to grant free
    entry to any goods from Puerto Rico, and the U.S. will continue
    to grant U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans, to people born in
    Puerto Rico.
        Three Administrations have told you that what you are
    proposing is not doable. What part of no don't you understand?
    What is un-American is to try to deny the 4 million U.S.
    citizens an opportunity to select an option.
        And actually, the option is there. A third option is there,
    and actually we are more than willing, and I am telling you up
    front that I am more willing, and I know my friend Jose Serrano
    is willing as well, to work on that third option. It is free
    association.
        Do you have the pantalones to move on and work on free
    association as a third option, so that we can solve this once
    and for all, and allow the people of Puerto Rico to decide this
    once and for all? That is my concern here. We want something
    solved, and for the time being, as long as your lobbyists don't
    try to block this process from moving along, then it makes it
    more and more and more difficult.
        Is this----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Are you meeting failure?
        Mr. Fortuno. I am sorry?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Are you meeting failure already?
        Mr. Fortuno. No. Today we won a big round. And you were
    trying, through Charlie Black, to try not to have the
    Administration actually put forth anything in writing, or come
    here. Not only did they come here, but they said it very
    clearly: that they stand behind the recommendations of the task
    force.
        I was with the President a few hours ago. I can tell you
    that the President is fully behind this. His senior staff is
    fully behind this. He reconfirmed that today, as we were
    talking at the White House.
        I only hope that you will stop these delaying tactics, and
    allow for the people of Puerto Rico to have the opportunity to
    select one option. And if you want to work really--I am talking
    seriously--from here we go up to my office, and we work on that
    free association option.
        But you have to understand that not one, not two, three
    Administrations have told you that this is not doable, and have
    told you what is doable. I urge you, are you willing to sit
    down and really work on a free association option that is
    doable under the U.S. Constitution, so that we can allow the
    people of Puerto Rico to decide directly? Are you willing to do
    that?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Let me react to your additional
    statement. Beyond the fact that you are summarizing the
    proposal and not using the actual language, but that is not
    important.
        Mr. Fortuno. That is OK. We will submit for the record
    exactly what you have in your proposal so we can allow the
    committee to understand. Can we submit that for the record, so
    that the committee understands what is in it?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. It has been submitted many times.
        Mr. Fortuno. I know. But I just want to submit it again so
    that everyone understands that I am telling the truth here.
        Ms. Christensen. Without objection.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you.
        [NOTE: The information submitted for the record by Mr.
    Acevedo-Vila has been retained in the Committee's official
    files.]
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Can I react and respond?
        Ms. Christensen. Yes.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. OK. First let me talk a little bit about
    the President's endorsement. Now, let us first go to the three
    Administrations. Is this Congress? Don't we have separation of
    powers? Or do you guys only do what the Administration tells
    you?
        Laws require that----
        Mr. Fortuno. I and the President agree----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila.--the Senate, the House, and with all due
    respect----
        Mr. Fortuno.--and that is what we are trying to do.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I haven't finished. You are mentioning
    three Administrations, and my question to you is, this is
    Congress. This is Congress. For how many Administrations did
    African-Americans were denied their rights? And that was a good
    argument, to tell them you shouldn't go back to Congress and
    try to get legislation that is fair? Because you know, five
    Administrations, 10 Administrations have denied that to you.
        Mr. Fortuno. But are you willing to work on a third option
    of free association?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I am responding to all your points. I am
    responding to all your points.
        Mr. Fortuno. Except we are running out of time here.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I am responding to all your points. And
    in terms of the importance of the endorsement of President Bush
    to your bill, and this Congress, isn't he endorsing the surge
    in Iraq? And this Congress----
        Mr. Fortuno. Madame Chair, we are trying to--I reclaim my
    time.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. No, my point is----
        Mr. Fortuno. I reclaim my time immediately.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. My point is that we come to Congress to
    deliberate. And you are telling Congress you shouldn't
    deliberate and discuss anything, because the President has
    already spoken. And that is not the way the system works.
        Mr. Fortuno. If you want to talk about something else, that
    is fine.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. That is not the way the system works.
        Mr. Fortuno. The door is open to work on a free association
    option as a third option.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. In terms of the future of Puerto Rico and
    the future development of commonwealth, I will discuss that
    with the people of Puerto Rico. And eventually, with the whole
    Congress. And I will spend as much time as I have to make this
    or the next Congress to understand that the best option for the
    people of Puerto Rico, and the best option for the United
    States, is to work to enhance commonwealth.
        Mr. Fortuno. The door is open. It is free association.
    Three Administrations have told you, and what part of no don't
    you understand?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Mr. Fortuno, Mr. Fortuno, you guys are so
    afraid of commonwealth, that you are not willing even to put
    the name commonwealth on the ballot. Because in your bill, not
    even the name commonwealth is on the ballot. You know why?
    Because whenever statehood has been on the ballot, and
    commonwealth has been on the ballot, you know what has been the
    result. The people of Puerto Rico has rejected statehood. They
    reject statehood today, they reject statehood tomorrow.
        Mr. Fortuno. Madame Chair, the witness isn't answering the
    question.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. The time of the gentleman has
    expired. I now recognize Mr. Faleomavaega for five minutes.
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Madame Chair, can I comment on Mr.
    Fortuno's question?
        Ms. Christensen. Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I gladly yield.
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. I want to be as candid and as clear
    as possible. I have been, I think, today to see if we--we have
    to stop beating around the bush.
        The leaders of the PDP today, of the Commonwealth Party,
    are willing to accept work for less than the minimum wage. That
    is what it is all about. That is commonwealth. It is all right
    that they do that.
        But the question Congress has to ask itself is whether, at
    this juncture in time, one can work for less than the minimum
    wage. The history of slavery should be clear enough. There are
    stages you surpass, and once you pass that stage, you don't go
    back.
        And colonialism is one of those things humanity has
    progressed beyond. And therefore, it is an insult, it is an
    insult for people to be told that the only option they should
    have is colonialism or slavery or working for less than the
    minimum wage. Even though that is true, Congress is giving them
    the chance to ask the Puerto Rican people. But why say the two
    polar opposites will unite against the center?
        No. It is the people who don't believe in the colony and
    the people who believe in the colony. There are many
    commonwealthers who don't believe in the colony, and they will
    vote against the colony, together with the statehooders and the
    independentistas. And then we will sort things out among
    alternatives which are not colonial.
        Don't beat around the bush any more. They don't believe in
    going away from colonialism. They believe in permanent union.
    You have been told today, they have a right to espouse that.
    But they have been told, they have told you once and over
    again, and the Governor has repeated today, they don't believe
    in going out of colonialism. They want to live in that mudhole
    forever.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Reclaiming my time, Madame Chair. I do
    want to thank Mr. Martinez for his statements.
        I just want to ask Gov. Vila a couple of questions. And
    basically, as I have tried to outline the provisions of both
    bills--and I want to see if I am correct in this, Gov. Vila--on
    the specific provisions of H.R. 900 there are three options.
    One for independence, one for free association or statehood. Is
    that your----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. It is not clear on the second one.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. H.R. 900.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I know, but on the second round, when
    commonwealth is out of the question. Because in that bill,
    which I again--and the people of Puerto Rico, the majority of
    the people of Puerto Rico reject that bill--even if the people
    vote for statehood, for commonwealth, define commonwealth.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Governor, may I----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. No, no. Then it says that well, you guys
    had it wrong, you know. You have to vote again. Eight years
    from now you will vote again. So, you know, that is the way to
    force the vote.
        Then on the second round they talk about statehood, they
    talk about independence, and then they talk about free
    association, but defined as independence.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. But, Governor, again I am trying to get
    to my point here. The three options outlined in H.R. 900 are
    this: independence, free association, and statehood. Am I
    correct in this, in your reading of the bill?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes. But if they are finishing a free
    association as----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. That has not been defined.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila.--part of independence, yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. But it has not been defined under H.R.
    900.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. No, you are right.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. The reason for my asking is because there
    is a distinction between free association and one of
    independence.
        Now, free association in terms of how the Micronesian
    States have taken their relationship with the United States,
    you know it is every 15 years they renegotiate the status of
    the unique political relationship between the United States and
    Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of
    Micronesia.
        Now, what they have done is simply taken free association
    from the definition of commonwealth from Puerto Rico, which is
    friestado or something, I am sorry----
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Balot libre social.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, OK. They took that definition of
    commonwealth in Spanish and adopted it, but defining it in a
    different fashion.
        So what I am suggesting, I am asking you, Governor, as was
    Mr. Martinez, there is a definite distinction here. The fact
    that free association, is this essentially what you have in
    mind for enhanced commonwealth as an option you have in H.R.
    1230?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. The thrust of the argument is, and that
    is what the problem with the White House report is, number one,
    whether you can reach an agreement based on mutual consent,
    which is a recognition of sovereignty. Because if you recognize
    mutual consent, you are recognizing the power of the other side
    to reach the agreement.
        And you have heard here, they say that is impossible. But
    in that sense--and the second one is U.S. citizenship for
    people born in Puerto Rico. The way this Administration and
    this report and H.R. 900 defines free association is without no
    mutual consent possibility, and without no possibility of U.S.
    citizenship. And in that sense, that is something that is
    rejected by the people of Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I might also add, Governor, there is a
    fourth option that has not been discussed here. And that is a
    covenant relationship with the United States, which currently
    the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands have, in a very
    unique fashion, which is based on mutual consent.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I agree with you. But if you accept H.R.
    900 and the White House Task Force report, that one is
    unconstitutional, also. So that is the problem.
        The problem is that they are using legal arguments to leave
    the people of Puerto Rico, and I will add Guam, American Samoa,
    without options. Using the Constitution. They are using the
    Constitution to deprive our people of new options, of new
    alternatives. And to deprive Congress of alternatives, of new
    options.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I am so sorry that Gov. Rossello had to
    leave. But again, for you, Mr. Martinez, I know my time is up,
    and I am at the mercy of Madame Chair here.
        Mr. Fortuno. I will be very short. Madame Chair, if I may,
    let the record be straight that I am more than willing to work
    on that third option. It is free association as has been
    defined by the Justice Department over and over again.
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Of course, there are three, four, and
    10 options besides those accepted by international law, which
    are free association, independence, and statehood or
    integration. They are all territorial options. You can be a
    territory like the Northern Marianas, you can be a territory
    like the Virgin Islands, you can be a territory like Puerto
    Rico. And Congress will itself have the prerogative to rule
    over that territory. So of course you have many types of
    territories. We are seeing of them sitting right here. And you
    can improve them.
        But not, not as permanent political status recognized by
    international law. Neither by U.S. Constitutional law. That is
    the issue here. So why don't we face it, and talk it like it
    is?
        Ms. Christensen. The gentleman's time is expired. I now
    recognize Ms. Bordallo for five minutes.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Madame Chair. I am not going to
    take my five minutes, but I know there are two panels that are
    still to be heard. But I do want to thank the very
    distinguished leaders of Puerto Rico who traveled all the way
    here to Washington. Of course, I travel a little bit further to
    Washington, from Guam.
        But I do want to thank them very much for participating.
    And thank you very much, gentlemen, for your time. Thank you,
    Madame Chair.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. I recognize
    myself now for five minutes.
        I will start with Mr. Berrios. In your statement you say
    that the political efficacy of H.R. 1230 depends on the outcome
    of next year's election. Could you explain what you mean by
    that? I mean, if I remember correctly, no matter which process
    has occurred in the past, the party in power has always had
    some more influence over the outcome.
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Yes, of course. It is not only
    ambiguous, but it depends on the efficacy. That means if the
    PDP wins, if Mr. Acevedo-Vila wins, he has already announced
    what he will propose in the next session. Then he promises a
    constitutional convention, with the colonial commonwealth or
    one of the colonial modified versions of the colony.
        So if he wins, then we have in Puerto Rico a constitutional
    convention which will solve nothing, because commonwealth is
    the problem; and thus, it cannot be the solution. That is what
    I mean by the fact that it depends on the outcome.
        The one I am proposing does not depend on the outcome of
    the next election. First, because the first step is mandated
    from here. Second, because a real constitutional convention has
    to be called in Puerto Rico with international options. And if
    it is not called, then Congress must dispose of the territory.
    That doesn't depend on who wins the next election.
        I must warn you, also, that Mr. Acevedo's party has won
    several times, with several promises, and we are still in the
    unincorporated territory of Puerto Rico, for 50 years. So you
    know, have that in mind.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Governor, would you also
    respond to that question? And in the process, could you answer
    for me, does the H.R. 1230 process have, is it geared toward
    one specific outcome? Or can that constitutional assembly just
    as easily come up with a status that could be statehood or
    independence?
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. It is a different approach. It is a
    new approach. And as I said in my written statement, I invite
    this Congress not to make the same mistakes that were made in
    the past.
        I think this hearing is a good example of why the
    constitutional convention should be the alternative. First, you
    have seen our divisions. Even one is missing now.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. And what H.R. 900 is doing is
    bringing those divisions here. Through a constitutional
    convention you create a mechanism for the people of Puerto Rico
    to internally go through our divisions and try to find common
    grounds. So that is number one.
        Number two--and I say this with all due respect, and I know
    there have been votes--but you are discussing the most
    important issue in terms of the future of Puerto Rico. You are
    trying to tell the people of Puerto Rico that this Congress is
    going to decide and make clear what are the options. And this
    room has been empty the whole day. I think that is a good
    example why we shouldn't repeat the same mistakes.
        H.R. 1230 basically says we recognize that the people of
    Puerto Rico have the power to call a constitutional convention,
    and we will respond, we will hear them. We will hear them. That
    way the people of Puerto Rico will vote for delegates. I don't
    know what is going to be the outcome of that; maybe the
    majority of the delegates will be for statehood, maybe not.
    Maybe when they sit down as a group, they change their opinion.
        And once they have a proposal, which has to be validated by
    the people of Puerto Rico, they will come to Congress. And
    Congress, if it is statehood, the alternative, will say well,
    it has to be statehood in Spanish, it has to be in English what
    judicial system, taxes and all that. Maybe the people of Puerto
    Rico will say wait, we don't want that offer. Maybe Congress
    will say forget about statehood. Maybe there won't be any
    response from Congress. Then the constitutional convention and
    the people of Puerto Rico will know where we stand.
        The same thing with new commonwealth. What I am asking for
    new commonwealth is to give the same opportunity that you are
    willing to grant to statehood. Because, again, the issue, you
    know, what kind of statehood are we talking? Those are very
    important issues.
        Some of you have been in Puerto Rico and seen the
    campaigns. The Statehood Party is telling my party that we can
    become the 51st state and still have our national Olympic team.
    They put T.V. ads with that.
        They have said to my people, don't worry about Spanish in
    the schools; the school system will be in Spanish. The judicial
    system will be in Spanish. So why, you know--H.R. 900 says we
    don't have to respond to those questions in order to offer
    statehood. Ah, but in order to offer commonwealth, we will
    respond to all the questions beforehand.
        The constitutional convention will allow the people of
    Puerto Rico to have those internal discussions, and then come
    here and make a proposal in which Congress will react.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Madame Chairwoman----
        Ms. Christensen. I am sorry, but maybe you can answer. I
    just want to get one question in before my time is totally up.
    And I am going to ask it to the Governor, but I will also let
    you respond.
        In your opinion, Governor, is the current economic
    situation in Puerto Rico related to its status? I have this
    article here that--I know I am still learning, and I may have
    missed some of the words in Spanish, because it is in Spanish.
    But you have four leading economists, I think they are very
    well-respected economists, who talk about the economy. And
    their recommendation is a restructuring.
        And in all of the things that they list, they don't list
    anything about changing status.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. I am going to ask you a question, not for
    you to answer, just as my initial answer.
        Is the economic situation in Mississippi, who is the
    poorest state and has been the poorest state for the last 50 or
    100 years--and I read in the New York Times the other day that
    in Mississippi and the South, the birth rates are coming down
    instead of going up--is that a consequence of statehood? Is the
    economic situation of Mississippi a consequence of statehood?
        In terms of developing commonwealth, we can sit down with
    Congress and reach agreements that will empower the people of
    Puerto Rico in areas that will be beneficial economically for
    Puerto Rico and for the United States. But in terms of dealing
    short term with our situation is the same challenges that any
    independent country or any other jurisdiction in the United
    States has.
        And again, I have heard a lot about this issue in terms of
    statehood, and how is statehood an economic boom. And my answer
    is what happened to Mississippi? The per capita income of
    Mississippi is not the same as California, or Texas.
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Madame Chairwoman, regarding this
    question let me tell you that of course it has a direct
    influence on the economic problems of Puerto Rico. The only way
    to put Puerto Rico on its own two feet is to internationalize
    its market and its investment opportunities, and that can only
    be done through the full powers of sovereignty.
        But I must, to end my words, say something. As you know, I
    referred to the fact that I don't understand how some people
    will refer to the United States as an empire, and yet want to
    marry that empire.
        On the other hand, I don't understand how somebody can say
    that things have to be resolved in Puerto Rico, and agrees with
    the political system, where everything is so from here. Because
    that is what commonwealth is all about. It is not with we here
    that you command Puerto Rico, it is without anybody here. You
    have been commanding Puerto Rico since 1898. You are still
    commanding Puerto Rico, because you make all rules,
    regulations, and laws that apply to all basic facets of Puerto
    Rican life.
        And those people that say we have to solve things in Puerto
    Rico are those who agree that you command your destiny from the
    United States. I can't understand that contradiction, either.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. My time has long expired, and I
    want to thank the witnesses for their very informative
    testimony, and again, the Members for their questions and for
    your answers to our questions.
        We may have more questions for you, which we will send in
    writing, and we ask you to respond in writing.
        Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Thank you.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you again. I would now like to
    recognize the third panel of witnesses, and they are The
    Honorable Kenneth D. McClintock, President of the Puerto Rican
    Senate; The Honorable Jose Aponte, Speaker of the Puerto Rican
    House of Representatives; The Honorable Jose Dalmau, Senate
    Minority Leader of the PDP; The Honorable Hector Ferrer, House
    Minority Leader, Popular Democratic Party; and The Honorable
    Carlos Romero Barcelo, former Governor and former Member of
    Congress.
        [Pause.]
        Ms. Christensen. The Chair now recognizes Senator
    McClintock for five minutes.

             STATEMENT OF THE HON. KENNETH D. McCLINTOCK,
                     PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICAN SENATE

        Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much. In the 31 years since
    I first appeared before this Subcommittee, two things have
    happened with complete certainty.
        First, I haven't gotten any younger. And second, the
    argument that I have heard the most to excuse 108 years of
    Congressional inaction is that American citizens in Puerto Rico
    have to speak with one voice to resolve its status, a standard
    that hasn't kept you from dealing with racial segregation, oil
    drilling in the ANWR, protection of the Everglades, or
    immigration reform, for example.
        As President of the Senate, may I remind you that two years
    ago, Puerto Rico did speak with one voice when a historic tri-
    partisan unanimous majority in the Senate and in the House
    supported a bill asking you to allow Puerto Ricans to choose
    among non-territorial and non-colonial options, exactly what
    H.R. 900 proposes. While the Governor unexpectedly vetoed the
    bill he promised to sign, fully two thirds of our Senate
    continued supporting what H.R. 900 proposes.
        H.R. 900 provides a reality check, for Puerto Ricans to
    choose among the real options: continuing the current territory
    status, or moving to statehood, independence, or nationhood in
    a true free association with the U.S. The Governor has wrongly
    insisted that the majority supports so-called commonwealth, but
    no one can be sure until there is a vote among real options,
    which H.R. 900 would provide.
        The current status, without any doubt, is subject to the
    Territories Clause of the Constitution. Some so-called
    commonwealth supporters defend it, stating that it just needs
    some development toward a non-territorial commonwealth status.
    Since what they call commonwealth is a territorial status, a
    non-territory commonwealth status is, by definition, an
    oxymoron.
        The fatal flaw in H.R. 1230 is that it includes an
    impossible proposal as an option, while it excludes a real
    status alternative. The excluded real status is free
    association. The impossible proposal is what Congressman
    Fortuno has called the supersized commonwealth that the
    Governor espouses, and that CRS made clear isn't possible, for
    constitutional and basic policy reasons.
        Enacting a Federal law listing a non-territory commonwealth
    status as an option, as the Governor proposes, would invite
    Puerto Rico to choose an alternative that Congress cannot, and
    would not, grant, which would be a cruel hoax.
        H.R. 1230 is less democratic than H.R. 900. Under H.R. 900,
    the people would choose their preferred status. Under H.R.
    1230, a convention, likely to be comprised of politicians who
    would speak among each other, as well as we speak among each
    other here, would choose, and the people would ultimately only
    be able to accept or reject the selected proposal; thus
    cornering the people into accepting a proposal that they would
    otherwise not have chosen by a majority.
        The purpose of the constitutional convention in H.R. 1230
    is different from that of the constitutional conventions held
    by the 50 states, held by Puerto Rico in 1951, authorized under
    the Constitution of Puerto Rico, held by the U.S., and held by
    all four other populated current territories. The purpose of
    those constitutional conventions was to organize governments
    under an already determined political status. The purpose of
    this constitutional convention would be to choose a political
    status.
        Finally, have you given any thought as to how much longer
    Congress is empowered to keep us as a territory? The
    segregationist majority of the Supreme Court that resolved
    Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, and the first of the Insular cases,
    believed that Congress could keep colonies forever. Justice
    Harlan, whose dissent in Plessy became the unanimous opinion of
    the Court in Brown v. Board of Education, stated in his Insular
    case dissent his belief that the Territories Clause was never
    intended by its anti-colonial drafters to justify Congress
    keeping territories forever.
        Which interpretation do you support? The segregationist
    view that separate but equal forever, be it racial or
    geographical, is constitutional? Or do you support Justice
    Harlan's view? If you reject the segregationist view, inaction
    is no longer an alternative. The only alternative is to
    establish a process that will allow you to dispose of the
    territory of Puerto Rico or admit us into the Union. H.R. 900
    clearly sends Puerto Rico on that path.
        On a personal note, may I say, if you look at every coin in
    your pocket, you will see the phrase e. pluribus unum--among
    many, one. H.R. 900 would allow us someday to become of the
    many, one. We are not part of that one today.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]

         Statement of The Honorable Kenneth D. McClintock, 1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \1\ I have been an at-large Senator from the New Progressive Party
    since 1993. I'm currently in my fourth term. From 1993 to 2000, I
    chaired the Committee on Federal and Economic Affairs and from 1994 to
    2000 I also chaired the Government Affairs Committee. I served as the
    first Hispanic Chairman of the Council of State Governments during 1999
    and as the second President of the Parliamentary Conference of the
    Americas in 2000. From 2001 to 2004 I was the Senate Minority Leader
    and in 2005 became the thirteenth President of the Senate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        President, Senate of Puerto Rico

        I appeared before this Subcommittee for the first time 31 years
    ago, on January 20th, 1976, at the age of 18. 2 Since then,
    two things have happened with complete certainty; first, I haven't
    gotten any younger, and secondly, the argument that I've heard the most
    to excuse 108 years of Congressional inaction is that the American
    citizens in Puerto Rico have to speak with one voice to resolve the
    status dilemma, a standard that hasn't kept you from dealing with other
    highly divisive domestic issues, such as racial segregation
    3 ``in the past--and, more recently, oil drilling in the
    ANWR, 4 the protection of the Everglades 5 and
    the very delicate issue of immigration reform.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Hearings by the Territorial and Insular Affairs Subcommittee of
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, January 20, 1976, San
    Juan, Puerto Rico. Among numerous other appearances before
    Congressional committees, I also appeared before the full Committee on
    Resources of the United States House of Representatives on April 19,
    1997 in San Juan, Puerto Rico regarding H.R. 856, known as the Young
    Bill.
        \3\ It's a well-known historical fact that when President Lyndon
    Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he would tell aide Bill
    Moyers that with a stroke of a pen he had just delivered the South to
    the Grand Old Party for the foreseeable future. As Senator Barack Obama
    has noted, President Johnson chose the ``right side of the battle'',
    notwithstanding the fact this was, and has been, the most divisive
    issue our Country has ever faced. Obama, Barack, The Audacity of Hope:
    Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Crown Publishers. p. 27,
    2006.
        \4\ See CRS-Issue Brief IB10111, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
    (ANWR): Controversies for the 108th Congress, September 29th, 2004.
        \5\ See http://www.americanparknetwork.com/parkinfo/
    content.asp?catid=85&contenttypeid=14
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As President of the Senate, may I remind you that two years ago,
    Puerto Rico spoke with one voice when a historic tri-partisan unanimous
    vote in the Senate was followed by a unanimous vote in the House in
    favor of a measure 6, in which every one of Puerto Rico's
    elected senators and representatives voted for a referendum in which
    the People of Puerto Rico would ask the Congress to commit to resolve
    Puerto Rico's status dilemma. Unexpectedly, Governor Acevedo vetoed the
    bill, after having made the commitment that he would sign it as it was
    approved.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Substitutive of House Bills 1014, 1054 and 1058
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since then, the White House issued its report, and, in spite of the
    Governor's inexplicable veto of the bill, two-thirds of Puerto Rico's
    Senate supports H.R. 900 and opposes H.R. 1230.
        H.R. 900 would provide a ``reality check'' for Puerto Ricans to
    choose among the real status options that have support in the
    territory--continuing the current territory status, U.S. Statehood,
    independence, and nationhood in a true free association with the U.S.
        The bill is based upon the findings and recommendations of the
    President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status established by President
    Clinton and comprised of senior appointees of President Bush who
    consulted with Puerto Rico's leaders and studied the issue anew. They
    generally agreed with the Clinton Administration on the options.
        From the past Co-Chairman of the President's Task Force, Mr. Ruben
    Barrales, I know that the two step-choice process was proposed in
    deference to Gov. Acevedo, who wrongly insisted that the majority of
    Puerto Ricans had always supported ``commonwealth'', and who opposed
    the Puerto Rican people choosing among all the options.
        ``Commonwealth'' is understood in Washington to refer to Puerto
    Rico's territory status. The evidence is that Puerto Ricans do not
    support it, but no one can be sure until there is a vote among real
    options. The only time that the status as it exists was on the ballot--
    in 1998--it received less than one-tenth of one percent of the vote.
    Many commonwealthers voted for ``None of the Above'' along with many
    ``independentistas'' 7. Commonwealthers did so because they
    were told by the current Governor that was the way to vote for the
    ``Development of the Commonwealth'' proposal. (See the article
    incorporated into my full statement. 8) This demonstrated
    why federal action is needed to clarify the real status options and was
    the reason that President Clinton agreed to establish the Task Force
    during a meeting with leaders of all three local parties. In the 1952
    referendum, there was no ``commonwealth'' status option on the ballot.
    A proposal for a ``commonwealth''--different than the present--won the
    1967 referendum, but it was rejected by this subcommittee's
    predecessor. Another proposal for a ``commonwealth'' different than the
    present obtained a slight plurality over statehood in 1993, but it was
    not accepted by the Clinton Administration or congressional leaders. As
    former Governor Hernandez Colon has written, ``all factions do agree on
    the need to end the present undemocratic arrangement'' 9--
    and this is illustrated by the status proposals of the three parties
    and of the faction of the ``commonwealth'' party that supports free
    association.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Spanish for Pro-Independence voters.
        \8\ ``PDP unveils commonwealth definition'', San Juan Star, October
    17, 1998.
        \9\ ``Doing Right by Puerto Rico: Congress Must Act'', Foreign
    Affairs, August 1998.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The current political status of Puerto Rico is, without any doubt,
    subject to the Territorial Clause of the Constitution of the United
    States. Some ``commonwealth'' supporters defend the current political
    status stating that it just needs some development, in the direction to
    a non-territorial Commonwealth status. Since what they call
    ``commonwealth'' is a territorial status, a non-territory
    ``commonwealth'' status is by definition an oxymoron.
        The fatal flaw of Governor Acevedo's H.R. 1230 is that it includes
    an impossible proposal as an option and excludes a real status. The
    excluded real status is free association, which Acevedo opposes but is
    supported by a growing faction within his party. The impossible
    proposal is the ``commonwealth Status'', as the testimony of the
    Congressional Research Services constitutional expert made clear at the
    last hearing and was not rebutted by Acevedo's constitutional expert at
    the hearing.
        Repeated statements of Acevedo and his representatives and
    statements in the ``Development of the Commonwealth'' proposal itself,
    as to the purpose of the convention that H.R. 1230 would support, make
    clear that the non-territory ``commonwealth status'' is intended to be
    Governor Acevedo's ``Development of the Commonwealth''. This proposal
    has been rejected as impossible--for constitutional and basic policy
    reasons--by the Clinton Administration and every Congressional leader
    who has commented on it, as well as by President Bush's Task Force.
    Under the proposal, Puerto Rico would be a nation to which the U.S. is
    permanently bound, with the power to enter into international
    agreements; but the U.S. would also be permanently obligated to grant a
    subsidy, in addition to the present one, new incentives for U.S.
    investment, all current assistance to Puerto Ricans, free entry to any
    goods shipped from Puerto Rico, and U.S. citizenship. Federal laws
    would apply and the federal courts would rule but only to the extent
    agreed to by the local government 10.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ See Exhibit 1, ``Popular Democratic Party Development of the
    Commonwealth'' approved by the Governing Board of the Popular
    Democratic Party On October 15, 1998.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Enacting a federal law listing a non-territory ``commonwealth
    status'' as an option, when the intent of the proponents is the
    ``Development of the Commonwealth'' proposal, would be to invite Puerto
    Rico to choose as its status preference a proposal that Congress
    cannot, and would not grant--a cruel hoax.
        Another fundamental flaw of H.R. 1230 is that it is designed to
    result in a ``stacked deck'' against one of the real options,
    statehood, and produce an artificial majority for the ``commonwealth''
    nationhood proposal. As stated by local senators who support Gov.
    Acevedo's proposal, 11 the plan is to form a coalition with
    Pro-independence voters and other nationalists in a convention to
    outvote statehood delegates. ``Independentistas'' and other
    nationalists would probably agree, also knowing that the
    ``commonwealth'' proposal would be rejected in Washington, leaving true
    nationhood as the only option.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        H.R. 1230 is also less democratic than H.R. 900. Under H.R. 900,
    the people would pick Puerto Rico's proposed status. Under H.R. 1230 a
    convention, likely to be comprised of politicians, would select among
    the status proposals for the people and the people would only be able
    to accept or reject the selected proposal. This is intended to corner
    the people into accepting a proposal that they would otherwise not
    choose by majority.
        The purpose of the ``constitutional convention'' in H.R.1230 is
    different from that of the constitutional conventions Puerto Rico held
    in the early 1950s, authorized under the Constitution of Puerto Rico,
    held by the United States, held by the 50 States, and held by all four
    other populated current territories. The purpose of those
    constitutional conventions was to organize governments under an already
    determined political status; the purpose of this ``constitutional
    convention'' would be to choose a status.
        Finally, as the Congress decides whether to act to dispose of the
    territory or admit it as a new state, you should ask yourselves for how
    much longer do you believe that Congress should be empowered to make
    needful rules and regulations, and keep us as the territory we've been
    for over a century.
        The segregationist vision that permeated the U.S. Supreme Court
    majority opinion in Plessy versus Ferguson in 1896 12
    spilled over into the first of the Insular Cases which suggests that
    Congress could keep colonies forever. 13 Justice Harlan,
    whose dissent in Plessy 14 became the unanimous opinion of
    the Court in Brown 15, stated in his Insular Case dissent
    his belief that the Territories Clause of the Constitution was never
    intended by its anti-colonial drafters to justify 108 years of
    colonialism 16
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Plessy, is the 1896 case in which the
    United States Supreme Court declared constitutional the separate and
    unequal treatment of Afro-American citizens, a case which was later
    struck down in several contemporary cases, notably Brown v. Board of
    Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1953), which held that separate is
    inherently unequal.
        \13\ The following are known as the Insular Cases: De Lima v.
    Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901); Goetze v. United States, 182 U.S. 221
    (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901); Armstrong v.
    United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901); Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244
    (1901); Huus v. New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co., 182 U.S. 392
    (1901). For a critical discussion of the colonialist doctrine set forth
    in the Insular Cases, see Justice Torruella's dissent in Igartua-de la
    Rosa v. U.S., 417 F.3d. 145, 158-166 (2005).
        \14\ In Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, p. 559, Harlan's dissent stated
    that ``[b]ut in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there
    is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens.
    There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither
    knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights,
    all citizens are equal before the law.''
        \15\ Supra Footnote 12.
        \16\ In Downes v. Bidwell, supra, p. 380, Harlan's dissent stated
    that ``[t]he idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere
    upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies
    or provinces,--the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as
    Congress chooses to accord to them,--is wholly inconsistent with the
    spirit and genius, as well as with the words, of the Constitution.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Which constitutional interpretation do you support today; the
    segregationists' view that separate-but-equal forever, be it racial or
    geographical, is constitutional, or Justice Harlan's view that Puerto
    Rico cannot be treated differently forever?
        As Justice Harlan, I believe that the Clause's drafters, who only
    five years before had won a war against colonialism, never intended for
    you to continue ruling indefinitely over Puerto Rico as a territory. If
    you share our belief, inaction is no longer an alternative. The only
    alternative is to establish a process that will allow you to dispose of
    the territory of Puerto Rico or admit us into the Union. H.R. 900
    clearly sends Puerto Rico on that path.
        Thank you.
                                   Exhibit 1

                            POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY

                        DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH

        The people of Puerto Rico, in the exercise of their sovereignty,
    their natural right to self government and their free will as ultimate
    sources of their political power, hereby reaffirm the validity of the
    Commonwealth established as an autonomous political body, that is
    neither colonial or territorial, in permanent union with the United
    States under a covenant that cannot be invalidated or altered
    unilaterally and proposes its autonomic development. The relationship
    between Puerto Rico and the United States will continue to be based on
    common defense, market and currency and on the irrevocability of the
    U.S. citizenship, acquired by birth and protected by the U.S.
    Constitution.
        This relationship guarantees the autonomous development of Puerto
    Rico based on the democratic precept of government with the consent of
    the governed and the recognition that Puerto Rico is a nation with its
    own history, idiosyncracy, culture and Spanish language.
        To achieve its maximum economic progress and well-being, the people
    of Puerto Rico propose to develop Commonwealth retaining all the powers
    that are not delegated to the United States. Under Puerto Rico's fiscal
    autonomy, economic development areas will be identified in which joint
    action can produce jobs and other benefits for both parties, including
    the flexibility in the use of federal funds, providing that programs of
    direct aid to individuals will continue as they are present. The
    Commonwealth will be able to enter into commercial and tax agreements,
    among others, with other countries, and belong to regional and
    international entities, consistent with the common interests of defense
    and security between the United States and Puerto Rico, as agreed to in
    the covenant.
        Once the request for the development of the people of Puerto Rico
    is approved, a Constituent Assembly will be called to negotiate with
    the U.S. government the terms and conditions of the covenant, which
    will include a mechanism to approve the application of legislation
    approved by the U.S. Congress.
                        ARTICLE I--PUERTO RICAN IDENTITY
    A. PUERTO RICAN NATIONALITY
        Puerto Ricans have a common history, idiosyncracy, culture and
    language that constitute a specific nationality separate from that of
    any other nation.
    B. PUERTO RICAN CITIZENSHIP
        Persons born in Puerto Rico are Puerto Rican citizens by birth and
    their Puerto Rican citizenship is transmittable to their descendants as
    determined by the Commonwealth and would have the rights, privileges
    and obligations that derive from it.
                         ARTICLE II--BASIS OF THE UNION
        The union between Puerto Rico and the United States will continue
    to be based on the following fundamental elements determined by Puerto
    Rico freely and in agreement with the United States:
    A. COMMON CITIZENSHIP
        People born in Puerto Rico will continue to be citizens of the
    United States by birth and this citizenship will continue to be
    protected by the Constitution of the United States and by this Covenant
    and will not be unilaterally revocable.
    B. COMMON DEFENSE
        The United States will maintain authority and responsibility over
    defense matters. This will include: the same responsibility for the
    defense of Puerto Rico and its people as the United States and its
    people; denying and limiting military or strategic access to Puerto
    Rico to any foreign power, maintaining the bases or other military
    installations currently operating in Puerto Rico as well as the
    National Guard; stipulating that the case of the Municipality of
    Vieques will be the object of the highest attention in agreement with
    the legitimate call of its residents; and, any additional need would be
    considered and dealt with through specific and separate agreements.
    C. COMMON CURRENCY
        The U.S. dollar is and will continue to be the currency in Puerto
    Rico.
    D. COMMON MARKET
        A common market will continue to exist between Puerto Rico and the
    United States, by which the free flow of goods and services between the
    two countries will continue.
                      ARTICLE III--DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS
    A. SELF GOVERNMENT
        The Commonwealth emanates from the power of the people to govern
    themselves, and for that reason, the people of Puerto Rico retain all
    the powers that have not been delegated to the United States.
    B. DELEGATION OF POWERS
        The powers related to the Federal laws related to defense,
    currency, U.S. citizenship, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment
    insurance, banks and brokerage, Postal Service and the programs for
    providing social and educational assistance to citizens and veterans
    are delegated to the United States. In addition, international
    relations are delegated to the extent consisted with this Covenant.
    C. SHARED POWERS
        Areas of special cooperation will be identified in which the United
    States and the Commonwealth will exercise shared powers for the benefit
    of both people through the process established in Article XII.
                         ARTICLE IV--RIGHTS OF CITIZENS
    A. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
        The U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico will be protected by all
    the rights, privileges and immunities granted by the Constitution of
    the United States and the Commonwealth.
    B. ECONOMIC BENEFITS
        The Federal programs that provide social and educational assistance
    directly to Puerto Rico's residents, such as the Nutritional Assistance
    Program, Pell Grants and educational loans, among others, will continue
    and be guided by the applicable Federal and State regulations.
        The United States recognizes as acquired rights Federal programs
    for veterans and Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance
    benefits for which Puerto Rican workers and employers have made and
    will continue to make the corresponding Federal contributions.
                        ARTICLE V--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
    A. WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
        To promote Puerto Rico's economic development, and considering the
    present and future relations between Puerto Rico and the United States,
    the U.S. commits to provide the Commonwealth an annual block grant
    adjusted for inflation, so the Government of Puerto Rico can continue
    to provide social assistance, develop public works and infrastructure,
    and provide incentives for the creation of jobs and socioeconomic
    development.
        The U.S. and Puerto Rico will identify and agree on areas of
    economic development in which joint action will produce jobs and other
    economic benefits for both parties, including the creation of special
    incentives programs for investment in the islands.
    B. INTERNATIONAL
        The Commonwealth will have control over international trade and
    will establish a policy to promote its maximum economic development. To
    that effect, it will have the capacity to enter into commercial and tax
    agreements, among others, with other countries, consistent with the
    common interests of the defense and security of Puerto Rico and the
    United States.
        The Commonwealth will be able to enter into international
    agreements and belong to regional and international organizations
    consistent with the common interests of the defense and security of
    Puerto Rico and the United States.
        The United States commits to support the participation or
    membership of Puerto Rico in the agreements and organizations to which
    this article refers.

                           ARTICLE VI--FEDERAL LANDS

        The Government of the United States will transfer to Puerto Rico
    the lands that now it has in Puerto Rico with the exception of those
    lands that are used for common defense or that are necessary to
    exercise the powers delegated in this Covenant.

                   ARTICLE VII--AREAS OF SPECIAL COOPERATION

        Puerto Rico and the United States will establish other areas of
    special cooperation intended to guarantee the quality of life of Puerto
    Ricans and to continue nourishing from the collective experiences of
    institutional and local development of both peoples.
        For the sake of an orderly and calm future and development in
    harmony with the cultural, spiritual, psychological, and economic
    nature of both peoples, Puerto Rico and the United States commit to
    jointly determine strategies to: control drug trafficking; regulate
    communications; protect the borders from illegal immigration; protect
    the environment and recognize guarantees of mutual benefit consistent
    with international rules; promote a new basis for cooperation between
    workers and management; deal with natural disasters; share
    technological advances in the sectors of agriculture, medicine,
    pharmacology, criminal justice, and other disciplines in the areas of
    Natural and Social Sciences and Humanities.

                          ARTICLE VIII--FEDERAL COURT

        The Federal Court will have jurisdiction over matters that arise
    from: provisions of the Constitution of the United States and of the
    Federal laws that apply to Puerto Rico consistent with this Covenant
    and not in violation with the laws of the Constitution of Puerto Rico.
    Spanish and English will be the official languages of that court.

                         ARTICLE IX--RESOLVING DISPUTES

    A. NEGOTIATION COMMITTEE
        Any controversy about the interpretation of this Covenant will be
    resolved through negotiations between the parties to this Covenant that
    is the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In all
    negotiations, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will be represented by a
    negotiating committee of three (3) members appointed by the governor
    and confirmed by seventy-five percent (75%) of each of the two (2)
    legislative houses of Puerto Rico.
        At least, two (2) of the three (3) members of the committee should
    believe in the political philosophy described in this Covenant, that
    is, be Commonwealthers. In the same manner, the United States of
    America will be represented by a committee of three (3) members
    appointed by the President of the United States

    B. COMMISSION TO RESOLVE DISPUTES
        If it is not possible to resolve a controversy through a
    negotiation between the parties, the controversy will be submitted to
    the Commission to Resolve Disputes. This commission will have five (5)
    members, two (2) appointed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two (2)
    appointed by the United States of America and a fifth member appointed
    by majority of these four (4). The five (5) members will select a
    chairman from their membership.
        Decisions of this Commission in disputes between the Governments of
    the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States of America
    regarding the interpretation of this Covenant will be final and firm.

                              ARTICLE X--LEGALITY

        The agreement between the people of Puerto Rico and the government
    of the United States of America will have the force recognized by the
    constitutional and international rights in force as a bilateral
    covenant that recognizes rights and delegates powers, based on mutual
    consent that cannot be unilaterally renounced or altered.

                              ARTICLE XI--SYMBOLS

        The symbols, flags and hymns of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
    will continue to be as at present.

                    ARTICLE XII--OTHER INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS

        The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will retain the authority to ratify
    cultural, educational, scientific and sports agreements.

                           ARTICLE XIII--NEGOTIATION

        a. Once this development proposal is approved by the people of
    Puerto Rico, a Constituent Assembly will be called that will negotiate
    with the Government of the United States the terms and conditions of
    the association between Puerto Rico and the United States and the
    specific drafting of such agreement on behalf of the people of Puerto
    Rico. This Constituent Assembly will not be able to adopt proposals
    that undermine or cancel the mandate expressed by the people of Puerto
    Rico or that undermines the precepts of common citizenship, market,
    currency and defense, or against the Puerto Rican national identity.
        b. The Constituent Assembly will design and propose to the
    Government of the United States a mechanism for a specific agreement
    regarding the application of legislation approved by the Congress of
    the United States after the adoption of the covenant and that the
    people of Puerto Rico wish to have extended to Puerto Rico.
        The people of Puerto Rico will elect a Resident Commissioner who
    will represent Puerto Rico before the Government of the United States
    and who will be considered a Member of the U.S. House of
    Representatives for purposes of all legislative matters that have to do
    with Puerto Rico, but whose role will also be extended to representing
    Puerto Rico before the Executive Branch of the United States.
        c. The main political parties of Puerto Rico will be represented in
    the Constituent Assembly and will be able to nominate candidates to be
    part of the assembly.
        d. The Covenant will take effect after it has been negotiated and
    approved by the Government of the United States and the Constituent
    Assembly, and it has been approved by the people of Puerto Rico in a
    referendum called for that purpose.
        e. Any change to the terms of this Covenant will have to be
    approved by the people of Puerto Rico in a special vote conducted
    consistent with its democratic processes and institutions.
        f. The Constituent Assembly will not have authority to alter,
    modify, amend, and/or change the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
    Puerto Rico.
    Approved by the Governing Board of the Popular Democratic Party
    On October 15, 1998
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
    Aponte for five minutes.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOSE APONTE-HERNANDEZ, SPEAKER OF THE
                 PUERTO RICAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

        Mr. Aponte-Hernandez. Buenos tardes. I come before you not
    to press my personal position with regards to what I consider
    to be the most beneficial status option for the people of
    Puerto Rico--statehood. Rather, I take this opportunity to
    inform this committee of the main initiative undertaken by the
    House of Representatives with regards to the political status
    of Puerto Rico.
        The initiative to which I am referring was the truly
    historic achievement by the House of Representatives of Puerto
    Rico, referred to as the substitute to House Bills 1014, 1054,
    and 1058. This measure, approved unanimously, would have
    provided the people of Puerto Rico with the opportunity to vote
    yes or no, demanding the President and the Congress respond to
    their claim to reserve our political status among the fully
    democratic options of a non-colonial and non-territorial
    nation.
        Unfortunately, Governor Acevedo-Vila vetoed the measure,
    after all of his conditional amendments were included, and
    after his minority leaders had indicated that he would sign it.
    Eight and a half months later, the first recommendation
    proposed in the report by the person in task force was almost
    identical to what was proposed in our bill.
        Let me be clear. A minority of the members of the House of
    Representatives of Puerto Rico fully support approval of H.R.
    900, with the amendments presented in my written testimony.
        Madame Chairwoman, Puerto Rico is at a critical juncture.
    Your fellow citizens in Puerto Rico have waited far too long.
    Many have even become skeptical of the prospect of
    Congressional action on this issue.
        For example, this hearing brings back memories of one held
    almost 17 years ago, before the Committee of Insular and
    International Affairs. To those that remember that hearing,
    they may find a clear resemblance of this one.
        Some of the political leaders from our island who were
    witnesses that day are also here with us this afternoon. Just
    as today, that hearing was chaired by the delegate from the
    U.S. Virgin Islands. Unfortunately, nothing changed.
        Over 200 years ago, the citizens of the 13 original
    colonies had similar grievances against the British Government.
    In 1775, Patrick Henry eloquently declared, and I quote,
    ``Shall we try argument, sir? We have been trying that for
    years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing.
    We have held the subject up in every light of which it is
    capable, but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to
    entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find
    which have not been already exhausted? We have petitioned, we
    have demonstrated, we have supplicated, we have prostrated
    ourselves before this wrong. Is life so dear and peace so sweet
    as to repurchase, at the price of chain and slavery? Forbid it,
    Almighty God. I know not what course others might take; but, as
    for me, give me liberty or give me death.'' End quote.
        These are truly ominous words that, in a way, I dread. As
    the Puerto Rican and proud American that I am, I still have a
    firm belief in my government, and in this Congress. It is
    important to heed the words of Congressman Serrano, from the
    previous hearing by this Subcommittee, when he expressed that
    my country has held my patria in bondage for more than a
    century, and I want it to end. I do, too.
        It is time to put an end to the discrimination and
    colonialism by my nation, and with regards to my people. And
    the time to act is now. We, the people, your fellow citizens
    from Puerto Rico, are ready to act. The ball is in your court.
        May God bless America, and in particular all my fellow
    Puerto Ricans who place their hopes for their future in your
    hands. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Aponte-Hernandez follows:]

             Statement of The Honorable Jose F. Aponte-Hernandez,
             Speaker of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico

        On behalf of the nearly 4 million U.S. citizens who reside in
    Puerto Rico, which my fellow 50 representatives and I proudly and
    responsibly represent in our House of Representatives, let me recognize
    the importance of this hearing and the significance of the legislative
    process which in earnest begins today. Thank you for responding to the
    petition brought forth to you by our Legislative Assembly.
        This morning, I come before you not to express my personal position
    and choice with regards to what I consider to be the most beneficial
    status option for the people of Puerto Rico; but rather, as an
    opportunity to inform the United States House of Representatives of the
    three main initiatives undertaken by the House of Representatives of
    Puerto Rico throughout the past two years with regards to the political
    status of Puerto Rico and the basis for these.
        First and foremost, I would like to share with you the historic
    achievement originated and spearheaded by the House of Representatives
    of Puerto Rico that resulted in the measure referred to as the
    Substitute to House Bills 1014, 1054 and 1058 (Enclosure 1). As per
    Section 7 of that substitute bill, the people of Puerto Rico would have
    been provided with the opportunity to vote yes/no on the following
    proposition:
            We, the People of Puerto Rico in the exercise of our right to
            self-determination, demand from the President and the Congress
            of the United States of America, before December 31, 2006, an
            expression of their commitment to respond to the claim of the
            People of Puerto Rico to solve our political status among fully
            democratic options of a non-colonial and non-territorial
            nature.
        As anyone involved may attest, that measure was a product of honest
    and frank negotiations with fellow representatives of the three
    delegations in the House (thus representing the traditional status
    options in Puerto Rico), as well as with the Governor of Puerto Rico by
    means of his party's minority leaders both in the House and Senate. The
    result was a status bill which garnered the UNANIMOUS APPROVAL in both
    chambers.
        That included not only the vote of members of the majority pro-
    statehood New Progressive Party; but also, those of the minority pro-
    independence Puerto Rican Independence Party and the pro-commonwealth
    Popular Democratic Party. Sadly in an unexpected move, Governor
    Acevedo-Vila vetoed the measure after all of his conditional amendments
    were included and after his minority leaders had indicated that the
    Governor would sign the aforementioned measure. History and the people
    of Puerto Rico will judge him for not being truly committed in
    addressing this issue and for having fear of the future and the
    inevitable consequences of change and self-determination.
        It is noteworthy to point out that eight and half months later, the
    first recommendation proposed in the Report by the President's Task
    Force on Puerto Rico's Status was almost identical to what was proposed
    in the Substitute to House Bills 1014, 1054 and 1058. Definitely, the
    historic consensus first achieved in our House of Representatives
    provided the President's Task Force with the keystone from which to
    begin an irreversible process that would result in Puerto Rico's self-
    determination.
        Second, on April 21, 2005, the House of Representatives of Puerto
    Rico approved House Concurrent Resolution 25 (Enclosure 2), which
    petitioned
            Congress and the President of the United States of America to
            respond to the democratic aspirations of the United States
            citizens of Puerto Rico in order to ensure that with all
            deliberate speed, they provide us with an electoral method
            through which we, ourselves, may choose which shall be our
            political relationship with the United States of America, if
            any, from among fully democratic non-territorial and non-
            colonial alternatives.
        Third and finally, on February 12, 2007 the House of
    Representatives of Puerto Rico approved House Concurrent Resolution 102
    (Enclosure 3), which requests
            the 110th Congress to respond to the democratic aspirations of
            the people of Puerto Rico with all deliberate speed, accepting
            the recommendations contained in the Report of the President's
            Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status, of December 22, 2005,
            providing through legislation for the holding of a plebiscite
            by virtue of which the people of Puerto Rico may express
            themselves regarding if they desire to continue as a territory
            of the United States of America, subject to the plenary powers
            of Congress, or if they desire to undertake a constitutionally
            viable course of action towards a permanent status that is
            neither territorial, nor colonial and to order the
            establishment of a Joint Committee, bestow it with its duties
            and for other purposes.
        As you may see, this recent mandate of the House of Representatives
    of Puerto Rico is totally in line with H.R. 900, formally known as the
    ``Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007.'' Furthermore, let me be as clear
    as possible when I state that a majority of the members of the House of
    Representatives of Puerto Rico fully support congressional approval of
    H.R. 900.
        Nonetheless, on behalf of a majority of the people of Puerto Rico,
    let me request that the celebration of any initial referenda be done
    within the timeframe of the 110th Congress, so as to avoid any conflict
    with any future Congress and also, because the U.S. citizens who reside
    in Puerto Rico have been denied with such an opportunity for much too
    long. Also, in order to conclude the long overdue problem of Puerto
    Rico's self-determination, you must make certain that the status
    options provided in any referendum to the U.S. citizens who reside in
    Puerto Rico be limited to those that are constitutional viable, non-
    territorial, non-colonial and fully democratic in nature. In other
    words, they must be limited to options that guarantee full self-
    government by the people of Puerto Rico.
        On February 28 of this year, Representative Nydia Velazquez filed
    H.R. 1230. This measure supported in Puerto Rico by Governor Acevedo-
    Vila and his Popular Democratic Party proposes the recognition of ``the
    right of the People of Puerto Rico to call a Constitutional Convention
    through which the people would exercise their natural right to self-
    determination, and to establish a mechanism for congressional
    consideration of such decision.'' I wish that this Subcommittee may
    have the time and opportunity to seriously consider what is proposed by
    this measure. Particularly, I would like for you to ponder--how
    democratic would it be for a select and limited group of individuals to
    decide the future of all Puerto Ricans as to our final status option?
    Moreover--wouldn't the calling of a constitutional convention run
    contrary to our entrenched concept of participatory democracy and the
    constitutional principle of one person, one vote?
        Therefore, I believe it would be extremely important to request
    legal opinions, from both the United States Department of Justice and
    the Congressional Research Service, as per the constitutionality of
    both measures.
        I commend Chairman Rahall, Ranking Republican Member Young and this
    Subcommittee in addressing the issue of Puerto Rico's self-
    determination. To many people, Puerto Ricans seemingly do not get their
    act together as to what do they want to do--the kind of relationship
    that we would like to have with the United States. Then, among so many
    pressing issues facing our Nation--immigration--the war against
    terrorism--the fiscal deficit--budget priorities--just to name a few--
    does it make sense to spend time and effort in dealing with such a
    controversial issue?
        Let me convey to you why it is the right thing to do.
        This Congress represents the citizens of the greatest Nation in the
    face of this Earth. Most nations around the World look upon us--the
    United States of America--to provide the political, economic and moral
    leadership as the undisputed leader of the Free World. As such, we are
    the beacon of freedom and democracy.
        Today this Nation has thousands of our brave men and women who
    serve in our Armed Services risking their lives in order to provide
    hope and guarantee freedom and democracy in Irak and Afghanistan. Among
    those everyday heroes, there are many Puerto Rican soldiers serving in
    the various branches of the U.S. Military who have responded to the
    call of duty and ably served in the military operations in this War
    against Terrorism; including several units and or detachments of our
    U.S. Army Reserves and National Guard. Sadly, many have also paid the
    ultimate sacrifice to our Nation by giving their lives in this war
    effort.
        Yet, this should come as no surprise to anybody, as Puerto Rico is
    the proud home of many of our Nation's military heroes, including four
    recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Let me tell you the
    brief story of Captain Euripides Rubio, from Ponce, Puerto Rico, who
    was one of the four Congressional Medal of Honor recipients. His
    tremendous sacrifice occurred in November of 1966. Although he himself
    suffered three serious wounds as part of an intensive fire fight, he
    was helping to evacuate other wounded personnel when he discovered a
    smoke grenade had fallen too close to friendly lines. In preparation
    for friendly airstrikes, the smoke grenades were used to mark the Viet
    Cong position. Captain Rubio intended to avert an unnecessary tragedy
    and ran to reposition the grenade. He was immediately ``struck to his
    knees'' by enemy fire. Despite his many wounds, he grabbed the grenade,
    lumbering through the deadly onslaught of enemy gunfire, and made it to
    within 20 meters of the enemy position. Hurling the already smoking
    grenade into the midst of the enemy, he fell for the final time. His
    death made a difference. The hostile position was destroyed because the
    friendly air strikes were able to use the repositioned grenade as a
    marker.
        This moving anecdote is no different from that of Fernando Luis
    Garcia, Carlos James Lozada, Hector Santiago-Colon or many of the close
    to 1,300 Puerto Ricans who have given their lives in the service to our
    Nation. Probably, Gen. Douglas MacArthur put it best, when he said ``I
    wish we had more like them.''
        Regretfully, I have to remind everyone of the extreme irony of the
    service of so many of my fellow Puerto Ricans. Our Nation--the United
    States of America--has allowed for the sacrifice of so many of our men
    and women to be somewhat in vain.
        We have fought valiantly and without objection ever since we came
    under the American flag. Yet, this flag which stands for freedom,
    liberty and justice everywhere it flies does not protect my fellow
    Puerto Ricans from disparate and discriminatory treatment by my Nation.
    We fight for liberty and democracy all over the World--yet we have been
    denied one of the most basic of human and civil rights--the right to
    self determination.
        For example, how contrary to the values and principles that have
    always defined our Nation is it to have so many servicemen go to war
    and, sometimes even giving their lives, without having the basic
    fundamental right to vote for their Commander-in-Chief or for the
    Members of Congress who have the right to declare war. This
    discriminatory practice has been validated by Supreme Court decisions
    that incredibly are still valid today, such as Balzac v. People of
    Porto Rico and more recently in Harris v. Rosario.
        In the latter case, appellees claimed that the lower level of AFDC
    reimbursement provided to families with needy dependent children in
    Puerto Rico violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth
    Amendment of our Constitution. Surprisingly, the United States Supreme
    Court disagreed and found that Congress is empowered under the
    Territory Clause of the Constitution to ``...treat Puerto Rico
    differently from States so long as there is a rational basis for its
    actions.'' In other words...can there be a truly rational basis to
    discriminate with regards to the need of children who are U.S. citizens
    just because they happen to live in Puerto Rico? I guess none of you
    would feel comfortable with such decision making. Could there be
    something more un-American? After all, wasn't disparate and
    discriminatory treatment from the British Government what led our
    forefathers to independence and later establishing this more perfect
    union?
        Furthermore, the paradox and the inequity of living in the
    ``Commonwealth'' of Puerto Rico--the ``unincorporated'' U.S.
    territory--the ``oldest colony in the World'' (as aptly described by
    former Chief Justice Jose Trias-Monge, who also happened to be the
    primary legal scholar involved in the forging of our current
    ``commonwealth territorial arrangement'') ...is such that if any of you
    decide to move to Puerto Rico and maintain the desire to vote in
    federal elections as an absentee voter of your last state of residence,
    you would be denied the right to do so, as we are neither a state of
    the Union or the District of Columbia, nor a foreign or overseas
    jurisdiction under the Uniformed Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
    of 1986. On the other hand, if you happened to be in Tehran, Iran,
    P'yongyang, North Korea, Havana, Cuba or any other rogue nation where
    there is no U.S. Embassy, you just need to go to the U.S. Interest
    Section of the appropriate foreign embassy in order to cast your ballot
    (assuming that you already filled out in advance a Federal Post Card
    Application for an absentee ballot). As a U.S. citizen, don't even
    think about moving to Puerto Rico if you wish to continue exercising
    the most fundamental of rights of our democracy--of any democracy--the
    right to vote for those who legislate and make decisions that may
    affect your daily lives in any way or manner. In other words, we do
    live in a land of unequal rights.
        Even though we may have been blessed with many of the benefits of
    our citizenship--America cannot tolerate--and our flag--defended by the
    blood of so many of our people--cannot be put to shame by further
    legitimization and a continuation of the misguided policy of separate
    and unequal.
        Do these policies make any sense to you? I guess they would only
    makes sense to those who feel comfortable with categorizations such as
    those that describe Puerto Rico--as foreign in a domestic sense--
    belonging to, but not a part of the United States--separate and
    unequal. Is it possible to have colonialism by consent?...or slavery by
    consent for arguments sake? Was separate but equal valid and
    acceptable? Can there be consent to discrimination? Can there be true
    democracy in Puerto Rico with unequal rights under the law? That is the
    moral challenge before you today.
        To those of you who might be somewhat confused with our political
    reality, let me state for the record that Puerto Rico is not a
    sovereign state in association with the United States. There is no
    compact in our case, as opposed to the Republic of the Marshall
    Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Freely Associated
    State of the Republic of Palau, all of whom negotiated compacts with
    the United States. Neither are we recognized by any other country as
    being a sovereign state.
        The United States is the only sovereign in Puerto Rico. In
    accordance with Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States
    Constitution ``[t]he Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make
    all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
    Property belonging to the United States.'' That is why the people of
    Puerto Rico come before you time after time--because primary
    constitutional authority rests exclusively in the Congress.
        Thus, even though the official name of our government in Spanish is
    ``Estado Libre Asociado'', we are not a free associated state (as the
    name of our Government in Spanish claims to be) with our Nation--but
    rather, we are just the U.S. territory with the largest degree of
    internal self-government by virtue of an act of Congress.
        As the proud American citizen that I am, I cannot possibly be
    satisfied or resign myself to being less than a full-fledged citizen of
    our Nation. To me it would be just like if African Americans would have
    remained satisfied with the untenable condition of segregation--as if
    separate but equal could ever be right.
        It is clear that your fellow citizens from Puerto Rico can no
    longer remain within the current arrangement. Change towards a final
    solution that needs to be fully democratic, non-territorial and non-
    colonial has to take place. We cannot be denied the inalienable right
    to self-determination; whereby we would be able to achieve a status
    option that provides for full self-government, be it either under
    independence, free association or statehood.
        This human and civil right firmly entrenched in the constitutional
    principles of our Nation, as well as in International Law, requires
    that the people of Puerto Rico be given a true and fair exercise of
    their right to self determination. But in order to have a real and
    meaningful process of self-determination, we need to know what Congress
    and the President of the United States understand as constitutionally
    viable and politically acceptable from among the possible status
    options. If not, we would only have a futile process, just like our
    three locally sponsored status plebiscites that led to nothing, while
    further confusing our people as to what is really attainable under our
    three traditional status alternatives (regarding this last point I
    would respectfully refer you to H.R. 4751 from the 106th Congress,
    whereby this same committee had the opportunity to analyze the contents
    of the ``Enhanced Commonwealth'' alternative still proposed by the
    Popular Democratic Party).
        In other words, without an expression by Congress and the Executive
    Branch, as to what is constitutionally and politically viable,
    everything would be a charade. For example, periodic elections in the
    People's Republic of China or in Cuba do not make them bastions of
    democracy.
        That is why I commend our President, George W. Bush, for his vision
    and continued commitment in addressing this issue--in trying to put an
    end to this unfinished business of American democracy. He was firm and
    resolute in providing leadership on an issue that thirsts for a high
    moral ground.
        To that end, President Bush made sure that the directive begun by
    former President William Jefferson Clinton, whom I also should commend
    as per the establishment of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's
    Status, would be successful in achieving its stated objectives. Amidst
    all the efforts generated by people who do not want this issue to move
    forward, the President did not allow the members of his Task Force to
    stray from the course of clearly and correctly addressing this issue.
    Seldom has such leadership been exercised by a President with regards
    to the political aspirations of your fellow citizens who reside in
    Puerto Rico.
        On December 22, 2005, President George W. Bush's Task Force on
    Puerto Rico's Status made public its Report on the issue, which
    included a series of recommendations for the United States Congress to
    consider and act upon. That Report represents the final work product of
    a group of responsible and highly professional individuals which
    represented most of the important agencies of the Executive Branch. In
    earnest, they devoted more than a year in analyzing the issue, studying
    documents and meeting with members of Puerto Rico's three political
    parties on multiple occasions. The result was a surgically precise and
    legally correct document that is crystal clear as to what needs to be
    done to resolve this issue.
        As you may be fully aware, there are people, both in Puerto Rico
    and here in the mainland, who would rather not have this issue take
    center stage at the national level. One could easily denominate them as
    the powerful ``Forces of Inertia''. You may have heard them talk about
    self determination, but their track record in torpedoing any step that
    may lead to the exercise of full self-government befits Dr. Kevorkian.
        As all of you know, it is easier to kill an initiative than to
    convince others about its importance and merits. Therefore, since they
    are very able as to what they do in order to achieve their nefarious
    goal, there are three important myths that I want to dispel from your
    minds.
        First myth--that Puerto Ricans need to get their act together first
    and present the federal Government with the solution to this issue.
        I would begin my reply by formulating the following question--how
    could we get our act together if the people have been confused and
    misinformed for decades as to what is truly available under each of the
    traditional status options?
        The role of the Federal Government in providing for a final
    solution to our centuries old dilemma is essential to this process, not
    because we feel or act as subservient to anyone (as that would be
    totally un-American), but because we fully respect and adhere to the
    rule of law; and under the current Commonwealth territorial arrangement
    we do not have the power--nor the right--to change our current status
    or relationship with the United States in a unilateral manner. The
    recognition of this congressional power over those of us who reside in
    Puerto Rico is a legal and political reality over which we have no
    control. Nonetheless, that does not mean that any process undertaken by
    the Federal Government would preclude or inhibit continuous dialogue
    and negotiation by the people of Puerto Rico regarding the specifics
    and details of each option, the process or processes that need to be
    undertaken to finally enable this final choice by our people, as well
    as the implementation of the selected option.
        For the past thirty years, the political and ideological blocks in
    Puerto Rico have been bogged down in a political quagmire. No side
    commands a solid absolute majority. Misinformation and confusion as per
    the future and our real status options reigns supreme. That is the
    reason for the results of the three plebiscites of local initiative
    (1967, 1993 and 1998). None have led to anything, particularly those of
    1967 and 1993 where the option of ``Enhanced Commonwealth'' resulted as
    the winner (although that may also be the fault of proponents who
    really did not want Congress to take action with regards to their
    status options or to the issue in general). Why would a constitutional
    convention be any different?
        Therefore, it should become clear that, in order to resolve this
    issue once and for all, the Federal Government, and Congress in
    particular need to assume their constitutional prerogatives and
    responsibilities over the nearly four million U.S. citizens who reside
    in Puerto Rico. Failing to do so would only complicate the problem
    further.
        Second myth--that Puerto Ricans do not wish to change their
    status--why force something that they do not want?
        This myth is based on pure misinformation.
        Some people in the mainland may ask--haven't Puerto Ricans long
    favored Commonwealth in plebiscite after plebiscite? NO.
        Back in the early 1950's when the Commonwealth territorial
    arrangement came into life, no plebiscite or referenda among options
    was ever held. In strict accordance with Public Law 600, on June 4,
    1951 a referendum was held whereby the people of Puerto Rico were
    presented with the question whether we wanted to follow the path to
    have a Constitution of our own or remain subject to an Organic Act.
    Then, on March 3, 1952 the people of Puerto Rico voted overwhelmingly
    in favor of the Constitution as it was drafted by the Constitutional
    Convention whose members they had elected. As you see, neither process
    could ever be confused with a true process of self-determination--as
    there was never a ballot in which voters were provided with status
    choices.
        In the first plebiscite or status referenda ever conducted, held in
    1967, almost 60% of voters favored an ``Enhanced Commonwealth'' option.
    Statehood achieved close to 40%, as the Puerto Rican Independence Party
    boycotted the plebiscite accounting for almost no votes in favor of
    Independence. As I have indicated before, there was no concerted effort
    undertaken by commonwealth advocates for Congress to take action on the
    vote.
        The next plebiscite was held in 1993 and another version of
    ``Enhanced Commonwealth'' won the electoral vote; this time though,
    with a plurality of less than 49% of the vote. Again, the pro-
    commonwealth Popular Democratic Party took more than half a year to
    inform the House Subcommittee with jurisdiction over Puerto Rico
    regarding the results of the 1993 Plebiscite. The result was a
    subcommittee hearing on October 17, 1995.
        Then, in 1998, in a plebiscite in which the current Commonwealth
    (or status quo) was an option--that option failed to garner 1% of the
    vote. Therefore, as anyone may see--there is clearly NO mandate by the
    Puerto Rican electorate to maintain our current Commonwealth
    territorial arrangement as is.
        Befitting the level of confusion and misinformation that exists
    among Puerto Ricans with regards to true contour of the options that
    would be really available, the write-in column, titled ``None of the
    Above'', garnered over 51% of the vote. It is important to point out
    that voter participation in these plebiscites hovered around 75 to 85%
    and in poll after poll, people select this issue as either the most
    important one that needs to be addressed. or at the very least among
    their top 5. Obviously, this shows the existence of a clear consensus
    among Puerto Ricans, overlapping ideological and party lines, yearning
    for a resolution to this issue.
        Third myth--that the White House Report which is the basis for H.R.
    900 is skewed towards statehood and unfair in its treatment of
    Commonwealth.
        This myth has two different fronts.
        First, the procedural one, that the initial round was presented in
    order to corner the supporters of Commonwealth with the choice of
    rejecting ``to pursue a Constitutionally viable path toward a permanent
    non-territorial status with the United States,'' while sponsoring an
    ``artificial majority'' of pro-statehood and pro-independence
    supporters who would obviously vote in favor of such a proposal.
        This argument is completely flawed for a couple of reasons. On the
    one hand, on what grounds would commonwealth supporters reject the
    aforementioned language proposed by the President's Task Force for the
    first round? Don't they want to establish and clarify once-and-for-all
    that their ``Enhanced Commonwealth'' is constitutional and a permanent
    non-territorial status? After all, pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic
    Party legislators voted unanimously in favor of language that was even
    stronger in its stance with regards to the issue in the Substitute to
    House Bills 1014, 1054 and 1058.
        On the other hand, any coalition of voters which might favor the
    aforementioned language proposed by the President's Task Force for the
    first round do not constitute an ``artificial'' grouping; but rather, a
    true measure of the consensus in Puerto Rico that transcends ideologies
    and party lines with regards to the need for a final resolution to this
    centuries old dilemma.
        Second, the substantive one, that the Report contains a biased and
    incorrect description of the current Commonwealth territorial
    arrangement; and furthermore, that it is incorrect as well in not
    recognizing Free Association as an option in the second round proposed
    in its second recommendation.
        With regards to the Report's description of our current
    Commonwealth territorial arrangement, I would just reiterate what I
    have stated earlier in this testimony, as well as the legally sound
    conclusions reached by the United States Department of Justice on this
    same issue as included in the Task Force's Report.
        As per the supposed intentional omission of Free Association, the
    reason for its non-inclusion is very simple. Free Association is a
    legitimate decolonizing option as recognized by International Law and
    by our own political experience with various strategic territories in
    the Pacific Ocean which we had previously held in ``trusteeship'' for
    several decades after the Second World War. The Report does not
    contradict this reality and our own experiences. On the contrary, the
    Report recognizes Free Association, albeit as an offshoot of separate
    sovereignty or independence. The reason for the position taken by the
    Task Force in its Report is based in constitutional, legal and
    political restraints of our Nation, as only Statehood and Independence
    can truly be permanent options. On the other hand, if Puerto Rico were
    to become a sovereign nation in free association with the United
    States, such a relationship would be based on a treaty--but everybody
    has to keep in mind that no treaty can unilaterally force the United
    States to relinquish its constitutional and political prerogatives to
    withdraw unilaterally whenever it may see fit.
        This shows the sound legal positions taken by the members of the
    Task Force and their commitment in making sure that the people of
    Puerto Rico may understand the implications of each option in the most
    clear and precise manner.
        Besides all the compelling arguments for Congress to address the
    issue of Puerto Rico's self-determination, for many of you there could
    be another very important reason for this issue to be resolved
    now...that is the cost of Puerto Rico to the American taxpayer. In a
    book titled ``Pay to the Order of Puerto Rico: The Cost of Dependence
    to the American Taxpayer'' Alexander Odishelidze and the renowned
    Arthur B. Laffer concluded that our current Commonwealth territorial
    arrangement ``is enormously costly to the American people'' over the
    past 20 years alone, it has been a $200 billion drain on the American
    taxpayer. From my perspective, the worst part of it all is that it has
    been equally, if not more costly for the Puerto Rican people, who are
    taxed in ways they cannot see...by growth that has not occurred...and
    sound policies that cannot develop and flourish in dependency.''
        Today, Puerto Rico receives over $20 billion a year in federal
    funds, although in essence, and particularly with the current misguided
    policies in place at the state level, we certainly need more. The
    failed economic policies of which Governor Acevedo-Vila has been part,
    demonstrate the total bankruptcy of the current Commonwealth
    territorial arrangement. There is no economic model for the future
    well-being of our people. The only manner in which they have masked the
    severe limitations and failure of their model is by bloating the
    government payrolls and forcing outward migration to the mainland.
        The economy is stagnant, if not close to becoming paralyzed. Even
    though our unemployment rate has been hovering between 10 and 12% for
    the past few years, the reality of our bleak situation can be further
    understood by looking at our employment participation rates. For
    example, according to the 2000 Census, Puerto Rico's employment
    participation rate was at 40.7%; well below the 63.9% of the U.S.
    mainland. Many of your fellow citizens who reside in Puerto Rico have
    just lost any hope for employment and have rather decided to live on
    welfare. That is why over 50% of all Puerto Ricans live below the
    federal poverty level.
        A primary solution of the past two pro-commonwealth administrations
    has been a sharp increase in the government payrolls. Puerto Rico's
    daily English newspaper, The San Juan Star, reported on September 6,
    2005 that the previous Calderon-Acevedo Vila Administration was
    responsible for increasing government payrolls by 14.37% between 2001
    and 2005.
        Under Commonwealth, and particularly in the last five years,
    migration to the mainland has increased dramatically. Researchers in
    Florida have indicated that every month, close to an average of 5,000
    Puerto Ricans move to the Greater Orlando area. With our social and
    economic situation worsening year after year--what could we expect
    next? If there were various real concerns that were discussed after the
    Katrina temporary displacement of many Gulf residents--what would an
    exponential increase in a permanent northward migration of our people
    cause here in the mainland?
        Worse of all, rather than being an agent of hope, the current
    Administration of Governor Acevedo-Vila has not provided a concrete and
    realistic plan for broad-based economic development. In addition to
    their ineptitude in dealing with the socio-economic needs of the
    majority of Puerto Ricans, the current Commonwealth territorial
    arrangement limits the effectiveness as to what could really be done to
    improve the quality of life for all our people.
        Madam Chairwoman, Puerto Rico is fast approaching one of its most
    critical moments in its history. Your fellow citizens from your
    neighboring islands have waited for far too long...many have even
    become skeptical of the prospects of congressional action on this
    issue. There is a growing feeling across ideological lines is that our
    current situation is totally untenable. Are you aware how many times we
    have come before Congress full of hope, only to return back to our
    Island empty handed and completely disappointed?
        For example, this hearing brings back bittersweet memories of
    another one held almost seventeen years ago; specifically on June 28,
    1990, when the then Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs
    was considering H.R. 4765, also known as the ``Puerto Rico Self-
    Determination Act.'' To those that remember that hearing they may find
    an eerie resemblance with this one. The arguments and the positions
    undertaken by the three political parties are practically the same.
    Some of the political leaders from our Island who were witnesses that
    day are also here with us this morning. Just as today, that hearing was
    chaired by the delegate from the United States Virgin Islands.
    Regretfully, what spurred so much optimism to us in Puerto Rico back
    then, led to utter disenchantment a few months later.
        Over 200 years ago the citizens of the thirteen original colonies
    had strikingly similar grievances against the British Government. On
    March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry eloquently declared
        Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last
    ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We
    have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it
    has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble
    supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already
    exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we
    have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now
    coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have
    supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have
    implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the
    ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our
    remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our
    supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with
    contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may
    we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. ``Is life so
    dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and
    slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may
    take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
        These are truly ominous words that, in a way, I dread and fear. As
    a Puerto Rican and proud American that I am, I still have a firm belief
    in my Government and in this Congress. Thus, I hope that my Nation pay
    close attention to its history and to the principles that led to the
    independence from the United Kingdom and the subsequent establishment
    of a more perfect union.
        To that end, it is important to heed the words of Congressman Jose
    E. Serrano from the previous hearing by this Subcommittee, when he
    expressed that ``[m]y country has held my patria in bondage for more
    than a century...I want it to end.''
        Congressman Serrano, we fully agree with you! It is time to put an
    end to blatant discrimination and to colonialism by my Nation with
    regards to my people...and the time to act is now!
        WE THE PEOPLE...your fellow citizens who reside in Puerto Rico are
    ready to act. The ball is in your court.
        May God enlighten you to act according to what may be best for your
    fellow citizens who reside in Puerto Rico.
        May God bless America...and in particular all my fellow Puerto
    Ricans who place their hopes for their future in your hands.
        Thank you very much.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Aponte. Next I would
    recognize The Honorable Carlos Romero Barcelo for five minutes.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS ROMERO BARCELO, FORMER GOVERNOR,
      COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO AND FORMER MEMBER OF THE UNITED
                            STATES CONGRESS

        Mr. Romero Barcelo. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I think I
    would like to approach my presentation, oral presentation from
    a distant perspective.
        All this afternoon I haven't heard anyone speak about U.S.
    citizenship, about the citizens' rights. And I would like to
    approach it from that aspect.
        Recently we had, in Washington, we had a voting rights
    march. It was April 12, based on the revolutionary cry of no
    taxation without representation. In Puerto Rico we have no
    representation without taxation.
        Now, since we are not taxed, they say you should be happy
    that you don't have representation, because you don't have to
    pay Federal income taxes. I have had some Members of Congress,
    some Members of the Senate, had some people in the industrial
    world, some businessmen, say why would you want to be a state?
    You don't have to pay Federal income taxes. My answer to that
    is, how much are you willing to sell your political rights for?
        Anyone that sells their political rights is not entitled to
    have them. And that is what we are talking about, political
    rights. We are talking about the rights of citizens.
        Let us forget about statehood. Let us forget about
    independence. Let us forget about commonwealth. Let us talk
    about the people of Puerto Rico, who are U.S. citizens, and
    have been natural-born U.S. citizens since 1917. That is 90
    years franchised U.S. citizens.
        Now, I ask you, Madame Chairman, and any Member of this
    committee, are you willing to support that a law be passed now
    in Congress taking the voting rights away from a part of a
    state or a full state, and say now we are going to take your
    voting rights away, but we are going to give you Federal tax
    exemption? Would you vote for such a bill?
        Now, let us go back to the time of slavery, when Abraham
    Lincoln issued the Proclamation. Did he say well, first let us
    have a referendum with all the slaves to see if they want
    freedom or not. No, there was not a matter of referendum. It
    was a matter of something that is wrong, that has to be
    corrected. And what is wrong? That there are 4 million U.S.
    citizens who are disenfranchised, and nothing is being done
    about it.
        Now, part of those 4 million U.S. citizens are right now in
    Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting to bring democracy to Iraq and
    Afghanistan, foreign nations. Some of them die, and those that
    have died, their mothers, their fathers, their wives, the
    children, are denied the voting rights that he is over there
    fighting for, for that alien country. But the Nation denies him
    those voting rights.
        We are talking about commonwealth. The commonwealth is the
    problem. If Puerto Rico were a state or we were a republic, we
    wouldn't be here talking about any referendum. We are talking
    about a referendum because we have 4 million U.S. citizens who
    are denied the right to vote and the right to representation.
        I was here in Congress for eight years, eight years without
    a vote. The first part, I had that vote, they would call in the
    committee as a whole to vote. You know, well, you vote, yes,
    you participate. But if a number of, the Resident Commissioner
    and the delegate votes are the ones that carry the vote, then
    there is a reconsideration, and then they don't vote in the
    reconsideration. The vote is all right as long as not the
    deciding vote. So that is not really a vote.
        But anyway, then when the Democratic party lost, then even
    that vote was taken away. So I was here for eight years; very,
    very frustrating. And we were entitled to six or seven
    representatives, and two senators.
        Now, we in Puerto Rico, we don't pay Federal income taxes.
    But because we don't pay Federal income taxes, the courts have
    decided also that we are not entitled to the same benefits that
    our poor people, those, the destitute, the needy, the single
    women with children that can't work, the elderly, are not
    entitled to the same benefits.
        I know, Madame Chairwoman, that you are fighting for to get
    Medicaid to Virgin Islands. We don't have it, either. But do
    you know what your big obstacle is? The fact that Puerto Rico
    is not entitled, the fact that we don't pay Federal income
    taxes. And we are not a state. If we were, you would get it,
    because the amount of money is not that significant compared to
    the amount of money in Puerto Rico.
        Do you know how much we get now? Two hundred million
    dollars. You know how much Puerto Rico would be getting for
    healthcare for the needy, for the poor? Two billion dollars a
    year. Now, what that would mean for healthcare in Puerto Rico.
    Are you going to support that? Is that fair? Is that what
    Congress stands for? Is that what this nation stands for? Don't
    we stand for rights, for voting rights? What is democracy?
        We don't have democracy in Puerto Rico. We have local
    democracy, but we don't have democracy in the Nation that we
    are citizens of, because we are denied the right to vote and
    the right to representation. That is what this is all about.
        How can you say, are we going to have a plebiscite or
    something? That is, somebody is going to object to the fact
    that we are going to decide whether we want the right to vote
    or not?
        I think it is time that the people of Puerto Rico were told
    by Congress, look, we are happy that you are U.S. citizens. But
    look, you have to make a decision. First of all, you don't need
    a free ride economically any more as far as taxes are
    concerned. You should assume all your full responsibilities.
    And you should decide whether you want to have the right to
    vote, or the right to representation, or not, because that is
    what U.S. citizenship means. That is what America is all about.
        And if you don't want that, say it, and then we will give
    you independence. That is what this Congress can do. And what
    is wrong with that?
        But the commonwealth supporters, oh, they like to, you
    know, mix this up and make it look complicated. Even the
    beginning, when they called the name commonwealth, Madame
    Chair, you know, in Spanish it is Estado Libre Social.
        But what happened? When we wanted to call it free
    associated state here, the lawyer for the commonwealth, here in
    Washington, what was his name; you are crazy. The associated
    state is not going to fly in Congress, let us look for another
    name in English. And that is the commonwealth. Commonwealth,
    what does it mean? Political entity.
        Commonwealth is not a status. The territorial status is
    called commonwealth, just like we have the Commonwealth of
    Pennsylvania, which is a state of the Union. We have a
    Commonwealth of Kentucky, which is a state of the Union. It is
    not a status. It means political entity. But they want to muddy
    the waters and confuse the issues. And the issue here is U.S.
    citizens of Puerto Rico, who have been 90 years without a vote,
    disenfranchised. Do you want to be enfranchised? Yes or no.
    There is only one way. There is only one way to be
    enfranchised, to be a state.
        And there is only, you don't want to be enfranchised, you
    want equality, you want democracy? Then you want democracy, you
    want to be for rights, a citizen, then be a Republican if you
    don't want to be enfranchised. And that is what I think this
    committee should really understand when we look at bill 900,
    which is a way to solve this problem.
        Thank you very much, Madame.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Romero Barcelo follows:]

                      Statement of Carlos Romero Barcelo,
                         Former Governor of Puerto Rico

        To end our territorial status we need to secure voting rights
    through an informed act of self-determination, leading to equal rights
    and obligations as citizens under our national constitution. As some
    Members of Congress so eloquently explained at the last hearing, it all
    comes down to voting rights. Either you have them, or you don't.
        Many Americans forget that the Constitution itself, originally did
    not include voting rights as a Constitutional right, which citizens in
    the states take for granted. It is, after all, citizens in the several
    states who elect the electors who actually chose the President, and
    citizens in the several states who elect senators and voting
    representatives to Congress. Voting rights have been guaranteed and
    regulated by state law since America became a nation.
        Originally, most states allowed only white males over 21 to vote,
    provided they owned real property with a specified value. White males
    who had no property were the first to demand and win equal voting
    rights. Then in 1870, racial discrimination in federal and state voting
    rights was put to rest by the 15th Amendment. Racial minorities were
    finally allowed to vote provided they were male and over 21, could pass
    literacy tests designed to prevent black men from voting, and could
    afford to pay poll taxes.
        It took another 50 years for women to win, in 1920, under the 19th
    Amendment, the same voting rights given to former male slaves a half
    century earlier. And it was another 44 years later that the 24th
    Amendment, ratified in 1964, ended denial of voting rights through the
    economic discrimination of poll taxes. The 26th Amendment gave the vote
    to 18 year olds, ending the last vestige of the original franchise,
    limited to white males over 21 who owned property.
        Residents of Puerto Rico are the last large class of completely
    disenfranchised Americans. Because of the sacrifices of those who went
    before us, we do not need to defy oppression under the color of law, at
    the risk of our lives. We do not need to stand in front of tanks, as
    our contemporaries around the world have had to do, from Tiananmen
    Square in Beijing, to Red Square in Moscow. All we need to do is summon
    the courage to choose between real options.
        At a time when the U.S. is spending hundreds of billions to try to
    give Afghanistan and Iraq the democracy which we are denied, we dither
    over definition of choices that are obvious.
        But, we have fallen into a trap. Too many of our people have
    supported an unacceptable trade-off of so-called special treatment for
    the territory, in exchange for our support of the disenfranchised
    territory called ``Commonwealth''. Too many of us have embraced a
    second class citizenship, that other Americans in the states, have
    given up their lives, to overcome. In exchange for partial income tax
    exemption, too many American citizens in Puerto Rico, have accepted and
    tolerated a less than equal status. One that our fellow American
    citizens in the states have rejected.
        We pay billions in federal taxes every year, yet we cling to the
    myth of fiscal autonomy. The partial exemption from some federal taxes,
    on some local income, is hardly a smart bargain in exchange for equal
    voting rights and real political power. If a person sincerely believes
    in democracy, would he sell his right to vote and to have equal
    representation? Whoever does so, cannot honestly believe in democracy.
        Instead of taxation without representation, we have ``no
    representation without taxation''. The President and Congress justify
    our lack of voting rights and representation, by saying that we
    shouldn't complain about the fact that we can't vote because we don't
    have to pay income taxes for the income we earn in Puerto Rico. Yet we
    pay more local income taxes than most Americans. Our partial tax
    exemptions come with a price that includes lack of voting rights, lack
    of representation and lack of right for our people to enjoy equal
    economic opportunity.
        The real tragedy is that we do not have equal rights, but we do
    have equal sacrifices. Those economically privileged few who thrive
    under the status quo, seem quite content to preserve their privileges
    under the current relationship, while our young people are sent off to
    fight and die, so people in foreign lands can have rights, they and
    their families are denied back home in the colony.
        We should not stand for this discrimination. And, neither should
    Congress. H.R. 900 provides for a process to at least make status
    resolution for Puerto Rico possible. It is the least we can do; the
    least we must do, to honor our brave soldiers and sailors, and to honor
    ourselves before our children.
        H.R. 900 is predicated on these fundamental principles, but
    accommodates the status quo, by allowing the voters to express their
    wish for things to remain as they are now.
        The H.R. 1230 proposal for a local constitutional convention on
    status is not a serious proposal, it is a cynical diversionary tactic,
    a waste of time, and should not be recognized under federal law.
        I urge Congress to approve H.R. 900.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. I now recognize The Honorable
    Jose L. Dalmau-Santiago for his testimony.

            STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOSE L. DALMAU-SANTIAGO,
            SENATE MINORITY LEADER, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY

        Mr. Dalmau-Santiago. Thank you. Honorable Chairwoman and
    Members of this committee, I will testify before you today in
    my native language, Spanish, which is the native language of
    the people of Puerto Rico. I do this because, as is the case
    with almost all Puerto Ricans, I feel more comfortable in
    expressing myself in my native tongue than in English.
        However, for the benefit of those of you who don't speak or
    understand Spanish, I have provided an English translation of
    my remarks.
        [Translated from Spanish.] Honorable Christensen. As a
    fervent defender of the commonwealth status of Puerto Rico for
    over 50 years, I appear before this Subcommittee to present my
    views and recommendations toward H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, two
    bills presented before the Congress regarding the status of
    Puerto Rico.
        However, our current relation with the United States
    requires amendments to allow our country to gain the full
    advantages of a global economy.
        Mentioning some of the issues that must be discussed in
    this current evaluation process, for example; the restrictions
    established under the Coastwise Laws. Currently, Puerto Rico is
    restricted to use only United States merchant vessels for its
    imports and exports, this restriction imposes an additional
    cost on an island that depends almost 100 percent on merchant
    vessels for its imports and exports.
        Obviously, this restriction is a competitive limitation for
    Puerto Rico. The commonwealth must possess the right to hire
    merchant vessels on a competitive and effective level. This
    would benefit customers, create new incentives for venture
    investors and business owners, and it would help stimulate the
    economy of the island.
        Exemption of the Coastwise Laws is nothing new to the
    Congress since the United States Virgin Islands, Mariana
    Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Wake, and Midway are exempt from
    such provision. This exclusion is indispensable for the
    development of strategic projects in Puerto Rico; for example,
    the Transport Port of the Americas Rafael Cordero Santiago in
    Ponce, Puerto Rico.
        Other important issues are related to fiscal matters, issue
    that can be expanded in a later written statement to the
    Subcommittee if the Members are interested. I have a serious
    concern that I must share with this Subcommittee.
        Puerto Rico has more than 100 years of relationship with
    the United States, the last 55 under the agreement of the
    commonwealth status. In the last 50 years we have celebrated
    multiple plebiscites for the people of Puerto Rico to choose
    their preferred status option. In all of those plebiscites both
    independence and statehood have been rejected by the voters in
    Puerto Rico. There have also been numerous Congressional
    efforts to promote a process of auto-determination of which I
    can mention the Bennett Johnston Bill, Young Bill, and the
    initiatives being evaluated today.
        The truly central aspect to this process is if the Congress
    has the will to respect and enforce the will of the Puerto
    Rican people. I ask you, Members of Congress, are you prepared
    to concede statehood to Puerto Rico, or the modifications under
    a new commonwealth compact, if that is the will of the Puerto
    Rican people? This is the most important issue to us as
    political leaders in the island, in Congress willing to the
    obey the majority will in the island.
        It is your obligation and your duty to answer this
    question. Are you willing to accept as a state to the Union a
    nation that local statehood supporters insist will permit state
    court proceedings in Spanish, international representation
    outside of the Federal government, separate Olympic delegation,
    and public education in Spanish?
        I can recommend a process that permits Puerto Ricans to
    reach a consensus freely and democratically about the real and
    viable status options that must be presented before the people.
    I am talking the constitutional convention. This alternative
    helps the development of an extensive dialogue, a clear debate,
    and permits reaching a consensus between the different status
    factions in the island.
        The constitutional assembly is not an unknown mechanism for
    the United States, nor Puerto Rico. The Constitution of the
    United States was adopted in 1787 in a constitutional
    convention celebrated in Philadelphia. The Constitution of the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was enacted from a consensus in the
    Assembly celebrated between September of 1951 and July of 1952.
        Both Magna Cartas are documents that have created the
    backbone for democratic societies, as well as for governments
    that defend civil rights. These documents are the guiding
    principles of our democracies, respected by the people, of whom
    we feel proud, and that many citizens have paid the ultimate
    prize defending such values and principles.
        The constitutional assembly is also the mechanism most used
    by the different territories of the United States in their
    process to become a state of the Union. The constitutional
    assembly must be evaluated by this Subcommittee as the real and
    only viable alternative to solve the status issue in Puerto
    Rico.
        I recommend that any effort to attend the status of Puerto
    Rico has to recognize that the alternatives must come from
    Puerto Rico, and not the Congress, and that the best mechanism
    to reach the necessary consensus between all different
    ideologies in the island is the constitutional convention.
        Therefore, I strongly endorse H.R. 1230 for proposing a
    constitutional convention as the mechanism to solve the status
    issue. I ask this Subcommittee and the Congress to approve H.R.
    1230 for the well-being of the people of Puerto Rico.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dalmau-Santiago follows:]

        Statement of Jose L. Dalmau-Santiago, Minority Leader, Popular
          Democratic Party, Senate of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

        Honorable Christensen and Members of the Subcommittee:
        As a fervent defender of the Commonwealth status of Puerto Rico,
    which has greatly served the people of Puerto Rico for over fifty
    years, I appear before this subcommittee to present my views and
    recommendations toward H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, two bills presented
    before the Congress regarding the status of Puerto Rico.
        However, our current relation with the United States requires
    amendments to allow our country gain the full advantages of a global
    economy.
        Mentioning some of the issues that must be discussed in this
    current evaluation process, for example; the restrictions established
    under the Coastwise Laws (Cabotage Laws). Currently, Puerto Rico is
    restricted to use only United States merchant vessels for its imports
    and exports, this restriction imposes and additional cost on an island
    that depends in an almost One Hundred Percent (100%) on merchant
    vessels for its imports and exports. Obviously, this restriction is a
    competitive limitation for Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth must posses
    the right to hire merchant vessels on a competitive and effective
    level, this would benefit consumers, create new incentives for venture
    investors and business owners, and it would help stimulate the economy
    of the island.
        Exemption of the Coastwise Laws is nothing new to the Congress
    since the United States Virgin Islands, Mariana Islands, Guam, American
    Samoa, Wake, and Midway are exempt from such provision. This exclusion
    is indispensable for the development of strategic projects in Puerto
    Rico, for example the Transport Port of the Americas Rafael Cordero
    Santiago in Ponce, Puerto Rico.
        Other important issues are related to fiscal matters, issue that
    can be expanded in a later written statement to the subcommittee if the
    members are interested. I have a serious concern that I must share with
    this subcommittee. Puerto Rico has more than a hundred years of
    relationship with the United States, the last Fifty Five (55) under the
    agreement of the Commonwealth status. In the last Fifty years (50) we
    have celebrated multiple plebiscites for the people of Puerto Rico to
    choose their preferred status option, in all of those plebiscites both
    independence and statehood have been rejected by the voters in Puerto
    Rico. There have also been numerous congressional efforts to promote a
    process of auto determination of which I can mention the Bennet
    Johnston Bill, Young Bill, and the initiatives being evaluated today.
        The truly central aspect to this process is if the Congress has the
    will to respect and enforce the will of the Puerto Rican people. I ask
    you, Members of Congress, are you prepared to concede statehood to
    Puerto Rico or the modifications under a new Commonwealth compact if
    that is the will of the Puerto Rican people? This is the must important
    issue to us as political leader in the island, in Congress willing to
    obey the majority will in the island. It is your obligation and your
    duty to answer this question. Are you willing to accept as a State to
    the Union a nation that local statehood supporters insist will permit
    state court proceedings in Spanish, international representation
    outside of the Federal Government, separate Olympic Delegation, and
    public education in Spanish?
        I can recommend a process that permits Puerto Ricans to reach a
    consensus freely and democratically about the real and viable status
    options that must be presented before the people. I am talking about
    the Constitutional Convention. This alternative helps the development
    of an extensive dialogue, a clear debate, and permits reaching a
    consensus between the different status factions in the island.
        The Constitutional Assembly is not an unknown mechanism for the
    United States nor Puerto Rico. The Constitution of the United States
    was adopted in 1787 in a Constitutional Convention celebrated in
    Philadelphia. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was
    enacted from a consensus in the Assembly celebrated between September
    of 1951 and July of 1952. Both Manga Cartas are documents that have
    created the backbone for democratic societies, as well as for
    governments that defend civil rights. These documents are the guiding
    principles of our democracies, respected by the people, of whom we feel
    proud and that many citizens have paid the ultimate prize defending
    such values and principles.
        The Constitutional Assembly is also the mechanism most used by the
    different territories of the United States in their process to become a
    State of the Union. The Constitutional Assembly must be evaluated by
    this subcommittee as the real and only viable alternative to solve the
    status issue in Puerto Rico.
        I recommend that any effort to attend the status of Puerto Rico has
    to recognize that the alternatives must come from Puerto Rico and not
    the Congress and that the best mechanism to reach the necessary
    consensus between all different ideologies in the island is the
    Constitutional Convention.
        Therefore I strongly endorse H.R. 1230 for proposing a
    Constitutional Convention as the mechanism to solve the status issue. I
    ask this subcommittee and the Congress to approve H.R. 1230 for the
    well-being of the people of Puerto Rico.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. And the last speaker on this
    panel would be The Honorable Hector Ferrer Rios.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. HECTOR FERRER RIOS, HOUSE MINORITY
                    LEADER, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY

        Mr. Ferrer Rios. Madame Chairwoman, Commissioner Fortuno,
    and Members of the Subcommittee.
        My name is Hector Ferrer Rios. I am the Minority Leader of
    the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico for the Popular
    Democratic Party.
        I welcome the opportunity to present and share my views on
    behalf of over a million Puerto Ricans which believe not only
    in the commonwealth, but also in a process of true self-
    determination, through a Puerto Rican constitutional
    convention.
        The status of Puerto Rico brings passion in the daily
    discussion of our collective lives. I believe the current
    status, commonwealth, has fulfilled its purpose. What started
    in 1952 between the U.S. and Puerto Rico, el Estado Libre
    Asociado, has been good for both nations.
        It is time to develop a new commonwealth status, which
    responds to the new global economy and political trends.
        House Bill 900 provides for a Federally sanctioned self-
    determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. This
    proposed bill is based entirely on the report issued by the
    President's Task Force on December 22, 2005, which has not
    been, as a matter of fact, adopted by the President. Let me
    correct my statement. That has just been adopted. I wonder why.
    An outgoing present of an outgoing President.
        The report summarizes its finding by concluding that
    Congress can directly legislate and change the island's
    governmental structure unilaterally; that the Federal
    government may relinquish U.S. sovereignty by ceding Puerto
    Rico to another nation; that U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico
    may be deprived of their citizenship at any time, because of
    the statutory nature of it, and that the Federal Constitution
    somehow prohibits the U.S. Government from entering into a
    relationship with Puerto Rico based on mutual consent.
        These outrageous and disturbing conclusions are the roots
    of our bill, which by itself also violates the principles of
    American democracy and Republicanism. Let me explain myself.
        House Bill 900 proposes a two-stage process for a
    plebiscite in where commonwealth, the option that has won every
    single plebiscite held in Puerto Rico, will be faced against
    statehood and independence, not on equal terms. The first stage
    will automatically unite statehooders and independent defenders
    in one options, against commonwealth, creating an artificial
    majority with the sole purpose of eliminating the only option
    that, like I said before, has won every plebiscite in the
    commonwealth.
        Moreover, stage two faces off statehood, that, as a matter
    of fact, for the purpose of this bill or any other bill, has
    never been fully explained of its definition, limitations, and
    consequences to the people of Puerto Rico, against independence
    and free association. In fact, these two options, independence
    and free association, in the last plebiscite only summed 7
    percent of the votes casted.
        Are these the principles of democracy and Republicanism the
    United States was founded? I don't think so. Neither should
    anyone.
        However, House Bill 1230, presented by Ms. Velazquez, truly
    embraces the principle under which the United States was
    conceived: the process of the constitutional convention has
    been used since the times of the founding fathers--for example,
    Annapolis Convention, 1786; Philadelphia Convention, 1787;
    which drafted the United States Constitution--and by individual
    states to create, replace, or revise their own constitution.
        As we can see, it is a proven mechanism within the United
    States history.
        It is a process of full representation by elected
    delegates, delegates of the people, just like you and me. It
    is, after all, the process through which this government was
    created. But there is a much important issue that should be
    addressed in these hearings, an issue that surpasses my support
    to the constitutional convention, and that only is recognized
    in House Bill 1230.
        The bill is not presented on the basis of four pages of
    immoral of illegal conclusions, like House Bill 900. It is
    presented on the principle of self-determination and
    sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico.
        It is the universal and natural right of the people of
    Puerto Rico to exercise its supreme authority of sovereignty
    over ourselves by way of defending our moral and legal rights,
    the same as every nation is entitled to, to decide our destiny.
    In other words, to exercise our natural right to self-
    determination.
        The United States was founded under a political value
    system that stresses liberty and rights as their central value.
    Where its people have natural rights and government has the
    responsibility of protecting these rights and liberties. These
    are the same principles and values adopted by the United
    Nations General Assembly in various resolutions about the
    peoples' right of self-determination by virtue of that right.
    They freely determine their political status, and freely pursue
    their economic, social, and cultural development.
        House Bill 1230 is, without a doubt, the right way of
    attending the political status of Puerto Rico. This bill
    represents the best of the United States and Puerto Rico.
        The people of Puerto Rico have the right to pursue its
    political, economic, and social development. These are my
    people's rights that I defend before you. It is your
    responsibility, Members of Congress, to embrace our will.
        Thanks for your time and the opportunity to address the
    Subcommittee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ferrer Rios follows:]

       Statement of Honorable Hector Ferrer Rios, Minority Leader of the
                    House of Representatives of Puerto Rico

        Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Hector
    Ferrer Rios, I am the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives
    of Puerto Rico for the Popular Democratic Party.
        I welcome the opportunity to present and share my views on behalf
    of almost one million of Puerto Ricans, which believe, not only in the
    Commonwealth, but also, on a process of true self-determination through
    a Puerto Rican Constitutional Convention.
        I appreciate the interest that the Subcommittee has shown in
    dealing with this important matter in the lives of all Puerto Ricans.
        The status of Puerto Rico brings passion in the daily discussion of
    our collective lives. I belief the current status, Commonwealth, has
    fulfill its purpose. What started in 1952 between the U.S. and Puerto
    Rico, el Estado Libre Asociado, has been good for both nations.
        But the circumstances have changed. We don't live in the Cold War
    of the 50's, or in the underdeveloped nation that was Puerto Rico. It
    is time to develop a New Commonwealth Status, which responds to the new
    global economy and political trends.
        House Bill 900, provides ``for a federally sanctioned self-
    determination process for the people of Puerto Rico''. This proposed
    bill, is based entirely on the report issued by the President's Task
    Force on December 22nd, 2005, which has not been, as a matter of fact,
    adopted by the President.
        The ``report'', summarizes its findings by concluding that Congress
    can directly legislate and change the island's governmental structure
    unilaterally; that the Federal Government may relinquish U.S.
    sovereignty by ceding Puerto Rico to another nation; that U.S. citizens
    born in Puerto Rico may be deprived of their citizenship at any time
    because of the statutory nature of it, and that the Federal
    Constitution, somehow, prohibits the U.S. Government from entering into
    a relationship with Puerto Rico base on mutual consent.
        These outrageous, disturbing and disrespectful conclusions are the
    roots of a bill, which by itself, also violates, the principles of
    American Democracy and Republicanism. Let me explain myself.
        House Bill 900 proposes a two stage process for a plebiscite in
    where Commonwealth, the option that has won every single plebiscite
    held in Puerto Rico, will be faced against Statehood and Independence,
    not in equal terms. The first stage will automatically unite
    statehooders and independence defenders in one option, against
    Commonwealth, creating an artificial majority, with the sole purpose of
    eliminating the only option that, like I said before, has won every
    plebiscite, Commonwealth.
        Moreover, stage two faces off statehood, that as a matter of fact,
    for the purpose of this bill or any other bill, has never been fully
    explained of its definition, limitations and consequences to the people
    of Puerto Rico, against independence and free-association. In fact,
    these two options, in the last plebiscite, only summed seven percent of
    the votes casted.
        Are these the principles of Democracy and Republicanism the United
    States was founded? I don't think so. Neither should anyone.
        However, House Bill 1230, presented by Ms. Velazquez, which
    ``recognizes the right of the People of Puerto Rico to call a
    Constitutional Convention through which the people would exercise their
    natural right to self-determination, and to establish a mechanism for
    congressional consideration of such decision.'', truly embraces the
    principles under which the United States was conceived.
        The process of the Constitutional Convention has been used, since
    the times of the Founding Fathers, for example; Annapolis Convention
    (1786); Philadelphia Convention (1787), which drafted the Unites States
    Constitution; and by individual states to create, replace, or revise
    their own constitutions. As we can see, it is a proven mechanism within
    the United States history.
        It is a process of full representation by elected delegates,
    delegates of the people just like you and me. It is after all the
    process through which this government was created.
        But, there is a much important issue that should be addressed in
    these hearings. An issue that surpasses my support to the
    Constitutional Convention and that only is recognized on House Bill
    1230.
        The bill is not presented on the basis of four pages of immoral or
    illegal conclusions, like House Bill 900. It is presented on the
    principles of self-determination and sovereignty of the people of
    Puerto Rico. It is the universal and natural right of the people of
    Puerto Rico to exercise its supreme authority of sovereignty over
    ourselves, by way of defending our moral and legal rights, the same as
    every nation is entitled to, to decide our destiny. In other words, to
    exercise our natural right to self-determination.
        The United States was founded under a political values system, that
    stresses liberty and rights as their central values. Where its people
    have natural rights and government has the responsibility of protecting
    these rights and liberties.
        These are the same principles and values adopted by the United
    Nations General Assembly in various resolutions about the peoples'
    right ``of self-determination by virtue of that right they freely
    determine their political status and freely pursue their economic,
    social and cultural development.''
        House Bill 1230 is without a doubt, the right way of attending the
    political status of Puerto Rico. This bill represents the best of the
    United States and Puerto Rico.
        The people of Puerto Rico have the right to pursue its political,
    economic and social development.
        These are my peoples rights, that I defend before you.
        It is your responsibility, Members of Congress, to embrace our
    will.
        Thanks for your time, and the opportunity to address the
    subcommittee.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. I will recognize myself for
    five minutes for questions. And I want to begin with a question
    that I would ask to the entire panel, because it is an issue
    that has not been addressed, even though it is something, it is
    a provision that is found in both bills.
        Both of them envision participation of non-resident Puerto
    Ricans in any final plebiscite on status. Do you each support
    that? And have you been able to assess the sentiment of the
    people of Puerto Rico on that issue?
        Mr. McClintock. In our nation there have been varying
    degrees of allowing people to vote, depending on their nexus to
    the jurisdiction where they would be voting.
        In Puerto Rico, for example, we only allow people who are
    students or military personnel, or flight attendants and so
    forth, to vote absentee. In other states, many more people are
    allowed to vote absentee.
        The Federal government allows people who have not lived in
    a state for 30 years and live in Paris, an American in Paris,
    can vote for President 30 years after they left the U.S. So
    there is varying degrees regarding that issue.
        My only concern is that whoever is allowed to vote have
    enough of a nexus with Puerto Rico to at least know what is
    going on in Puerto Rico, and have some reasonable possibility
    of returning to Puerto Rico.
        If you ask a Puerto Rican living on the mainland how long
    does it take to go from San Juan to Ponce, and they tell you
    three and a half hours, that person should not be able to vote,
    because we have had an expressway that cuts that down to an
    hour for the past 30 years.
        Ms. Christensen. It would seem to me that that would be
    very difficult to determine, you know.
        Mr. McClintock. Yes. At the very least they should be
    required to have been, if they don't live in Puerto Rico, to
    have been born in Puerto Rico or born of a Puerto Rican parent.
    And the reason I say a Puerto Rican parent is because I wasn't
    born in Puerto Rico, I was born in London, England, from a
    Puerto Rican mother.
        Ms. Christensen. Mr. Aponte? Sorry.
        Mr. McClintock. But it is really a policy decision that
    you, as Congress, have to make.
        Ms. Christensen. But as the other panelists answer, I am
    very much interested in knowing what the people of Puerto Rico
    feel about, that those who live there feel about it.
        Mr. Aponte-Hernandez. It is difficult to establish a
    policy. What a people, what a Puerto Rican had the opportunity
    to vote in a referendum, because the foreigners of the people.
        I went to university in 2005, and many Puerto Ricans born
    in U.S. in mainland, not in the island, and never went to
    Puerto Rico, never goes to Puerto Rico. But they claim that
    they were Puerto Ricans. Have they the same benefits that, that
    is ours in the island? It is difficult. We have to pass over
    you in that way.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. Madame Chairperson, it is a very hard
    question for me, and let me tell you why, for emotional,
    personal reasons.
        Serrano is a friend of mine. This issue is close to his
    heart.
        Ms. Christensen. I know.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. But I have always disagreed on that. I
    feel that someone who is not going to receive either the
    benefits or the prejudices of his decision should not be
    allowed to vote. And, you know, how do you define it? It is
    very difficult to define.
        One bill says those born in Puerto Rico. Well, if somebody
    was born in the Puerto Rico. Let us say a couple moves from
    Missouri to Puerto Rico on a job, and they are there for five
    years, the last year they have a son. They move back to
    Missouri. And then he has never gone back to Puerto Rico. His
    parents were not Puerto Rican, but he was born in Puerto Rico.
    He lived there his first year of his life. All he knows about
    Puerto Rico is what he reads once in a while in the news or
    sees in the television. And he is entitled to vote?
        Ms. Christensen. Well----
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. Another case, where a couple moves to
    Puerto Rico, and they have children. Their son is five years
    old, and he goes to school in Puerto Rico. He goes to high
    school, he goes to college, gets a job in Puerto Rico, gets
    married, has children.
        And then in the job they say oh, we need you in Florida, so
    they send him to Florida. Now he is in Florida. And he is going
    to be there in Florida. But he would like to vote, but he
    can't, because he wasn't born in Puerto Rico. But his parents
    were Puerto Rican, and he was there in Puerto Rico living. Now,
    how do you----
        Ms. Christensen. I think the bill provides for people who
    are registered voters and are already in Puerto Rico. If he
    moves away, but still continues his residency and voting
    rights.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. That is, if somebody is a registered
    voter in Puerto Rico and moves away, and is still registered,
    that means he is temporarily away. And those people definitely,
    they will have, they can vote, if they go to Puerto Rico.
        Now, whether they can be given absentee votes, those that
    are registered in Puerto Rico and are planning to return and
    have domiciled residence in Puerto Rico, that could be worked
    out, definitely.
        Ms. Christensen. Mr. Dalmau.
        Mr. Dalmau-Santiago. I think that every Puerto Rican that
    could be affected by this process or by this bill could be vote
    in the process.
        Ms. Christensen. That doesn't quite answer, but I will
    accept it.
        Mr. Ferrer Rios. If I recall correctly the question, it is
    if Puerto Ricans who live in the States or any other nation can
    vote on this process? That was the question, right?
        Ms. Christensen. Yes. The bill, both bills provide that
    persons who were born in Puerto Rico but live away can vote.
    And one provides that if you, one of your parents was born in
    Puerto Rico, you can vote.
        Mr. Ferrer Rios. Well, I do believe it is a correct
    amendment to the bills. I also think that Puerto Ricans, sons
    of Puerto Ricans that were born here in the States may vote on
    this issue. It all depends on whatever the hearing says, but I
    am in favor of it.
        Ms. Christensen. OK. Well, we want to be guided by people
    who live and know. I would just add, before I turn the mike to
    recognize Mr. Fortuno for questions, that you would be aware, I
    am sure, that many people, for reasons of health in the Virgin
    Islands, go to Puerto Rico to have their children. One of my
    siblings was born in Puerto Rico. And you have to take those
    kinds of things into consideration, as well.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. I welcome Governor Romero and the
    leaders from Puerto Rico who made it here. We only have five
    minutes, so I will try to be quick.
        With all due respect to everyone, in this panel there is
    one person that has a lot more experience than anybody else,
    and that is Gov. Romero. And, Governor, I will ask you, my
    recollection is that since I can remember, one of the main
    issues used against statehood was that a sales tax would be
    imposed on the people of Puerto Rico if we became a state.
        And I asked you if that is true, and if it is also true
    that this Governor, who just left, imposed on us a 7 percent
    sales tax just recently.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. Not only the sales tax, but in the
    campaigns the, particularly in the last month of every
    campaign, the popular party misled the people. Because they
    said not only the sales tax would be imposed, it would become a
    state, because we already had a sales tax, but it was a hidden
    sales tax. It was called an excise tax, which was very, very
    prejudicial, not only to the people, but also to the
    businessmen, because they had to pay the tax before they sold
    their products.
        But beyond that, they also told the people that if we
    became a state, the Federal government would be collecting
    property tax. And the Federal government does not collect
    property tax anywhere in the nation. It is the state government
    or the local county or the municipality, but not the Federal
    government.
        But they have always lied about the tax situation. And the
    tax benefits, the tax exemptions in Puerto Rico, for income tax
    earned in Puerto Rico are only for the wealthiest. Because the
    people in Puerto Rico, our local income taxes are higher than
    the Federal income tax and most state tax put together. So the
    middle class, the worker, the people in Puerto Rico pay more
    income taxes than they do in the nation. And the only ones that
    really benefit from the tax exemptions are the wealthiest of
    all corporations.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. I also wanted to clarify something.
    Mississippi has been brought up several times, that the per
    capita income in Mississippi is more than twice the per capita
    income in Puerto Rico today. And that should be clarified in
    the record for everyone.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. And not only that, Mr. Commissioner,
    also the fuel. About 20 years ago the difference between the
    per capita income between Mississippi and Puerto Rico was much
    less than it is now. The gap has widened.
        Mr. Fortuno. Exactly. The gap is widening as we speak.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. And with all of the states. And part of
    the reason for that is because the poor people in Puerto Rico
    do not receive the same benefits. The needy people, the single
    women with children, the elderly, the people who have problems
    with mental problems, they don't receive the same benefits as
    they do in the mainland, in the rest of the states. So that
    creates an immediate difference at the lowest level of income.
        Mr. Fortuno. Gov. Acevedo-Vila actually published in
    today's roll call an article called Self-Determination is Key
    to Puerto Rico's Status Debate. I mean, his last paragraph--and
    I will quote from what he wrote--says, ``Puerto Ricans are
    excited by the island's progress in economic development,
    education, infrastructure growth, and fiscal stability, among
    others.''
        Without laughing while you are answering, Gov. Acevedo-Vila
    published this today in----
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. What is he talking about? Who is he
    talking about?
        Mr. Fortuno. Well, about Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. Oh, Puerto Rico?
        Mr. Fortuno. I know, for example, in terms of fiscal
    stability, isn't it true that we have had a deficit for the
    last three years while he has been Governor? And that Puerto
    Rico has the lowest credit rating of any jurisdiction under the
    U.S. flag?
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. Not only that, but the Banco Popular
    finished, they had their yearly report. And they said that the
    recession in Puerto Rico is not part of the nationwide economy;
    it is a locally created recession.
        Mr. Fortuno. For two years.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. That is what the Banco Popular's
    report. And the Banco Popular is certainly not involved in the
    politics in that report. They are trying to inform the people
    about what the bank is doing, and what is happening in Puerto
    Rico.
        Mr. Fortuno. We will include, for the record, some economic
    data that will show, among other things, in the last five years
    Puerto Rico has experienced the slowest growth rates since the
    early eighties in Puerto Rico.
        Also has the lowest achievement test scores of a nation, in
    terms of the location, are in Puerto Rico. So that is
    clarified.
        I will close, Governor, with your opinion on the
    constitutional convention, and why do you oppose it.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. The constitutional convention is a
    sham. I mean, first of all, what is a constitutional convention
    can vote for? A constitutional convention is called in to
    either amend a constitution, or to draft a new constitution;
    not to tell the people, or jurisdiction, what they should opt
    for their future. That is ridiculous.
        To put 20, 30 people elected to tell the people of Puerto
    Rico what their future is going to be, and submit it into a
    vote, that is ridiculous. After we decide where we want to go--
    do we want to be a state, do we want to be a republic--then we
    can call a constitutional convention, to either amend our local
    Constitution as a state, or else have a new Constitution as a
    republic. That is what a constitutional convention is for. Not
    to tell the people what they should opt for in the future. That
    would be ridiculous.
        And then to say, the bill goes further--it is more
    ridiculous even. It says after the first constitutional
    convention, if the people don't vote for the option that is
    offered to them, then there will be another, that same
    constitutional convention can then draft another option to
    submit again to the people. This bill is not a serious bill.
    This bill has been filed just to create obstructions and to
    separate those people who want Puerto Rico to solve their
    status issue, to confuse them, and have something to perhaps
    prevent the H.R. 900 from getting a majority vote on the Floor.
        Mr. Fortuno. Very quickly, since we have the Governor here,
    Gov. Acevedo-Vila held this position in the last previous four
    years. He never filed that bill. Do you know why he never filed
    that bill? Could it be that now they are filing this bill just
    to stall and try to stop the process?
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. Because they are afraid of the
    referendum. The commonwealth hasn't won all the referenda; that
    is not true.
        The people of Puerto Rico have voted against commonwealth
    as a majority in the last three referendums. But the things is
    that the referendum has gotten more votes than other formulas
    individually, but the people have rejected the relationship
    between the Nation and Puerto Rico.
        The majority of the people reject the relationship. So we
    are now being governed without the consent of the governed. And
    that is also undemocratic.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you again, and thank you for the panel.
        Mr. Aponte-Hernandez. I want to make a correction, because
    in the last plebiscite, the commonwealth has not had the
    majority. None of the above, the people of Puerto Rico don't
    support the commonwealth, the active commonwealth. And vote in
    majority, none of the above.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. I now recognize Mr.
    Faleomavaega for five minutes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madame Chair. I want to again
    thank Gov. Romero for his most eloquent statement, as I have
    always known him over the years, and also still very consistent
    in terms of his strong views in the political future of Puerto
    Rico.
        I do want to note again and ask the members of the panel,
    my good friend, President McClintock, as I have tried to
    dissect or divide or some form of understanding of the two
    versions that we have before us of the bills. H.R. 900 provides
    these options: independence, free association, or statehood.
    And I hope my good friend, Mr. Fortuno, will correct me on
    that.
        Now, the provisions or options for H.R. 1230 is
    commonwealth for a new or modified commonwealth status, one
    option. Statehood or independence. What this boils down to, as
    much as I can--I welcome your comments--we have a problem here
    with definitions. How do you define free association? How do
    you define commonwealth, or enhanced commonwealth?
        There is no question about statehood or independence. I
    think that is pretty much understood throughout our dialogue
    here.
        And one of the ironies as I observed here, we have a
    Governor who is pro-commonwealth, elected by the people of
    Puerto Rico, and my good friend, Mr. Fortuno, the Resident
    Commissioner, elected, but for statehood. I am confused. And I
    know, because my good friend is good-looking, and I know that
    is probably the reason why he got elected Resident
    Commissioner. Not only is he intelligent, but I am smart, if I
    want to put that categorization again.
        But truly----
        Mr. Fortuno. They said that about Barack Obama the other
    day.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. But I do want to ask, especially----
        Mr. McClintock. I may add that you also have two attractive
    speakers and Senate Presidents who are also for statehood, just
    as Fortuno.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. OK, well taken.
        Mr. McClintock. Seriously, H.R. 900 provides a two-step
    process. The first step is where Congress asks a question that
    it has not dared ask in 108 years.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, here is my problem. There is
    definitely a question of process. This is what we are getting
    fuzzy on, OK?
        Mr. McClintock. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. There is no question that this is one
    issue that I notice we are hung up on. And then the definition,
    as we have been taught, as I have tried exhorting, my
    understanding of free association and the classy examples of
    free association, if you want to talk, discuss that as a
    political status, are the Micronesian entities of Palau,
    probably the Marshall Islands, and the free Federated States of
    Micronesia.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, you provide sovereignty, and then you
    turn to a negotiation.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Right. But there are some conditions,
    though, on how free association has evolved, and the way it is
    going to be applied by the Micronesian entity is quite
    different.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. One of the things is that all the ones
    that have the free association, they are not U.S. citizens.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. That is true, but----
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. And that is what the commonwealth
    supporters are afraid of. They are afraid that then the
    people--we want a status without U.S. citizens.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I am reclaiming my time. These entities
    also, the citizens are allowed to join the military. And they
    can also become U.S. citizens once they join the military. And
    that is a very unique situation, too.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. Aliens are allowed to join the
    military.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. The citizens of the Republic of the
    Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Federated States of
    Micronesia, can join the military, and they can become U.S.
    citizens as an option once they are in the military. There is
    approximately five to six hundred Micronesians now serving in
    the armed services of the United States, some very, very,
    outstanding performers, just like our people from Puerto Rico
    or all the other entities, as well.
        My point is that, is there an agreement that we definitely
    have a problem with definitions? We definitely have a problem
    with process. Is there some way that we can formulate, or some
    way--I know my good friend, Mr. Fortuno, has a different
    definition of free association. I have a different definition
    of association, and I am sure Gov. Vila has a different
    definition of enhanced commonwealth, since that seems to be one
    of the options stated under provisions of H.R. 1230.
        I want to ask my good friends who are pro-commonwealth if,
    what is their understanding of how you are defining--I know it
    is there, but is there anything different from what has been
    stated earlier by my good friend, Mr. Fortuno, as to what
    enhanced commonwealth status does or proposes to do?
        Mr. Ferrer Rios. Let me answer a question with one, just
    one example. A new commonwealth or enhanced commonwealth would
    be in agreement with the United States that the Jones Act or
    the law don't apply to Puerto Rico. That may be a new
    commonwealth.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. You are only talking about one instance,
    because there could be several other factors that you
    negotiate.
        Mr. Ferrer Rios. I am just giving you one example.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Right, right.
        Mr. Ferrer Rios. I am just giving you one example. That
    relation with the United States with Puerto Rico has to be
    drawn on the table. And that is one example of what we can have
    as a new commonwealth.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I do want----
        Mr. Ferrer Rios. A new commonwealth, if I may, has to be
    based on the principle of developing economy of Puerto Rico.
    And I think that is the key here.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Let me tell you, I know my time is up, I
    just want to say right now, in my humble opinion, we definitely
    have a problem with definitions. How free association and
    commonwealth are going to be properly defined, so that the
    people of Puerto Rico know exactly the differences of these two
    options. We know what independence is about, we know what
    statehood is about.
        Mr. Ferrer Rios. Not in Puerto Rico, though. Not in Puerto
    Rico. The people of Puerto Rico, they don't know what statehood
    is.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. This is all by H.R. 900. This is all by
    H.R. 900. Because the first question on the referendum, the
    first referendum would be do you want to have a non-territorial
    status. And then if the people say they want to have a non-
    territorial status, that means they don't want commonwealth. So
    that is solved, that problem is solved by the first question.
        But if they say yes, they do want a territorial status,
    then you have to go to----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. My time is up, Ms. Chairman. But I will
    say in closing, Madame Chair, I am a very proud grandfather. My
    grandson, his mother is Puerto Rican. Can she vote?
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. She doesn't live in Puerto Rico, she is
    not a resident in Puerto Rico, I don't think so.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
        Mr. Romero Barcelo. Anyway, the problem is, why should
    somebody that has the right to vote and the right to
    representation, in your case not because they are also a
    territory, but someone that has the right to vote and the right
    to representation tell me that I cannot have a right to vote or
    a right to representation?
        Mr. Ferrer Rios. I believe she can. I believe she can.
        Mr. Aponte-Hernandez. The problem is the definition. In
    1952, we have some definition for commonwealth. In 1977, 1967,
    we have another. In 1993, we have another one. In 1998, another
    one. And now, the proposal of commonwealth has another
    definition, and they don't know what he wants for commonwealth.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Again, I want to thank the
    witnesses for their testimony and their answers. We may forward
    questions to you in writing, and would ask that you--oh, Mr.
    Dalmau, sorry.
        Mr. Dalmau-Santiago. Yes.
        Ms. Christensen. I will allow this last statement, because
    I think he was answering the question.
        Mr. Dalmau-Santiago. I want only to invite this committee
    to celebrate a hearing in Puerto Rico.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Again, thank you for your
    testimony and for your answers to our questions.
        I would like to now recognize the fourth panel, the fourth
    and final panel. They include Mr. Fernando Martin, Executive
    President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party; Mr. Nestor
    Duprey, Spokesman for the Puerto Ricans for Free Association
    and Social Justice; and Mr. Juan Manuel Garcia Passalacqua,
    Writer and Columnist.
        We would like the final panel to take their seats. He is
    trying to get there, OK.
        Thank you, and thank you for your patience. It has been a
    long afternoon into the evening. I now recognize Mr. Martin for
    five minutes.

    STATEMENT OF FERNANDO MARTIN, EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICAN
                           INDEPENDENCE PARTY

        Mr. Martin. Good afternoon.
        Ms. Christensen. Could we keep the noise in the back down,
    please?
        Mr. Martin. Puerto Rico is the only nation of even remotely
    comparable population where the most fundamental and important
    laws regulating its collective life are made by the legislature
    of another country, and are administered and enforced by the
    government of this other country, without the participation of
    the subject people.
        This indefensible and unacceptable condition of
    subordination and servitude has existed for more than 100
    years, since the United States, having demanded and obtained
    Puerto Rico as booty of war from Spain, first organized a civil
    government for its newly acquired possession.
        That such an anachronistic and mutually demeaning state of
    affairs has persisted until the present requires explanation.
    Two fundamental policy considerations in the U.S. have
    sustained colonialism in Puerto Rico during the 20th century.
    The first has been the determination to exercise absolute
    control over Puerto Rico for military, strategic, and
    geopolitical reasons. The two World Wars reinforced this
    overarching motivation, while the subsequent Cold War made the
    need for such control even more acute.
        In other circumstances, such long-range national security
    considerations would have led to annexation as a territory
    followed by eventual statehood. Here is where the second
    bedrock explanation for the persistence of colonialism comes
    into play. For in contrast to Hawaii, where by 1898 the natives
    were already a small minority overwhelmed by an immigration
    process which rapidly Americanized the new arrivals, and with
    an Anglo-Saxon elite long in control of politics and the
    economy, Puerto Rico presented a totally different situation.
        Here was a full-blown Latin-American nation densely
    populated, Spanish-speaking, intensely proud of its cultural
    identity, and possessing its own indigenous and entrenched
    political and economic elite. It did not require William Howard
    Taft's colonial and political experience to recognize that it
    was inconceivable that Puerto Rico could ever be a state of the
    Union, because it was, in fact, a different nation.
        It was obvious then, as it is today, that Puerto Rico is a
    non-compatible donor to the historical project of American
    Federalism. After all, if Puerto Rico were a real candidate for
    statehood, why not Jamaica or Guatemala? Many desperately poor
    in these countries might perhaps support it, albeit, as in
    Puerto Rico, for the wrong reasons.
        This is why the imposition of U.S. citizenship in Puerto
    Rico in 1917, together with the reaffirmation that such a step
    did not incorporate Puerto Rico, was such a pragmatic
    manifestation of the underlying basis of U.S. policy toward
    Puerto Rico.
        U.S. citizenship was, at the same time, both an attempt to
    close off the path toward independence, while not opening the
    one that might lead to statehood. This left only the option of
    reforms within the statutes of non-incorporated territory.
        It no doubt remained as to what U.S. policy would be toward
    Puerto Rico thereafter. It was to be a colony indefinitely. And
    so it continued to be until the relationship has recently been
    brought sharply into question in the United States by the
    profound geopolitical and military consequences of the collapse
    of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
        The armed forces no longer have any significant presence in
    Puerto Rico. That other traditional lobbying ally for
    colonialism, the 936 companies, are now a mere memory of the
    time when any change in political status would have meant the
    end of their Federal tax privileges.
        The only reason remaining for the U.S. to support continued
    colonialism would be if this were the only way to ward off the
    possibility of an embarrassing statehood bid. Yet the truth is
    to the contrary; continued colonialism will only breed evermore
    statehooders.
        Furthermore, international opinion, particularly in Latin
    America and the Caribbean, is increasingly demanding that
    Puerto Rico be recognized its independence. The United Nations
    Committee on the Colonization, for example, has been approving
    resolutions unanimously during the past five years, recognizing
    Puerto Rico's inalienable right to independence, and our party
    is presently engaged, together with the most representative
    political forces in Latin America and the Caribbean, in a
    campaign that will culminate in a similar resolution by the
    General Assembly.
        The decolonization committee has consistently called for
    the U.S. Government to take the necessary steps that will
    promote the exercise of our right to self-determination,
    according to international law. Only a process that will lead
    to a serious and responsible offer of independence, that must
    begin by putting an end to the colonial option, and will
    inevitably require considerable straight talking on the part of
    Congress as to why statehood is not an alternative to be
    acceptable to the U.S. Only this will finally put an end to
    this failed and discredited colonial experiment that has gone
    on for far too long, to the detriment of both our nations.
        The proposal put forward earlier today by the President of
    the PIP, Ruben Berrios, if approved in its essential
    components, will undoubtedly put in motion a process that can
    only lead to decolonization and independence. For the first
    time in more than 100 years, there are no fundamental
    contradictions between your interests and ours, as far as
    political status is concerned. It is up to Congress to seize
    this opportunity without delay.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]

           Statement of Fernando Martin, Executive President of the
                        Puerto Rican Independence Party

        Puerto Rico is the only nation of even remotely comparable
    population where the most fundamental and important laws regulating its
    collective life are made by the legislature of another country, and are
    administered and enforced by the government of the other country,
    without the participation of the people who are thus governed. Even
    local laws enacted by Puerto Rico's Legislative Assembly ``as well as
    municipal ordinances and administrative regulations'' must conform to
    the constitution and laws of another country, the United States.
        This indefensible and unacceptable condition of subordination and
    political servitude has existed for more than one hundred years since
    the United States, having demanded and obtained Puerto Rico as booty of
    war from Spain in 1898, first organized a civil government for its
    newly acquired possession through the Foraker Act of 1900.
        That such an anachronic and mutually demeaning state of affairs has
    persisted until the present requires explanation. Two fundamental
    policy considerations in the U.S. have sustained colonialism in Puerto
    Rico during the 20th century. The first has been the determination to
    exercise absolute control over Puerto Rico for military, strategic and
    geopolitical reasons. The first and second world wars reinforced this
    overarching motivation while the subsequent era of the Cold War made
    the need for such control even more acute.
        In other circumstances such long range national security
    considerations would have led to annexation as a territory followed by
    eventual statehood. Here is where the second bedrock explanation for
    the persistence of colonialism comes into play; for in contrast to
    Hawaii where by 1898 the native Hawaiians were already a small minority
    overwhelmed by an immigration process which rapidly Americanized the
    new arrivals, and with an Anglo-Saxon elite firmly in control of
    politics and the economy, Puerto Rico presented a totally different
    situation.
        Here was a full blown Latin American nation densely populated,
    Spanish speaking, intensively proud of its cultural identity, mature in
    its cultural manifestations ``not only in folklore but in high
    culture'' and possessing its own indigenous and entrenched political
    and economic elite. It did not take William Howard Taft's colonial,
    political and judicial experience to recognize (as he did in Balzac,
    the culmination of the Insular Cases) that it was inconceivable that
    Puerto Rico could ever be a state of the union because it was in fact,
    a different nation. It was obvious then, as it is today, that Puerto
    Rico is a non compatible donor to the historical project of American
    federalism. After all, if Puerto Rico were a real candidate for
    statehood, why not Jamaica or Guatemala? Many desperately poor in these
    countries might perhaps support it, as in Puerto Rico, for the wrong
    reasons.
        This is why the imposition of U.S. citizenship in 1917, together
    with the reaffirmation that such a step did not incorporate Puerto
    Rico, is such a paradigmatic manifestation of the underlying basis of
    the U.S. policy toward Puerto Rico. United States citizenship was at
    the same time, both an attempt to close off the path towards
    independence while not opening the one that might lead to statehood.
    This left only the option of reforms within the status of non
    incorporated territory. No doubt remained as to what U.S. policy would
    be towards Puerto Rico thereafter: it was to be a colony indefinitely.
    And so it continued to be until it has recently been brought into
    question in the United States by the profound geopolitical and military
    consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the
    Cold War.
        The armed forces of the United States no longer have any
    significant presence in Puerto Rico. That other traditional lobbying
    ally for colonialism, the 936 companies, are now a mere memory of the
    time when any change in political status would have meant the end of
    their federal tax privileges (which under 936 applied only if the
    profits were generated in a possession).
        The only reason remaining for the U.S. to support continued
    colonialism would be if this were the only way to ward off forever the
    possibility of an embarrassing statehood bid. Yet the truth is to the
    contrary; continued colonialism will only breed evermore statehooders.
        Furthermore, international opinion, particularly in Latin America
    and the Caribbean will increasingly demand that Puerto Rico be
    recognized its independence. The United Nations Committee on
    Decolonization, for example, has been approving resolutions unanimously
    during the past five years recognizing Puerto Rico's inalienable right
    to independence and our party is presently engaged--together with the
    most representative political forces in Latin America and the
    Caribbean--in a campaign that will culminate in similar resolution by
    the General Assembly. The Decolonization Committee has consistently
    called for the Government of the United States to take the necessary
    steps that will promote the exercise by the People of Puerto Rico of
    their right to self determination according to international law.
        Only a process that will lead to a serious and responsible offer of
    independence that must begin by putting an end to the colonial option,
    and will inevitably require considerable straight talking on the part
    of Congress as to why statehood is not an alternative that could be
    acceptable to the U.S. in the foreseeable future, will finally put an
    end to this failed and discredited colonial experiment that has gone on
    for far too long to the detriment of both our nations.
        The proposal put forward earlier today by the President of the PIP,
    Ruben Berrios, if approved in its essential components will undoubtedly
    put in motion a process that can only lead to decolonization and
    independence.
        For the first time in more than one hundred years there are no
    fundamental contradictions between your interests and ours as far as
    political status in concerned. It is up to Congress to seize this
    opportunity without delay.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. The next person we will hear
    from is Mr. Nestor Duprey Salgado. We recognize you for five
    minutes.

            STATEMENT OF NESTOR DUPREY SALGADO, SPOKESMAN,
         PUERTO RICANS FOR FREE ASSOCIATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

        Mr. Salgado. Thank you, Madame Chair and Members of the
    Subcommittee.
        I appear before you as spokesperson of Movimiento
    Autonomista Socialdemocrata, also known in English as Puerto
    Ricans for Free Association and Social Justice. We advocate for
    the development of Puerto Rico's current relationship with the
    United States to a compact of free association.
        MAS follows in the tradition of more than 20 years, whereby
    supporters of free association have appeared before Congress.
    As MAS has previously addressed the substantive and procedural
    aspects of both H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, I should underline at
    this time that MAS firmly believes that any bill passed by
    Congress must recognize three separate status options,
    presented to the Puerto Rican electors in a fair and balanced
    way. Statehood, independence, and free association. No more, no
    less.
        International law and U.S. constitutional practice have
    recognized free association as a valid, non-colonial and non-
    territorial self-determination option.
        Free association is based on the sovereignty of the people
    of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico would delegate or share several
    areas of authority with the United States. The existing
    compacts of free association between the U.S. and the
    Micronesian nations have been negotiated and executed under the
    treaty-making power of the U.S. Constitution.
        The compacts are clearly outside Congressional authority
    under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution.
        Some argue that Congress has the authority to partially or
    permanently cede some of its plenary powers over Puerto Rico
    under the Territorial Clause. MAS believes that it is a risky
    proposition that will ultimately leave the new form of
    association between Puerto Rico and the U.S. in substantially
    the same place that it is now: at the mercy of future actions
    and interpretations of Congress, the Justice Department, and
    the Federal Courts.
        Furthermore, the existing compacts of free association are
    a recognized model in U.S. constitutional practice that would
    accommodate all the political and economic authority desired by
    the majority of Puerto Ricans that do not believe in statehood
    or independence. When we are talking about the enhanced
    commonwealth, what we are really talking about is free
    association.
        MAS understands that the best way for an association
    agreement to work is to forgo altogether the Territorial
    Clause, and use the International Agreement Clause of the
    Constitution. Puerto Rico must become a sovereign nation, all
    while entering at the same time into a compact of free
    association with the United States. This was exactly the way in
    which the Micronesian Compacts were established since 1986.
        Contrary to what some have argued in the past, free
    association is not independence. Free association is bilateral
    by nature, and requires mutual consent. Contrary to
    independence, it is based on the concepts of association,
    mutual trust, and understanding.
        Most of those who have studied the process that concluded
    in the signing of the existing compacts of free association
    have agreed on some very important issues. First, U.S.
    citizenship possessed by Puerto Ricans by birth since 1917
    cannot be unilaterally revoked by Congress.
        Second. Dual U.S. and Puerto Rico citizenship is not only
    possible, but desirable. There are no constitutional or legal
    impediments for the permanence of U.S. citizenship in the case
    of sovereign free association. It is only a matter of political
    will.
        Third. Some argue that you have to become an independent
    nation first, and then enter into an association. That is
    wrong. The Freely Associated States of the Pacific went
    directly from trust territory status to political association
    with the U.S. Puerto Rico and the U.S. can commence negotiation
    toward free association without the need to change the current
    relationship.
        In conclusion, free association is the only viable
    alternative that harmonizes both United States and Puerto Rico
    interests. It would provide Puerto Rico economic tools to deal
    with our problems in a dignified relationship of security and
    trust with the U.S. The United States would acquire a most
    desired partner in Latin America, in a democratic friendship of
    mutual interests and values, all while promoting self-
    sufficiency, economic growth with social justice.
        Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I came here
    as part of a new generation of Puerto Ricans who are tired of
    discussing the status issue. We want to solve it. And this
    afternoon, the Resident Commissioner, Mr. Fortuno, opens a door
    to propose amendments to H.R. 900 to separate free association
    as a distinct option, as it is recognized by international law
    and U.S. constitutional experience.
        I invite you, Commissioner, in representation not of your
    party, not of your ideal, but of the people of Puerto Rico, of
    all Puerto Ricans, to work out an inclusive process that
    includes the three alternatives that the people of Puerto Rico
    traditionally supports: statehood, independence, and
    association with the United States in a compact of free
    association.
        Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and Members of the
    Subcommittee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Duprey Salgado follows:]

               Statement of Nestor Duprey Salgado, Spokesperson,
                     Movimiento Autonomista Socialdemocrata

        Madame Chair, members of the Subcommittee:
        My name is Nestor Duprey Salgado. I appear before this Subcommittee
    as spokesperson of the Movimiento Autonomista Socialdemocrata (MAS).
    MAS is a non-governmental organization that advocates for the
    development of Puerto Rico's current relationship with the United
    States to a Compact of Free Association, in compliance with U.S. and
    International law. MAS follows in the tradition of more than 20 years
    whereby supporters of Free Association have appeared before the
    Congress to advocate for this political status alternative.
        As MAS has previously addressed the substantive and procedural
    aspects of both H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, I should underline at this time
    that MAS firmly believes that any bill passed by Congress must
    recognize three separate status options, presented to the Puerto Rican
    electors in a fair and balanced way: statehood, independence and free
    association. No more, no less.
        International Law and U.S. constitutional practice have recognized
    Free Association as a valid non-colonial and non-territorial self-
    determination option. The Compacts of Free Association adopted since
    1986 between the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands,
    Palau and the United States are recognized both as international
    agreements and U.S. domestic law.
        Free Association is based on the sovereignty of the People of
    Puerto Rico. In the exercise of said sovereignty, Puerto Rico would
    delegate or share several areas of authority with the United States.
    The existing Compacts of Free Association between the U.S. and the
    Micronesian nations have been negotiated and executed under the Treaty
    Making Power of the U.S. Constitution. The Compacts are clearly outside
    congressional authority under the Territorial Clause of the
    Constitution.
        Some argue that Congress has the authority to partially and
    permanently cede some of its plenary powers over Puerto Rico under the
    Territorial Clause. MAS believes that is a risky proposition that will
    ultimately leave the new form of association between Puerto Rico and
    the U.S. in substantially the same place that it is now: at the mercy
    of future actions and interpretations of Congress, the Justice
    Department and the Federal Courts. Furthermore, the existing Compacts
    of Free Association are a recognized model in U.S. constitutional
    practice that would accommodate all the political and economic
    authority desired by the majority of Puerto Ricans that do not believe
    in statehood or independence.
        MAS understands that the best way for an association agreement to
    work is to forgo altogether the Territorial Clause and use the
    International Agreements Clause of the Constitution. Puerto Rico must
    become a sovereign nation, all while entering at the same time into a
    Compact of Free Association with the United States. This was exactly
    the way in which the Micronesian Compacts were established since 1986.
        Contrary to what some have argued in the past, Free Association is
    not independence. Free Association is bilateral by nature and requires
    mutual consent. Contrary to independence, it is based on the concepts
    of association, mutual trust and understanding.
        Having said this, it is proper to clarify certain important issues
    regarding the viability and nature of a Compact of Free Association
    between Puerto Rico and the United States.
        Most of those who have studied the process that concluded in the
    signing of the existing Compacts of Free Association have agreed on
    some very important issues that I most highlight today:
        1.  U.S. citizenship possessed by Puerto Ricans by birth since 1917
    cannot be unilaterally revoked by the Congress. The overwhelming weight
    of legal authority is that citizenship is an individual right that
    cannot be taken away arbitrarily by Congress without violating
    fundamental constitutional principles.
        2.  Dual U.S. and Puerto Rico citizenship is not only possible, but
    desirable. Dual U.S. citizens now include persons from Israel and
    Mexico, and the list is growing. Even the Department of Justice has
    concluded that in the case of Puerto Rico, there are no constitutional
    or legal impediments for the permanence of U.S. citizenship in the case
    of sovereign free association. It is only a matter of political will.
        3.  Some argue that you have to become an independent nation first
    and then enter into an association. That is wrong. The Freely
    Associated States of the Pacific went directly from trust territory
    status to political association with the U.S. Puerto Rico and the U.S.
    can commence negotiations toward free association without the need to
    change the current relationship.
        4.  MAS also understand that economic self reliance must be a
    fundamental principle in a future relationship with the US. Economic
    dependence runs counter to the interests of the Puerto Rican nation and
    the U.S. government. As an essential part of a model of free
    association, we believe that both nations must agree on a new economic
    covenant. As happened in the Micronesian experience, both nations would
    agree on an economic arrangement that includes the strategic assignment
    of federal funds; the creative use of trust funds, as well as other
    economic incentives.
        Free Association is the only viable alternative that harmonizes
    both United States and Puerto Rico strategic interests. It would
    provide Puerto Rico the economic tools to deal with our problems in a
    dignified relationship of security and trust with the U.S. At the same
    time, the United States would acquire a must desired partner in Latin
    America and in the global community, in a democratic friendship of
    mutual interests and values, all while promoting self-sufficiency,
    economic growth with social justice.
        Congress has an obligation to fulfill. It is two-fold: to provide
    for a fair, inclusive and effective process of self determination and,
    secondly, to offer the complete array of non-territorial options
    recognized by International Law in the simplest and clearest way
    possible. Thus, you must offer Free Association as a distinct
    alternative to all others. Free association must be able to stand on
    its own feet as the people of Puerto Rico make their choice in the
    ballot box.
        After more than 109 years of U.S. rule, Puerto Rico is more than
    ready to take the next step forward in its process of self-
    determination. While some forces in Puerto Rico insist on maintaining
    and preserving the status quo, Congress should assume its
    responsibility and promptly enact legislation providing the People of
    Puerto Rico with a much awaited federally sanctioned self-determination
    process. The People of Puerto Rico are ready. We wait for your response
    and action.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Finally, our final panelist
    will be Mr. Juan Manuel Garcia Passalacqua, Lawyer, Writer, and
    Political Analyst.

             STATEMENT OF JUAN MANUEL GARCIA PASSALACQUA,
                   LAWYER, WRITER, POLITICAL ANALYST

        Mr. Passalacqua. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I appear
    before you hereby in support of H.R. 900 of Congressman Jose
    Serrano, without amendments.
        I do so as a student of constitutional law at Harvard
    University Law School; as a visiting professor of
    constitutional law at Yale University; as an advisor on
    constitutional issues in the Caribbean for the Council on
    Foreign Relations in New York; and as a member of the
    Ambassadors Circle of the Carter Center in Atlanta.
        I give you those qualifications only to support my
    endorsement of H.R. 900.
        I support H.R. 900 for 10 reasons that are in my written
    statement, and I will not use too much of my time for that
    purpose. But I want to make a point that has not been made this
    afternoon by anybody else.
        Your action now is necessary, in view of the decision of
    the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of
    February 7, that I recommend you read carefully, all of you.
        The case is Boumediene v. Bush. And in it, the Court
    unanimously insisted once again that since 1900, Puerto Rico is
    an unincorporated territory of the United States. That
    decision, in the cases of Intregua Guantanamo and Boumediene v.
    Bush, was affirmed without opinion by the Supreme Court of the
    United States of America. And that affirmative action by the
    Supreme Court, ladies and gentlemen of this commission, make it
    the law of the land as of this month.
        So there should be no question whatsoever that that is the
    issue that this 111th Congress has to address, this one and the
    next one.
        I must quote to you what the opinion says, because it is a
    fascinating aspect of this question. The detainees in the
    Guantanamo prison cite the Insular cases in which fundamental
    personal rights extended to U.S. territories like Puerto Rico.
    But in each of those cases, referring to the extension of
    constitutional rights to Puerto Ricans, Congress exercised its
    power under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, to
    regulate territory or other property belonging to the United
    States of America.
        Those cases, says the Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court,
    do not establish anything regarding the sort of sovereignty
    that the detainees say exists at Guantanamo. Here, in the
    Guantanamo case, Congress and the President have specifically
    disclaimed the sort of territorial jurisdiction that they
    assert in Puerto Rico. That is the law of the land.
        Now, I am, of course, surprised that no one else has quoted
    that case to you, but I am more surprised still that the
    Governor of Puerto Rico thought of quoting to you one book by
    Aleksei Aleinikoff. And I must contribute to this hearing by
    suggesting that you read nine other books that say what the
    Governor has refused to say here.
        So let me use very quickly my time to cite the following.
    Amy Kaplan and Donald Pease, Cultures of U.S. Imperialism.
    Matthew Fry Jacobsen, the United States Encounters Foreign
    People at Home and Abroad. Amy Kaplan again, the Anarchy of
    Empire in the Making of U.S. Culture. Gary Lawson and Guy
    Seidman, the Constitution of Empire, Territorial Expansion in
    American Legal History. Robert Statham, Colonial
    Constitutionalism, the Tyranny of United States Off-Shore
    Territorial Policy and Relations. Bartholomew Sparrow, the
    Insular Cases and the Emergency of the American Empire. And
    most notably, Nancy Morris, Puerto Rico Culture, Politics, and
    Identity.
        If you want to read one book recommended by the Governor of
    Puerto Rico, I, as a professor, am recommending nine other
    books, so you can read them all.
        Finally, I am delivering to your staff here 10 exhibits,
    addendums of my statement, including, Madame Chairman and
    Members of the committee, one proposed bill that I have
    submitted already to the staffers in the Senate of the United
    States that would simplify matters absolutely. I again
    recommend the approval of H.R. 900 without amendments.
        But in the case that you are tempted to amend H.R. 900 in
    the markup session or on the Floor, I insist that you consider
    my bill that has a very simple title. It is only a one-page
    bill, whose title is to dispose of the territory of Puerto
    Rico, in light, of course, of Boumediene v. Bush.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Passalacqua follows:]

                 Statement of Juan Manuel Garcia Passalacqua,
                        Professor and Political Analyst

        Members of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs of the House of
    Representatives:
        I appear before you hereby in support of H.R. 900 of Congressman
    Jose Serrano, without amendments. I do so, for ten reasons that I will
    enumerate. I am a graduate of Harvard University and have served as
    Visiting Professor of Political Science at Yale University. I am at
    present a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and of
    the Ambassadors Circle of the Carter Center in Atlanta. It is with
    those qualifications that I appear before you in writing.
        I support H.R. 900 because: It recognizes our nation of8 million
    beings. It denounces our century old colonialism. It announces
    persistence in our anti-colonialism. It makes clear it is your
    responsibility to end it. It recognizes the right of all those born in
    Puerto Rico wherever they reside, to participate in deciding our
    country's future. It constructs that decision to demand that some
    option gets a clear majority. It challenges you to act. It forces the
    White House and the full Congress to respond to our people's demands.
    And, finally, it makes possible the end our consent to colonialism in
    Puerto Rico in the year 2009. Those ten reasons should be enough to
    move you.
        Furthermore, since this hearing has been called to include an
    academic analysis of the conundrum before you, I want to contribute to
    it, the intellectual analysis you have invited.
        Your action is necessary in view of the decision of the Circuit of
    Appeals Court for the District of Columbia of last February 7 in the
    case of Boumediene v. United States, in which it insisted Puerto Rico
    is, since 1900, an unincorporated territory of the United States. That
    is what this III the Congress has to end after more than a century of
    indecision and avoidance.
        For the sake of brevity, ] will just recommend instead of
    extensively citing, a series of published academic texts that by their
    reasoning would support the approval of H.R. 900: Amy Kaplan and Donald
    E. Pease, Cultures of US. Imperialism; Mathew Frye Jacobson, The United
    Stales Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad; Amy Kaplan again,
    The Anarchy of Empire in the Making of US. Culture; Alexander
    Aleinikoff, Semblances of Sovereignty: The Constitution, the State and
    American Citizenship; Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman, The Constitution of
    Empire: Territorial Expansion and American Legal History; Robert
    Statham, Colonial Constitutionalism: The Tyranny of United States'
    Offshore Territorial Policy and Relations; Bartholomew H. Sparrow, The
    Insular Cases and the Emergence of American Empire; and most important
    of all Nancy Morris, Puerto Rico: Culture, Politics and Identity.
        Reading those eight texts will be enough to convince you to adopt
    H.R. 900. I am of course available to elaborate for you the relevance
    of these and other texts published in recent years, as well as the
    relevance of the cases of In re Guantanamo and Boumediene v. United
    States, and I request that these brief remarks be made part of the
    record of these hearings.
                                     ______

        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Passalacqua. And thank you
    for giving us a little, some abstracts in one of your
    commentaries on April 22, so that I wouldn't have to try to
    read all of those books before today. So I have a little idea
    of what they say.
        Mr. Passalacqua. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
        Mr. Fortuno. By the way, Madame Chair, if I may say so, I
    also used this as a reference for today's hearing.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. I am going to try to get three
    questions in, in my five minutes.
        Mr. Martin, in your testimony you said that the people in
    Jamaica or Guatemala, for the wrong reasons, for example, might
    also choose statehood. Might the same thing happen in Puerto
    Rico? People might choose statehood for the wrong reasons? And
    what would those, and what do you mean by wrong reasons?
        Mr. Martin. That is precisely what I say in my statement,
    that albeit, like in Puerto Rico, for the wrong reasons.
    Because I am convinced that in Puerto Rico, in the vast
    majority of support for statehood is simply a function of a
    sense of insecurity and dependence. That if Puerto Ricans are
    faced at some point with an option of independence that is seen
    as viable, and that is seen as a choice that it will not be
    penalized, as has been seen for the past 100 years, I have no
    doubt that the people of Puerto Rico, like any other people,
    will choose independence.
        So in that sense, the political preferences of the Puerto
    Ricans expressed in votes, as should be relatively obvious, is
    really a function of how they perceive the consequences of such
    a, of such a vote. And historically, Puerto Ricans have been
    conditioned to believe that a vote for independence is sort of
    like jumping off an eighth floor without a parachute. And
    therefore, it is not surprising that only around 5 percent of
    the people have enough faith to say I will do it anyway,
    because historically U.S. policy has been that if Puerto Rico
    were to become independent, it would mean the closing off of
    the U.S. market, the closing off of all substantial trade, once
    Puerto Rico had been turned into a dependent country
    economically.
        So it is not at all strange to me that independence is very
    much a minority faction. The day when independence is seen in
    another way, when a reasonable offer is made of independence,
    as should be made, you can be quite sure that independence
    will, in the end, be chosen by most people.
        If to that you add that colonialism is disrobed publicly
    for what it really is, and that statehood is presented with
    some political sincerity--that is to say, with the small print
    that would evidently be used by Congress--at some point, Puerto
    Ricans may choose statehood. At some point.
        This may happen, that the statehooders have been growing in
    Puerto Rico. Whenever that happens, or before it happens, at
    some point, Congress will have to say what are the terms and
    conditions under which statehood for Puerto Rico would be
    possible, if at all, and on what timetable. Whenever that day
    comes, we will also see that the vote for statehood will then
    become a function of that alternative, and not simply a
    function of an obstruction.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Mr. Duprey, in your testimony
    you referred to U.S. citizenship and dual citizenship. When you
    talk about that in the free association, are you speaking of
    those who would already be citizens when, at the time of the
    compact or the agreement? Or are you talking about persons born
    in Puerto Rico after that?
        Mr. Duprey. Right. I am talking about U.S. citizens at the
    moment of the signing of the compact. In the negotiations
    between the people, the Government of Puerto Rico and the
    Government of the United States, we have to negotiate what we
    are going to do about citizenship in a future relationship.
        But there is a consensus in the legal community that there
    is, it is very difficult to take away the citizenship, the U.S.
    citizenship of the Puerto Ricans who have it now.
        Ms. Christensen. And I agree with that. I agree with that.
    But I have seen one definition, or one tenet, some of the
    tenets of free association that have been proposed, and they
    include American citizenship. That is why I ask that question.
        Mr. Duprey. Yes. I think that that is some other political
    will at the time of the negotiation. And it is something that,
    as you can know--I know that Mr. Fortuno knows--it is some
    other hotly political debate in Puerto Rico. But you need to
    separate what is the political debate and what is the legal
    reality of the issue of citizenship, U.S. citizenship, in the
    case of Puerto Rico.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Mr. Passalacqua, one of the
    quotes that you have from Robert Statham, the University of
    Guam, ends with ``now either incorporate or release Puerto
    Rico.'' And you said that you agree with everything that you
    quoted in here.
        So my question is a simple one. Do you consider free
    association to be one of those that would be included in
    releasing Puerto Rico?
        Mr. Passalacqua. I agree with my friend, Nestor Duprey,
    that if the Resident Commissioner, as he offered, is willing to
    invite to his office the representatives of free association,
    they will be more than capable of proposing a treaty of free
    association that can be included as a separate alternative in
    the plebiscite. And then have a runoff between the two that
    garner more votes.
        Therefore, I very strongly urge the friends at this table
    to accept the invitation extended by the Resident Commissioner.
    Write up the Treaty of Free Association Proposal, and to the
    Resident Commissioner, to, in reciprocity for that gesture,
    accept a runoff after the first vote.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Fortuno for
    questions.
        Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. I again want to thank all the
    members of the panel for being here, for your contribution to
    this discussion. And I think it is very important, actually,
    what we are trying to do here.
        We are trying to legislate. And you may see us discussing
    different aspects as this is going on. We are trying to
    legislate here. And Mr. Duprey, Mr. Passalacqua, I will tell
    you something that I haven't said publicly.
        Last year, when we had, back in March we had hearing here,
    Mr. Acevedo-Vila did not show up, but he sent Mr. Dalmau. I
    offered Mr. Dalmau the offer I made public today. I have
    followed that up with other representatives from Acevedo-Vila.
        Today, openly, in open mic, I restated my statement.
    Obviously, Mr. Duprey, you have the pantalones he doesn't have.
    So I will take you up on that one, because it has been a year.
    I will assume that my offer expired, and I will take you up,
    and I will work with you and your organization to try and see
    if we can legislate in a way that allows for that third option,
    to, one way or another, be clearly included in this legislative
    process.
        And my desire, as you all know, I have my status
    preference. But I have a responsibility that goes beyond that.
    And that is for the people of Puerto Rico to have clearly
    defined options, so that they can make an informed and honest
    choice among options that are doable, that are constitutionally
    feasible, that is not pie in the sky. That is not [Spanish
    phrase], as Jose Serrano, my friend, says all the time, that is
    really something that is doable. We owe that to the 4 million
    residents of Puerto Rico. And I am more than willing to engage
    in that dialogue. And I know many others on this dais and
    Members of the full committee are willing to engage, as well.
        So I restate my statement.
        Mr. Duprey. You know one of your predecessors, Luis Vegas
    Ramos, I think that is a phrase that can guide us in this
    process. Puerto Rico por encima de todo. Puerto Rico of all.
        And I think that we are part of our new generation. As I
    said in my statement, that don't want to discuss any more this
    issue. I don't know how many hearings we need to solve this
    issue.
        We know which are the controversies. We know which are the
    real options. Forget about the political labels; we know which
    are the real options. There are only three. Free association,
    statehood, and independence. Let us legislate, and let the
    people decide.
        Mr. Fortuno. That is the way I see it, and again, the doors
    in my office are open to indeed achieve that. Since the
    Governor has been actually running away from that decision. And
    actually, many in his party have been running away from that
    decision for 50 years. So the fact that he has been doing it
    for one years is not that bad, I guess.
        Mr. Garcia Passalacqua, I am glad that you raised the
    recent Court decision having to do with the Guantanamo
    situation. And indeed, I know it is shocking at times, and some
    of my colleagues have been shocked by the statement in the
    report that indeed, you know, we could be ceded to a foreign
    power, whatever. We are property of the United States. And I
    was very glad to hear what you had to say.
        I also would like to restate very clearly. The Clinton
    Administration and the Bush Administration, in different ways
    and fashions, have stated very clearly that free association is
    one of the real options to solve this issue once and for all.
    So we have Democrats and Republicans stating the same thing,
    and the time is now, indeed, to move forward.
        And I just wanted to close with that statement. I wanted to
    thank Chairwoman, I wanted to thank you all for being here. And
    I wanted to thank the committee staff for hanging on there. And
    I only wish that the next step will be a markup session, so
    that the people of Puerto Rico will have clearly defined
    options before them. And if we can achieve that, I think we
    will all have discharged our responsibilities to the citizens,
    ones that we serve or represent.
        Thank you again, Madame Chairwoman, thank you for your
    leadership. And good night.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. And again, let me thank the
    witnesses on behalf of the Subcommittee and the committee for
    being here, for your patience, and for your testimony and your
    answers to our questions.
        We may have more questions as we review the transcript of
    this hearing, and we would be submitting them to you in
    writing. And the hearing record is held open for 10 days, as
    well.
        This is our last hearing. I think that we have worked
    together, Mr. Fortuno and I, to ensure that all perspectives
    have been brought to the table. We have been very liberal in
    our time, and tried to accommodate each party's wishes to the
    best of our ability. And I think it has worked well for the
    Subcommittee and committee; it has been very well informed.
        So again, thank you. And this Subcommittee hearing stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 7:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

        [A statement submitted for the record by Hon. Eliot L.
    Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York,
    follows:]

              Statement submitted for the record by Eliot L. Engel

        The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has a long, proud history and it
    has become an integral part of the United States. The people of Puerto
    Rico have contributed immeasurably to American culture in every way
    imaginable, including in the political arena, music, business, cuisine,
    creative writing, sports, and science. Perhaps the most important
    contribution made by the Puerto Rican people has been to our national
    defense. They have bravely served in the U.S. military in every major
    war since WWI and during the current conflict in Iraq, 29 Puerto Rican
    soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice.
        The people of Puerto Rico have given us so much but for over 100
    years now, we have failed to give them a fair opportunity to determine
    their own future and their own form of government. Every U.S. President
    over the past 50 years has supported self determination. However,
    politics here and in Puerto Rico has denied the Puerto Rican people an
    opportunity to voice their true desires about whether they would like
    to continue as a commonwealth, achieve independence, or become our 51st
    state.
        My friend and colleague, Representative Jose Serrano, has written
    legislation which will remedy this situation. By creating a sensible
    two plebiscite structure, and requiring plainly worded questions
    describing the different options, H.R. 900, the Puerto Rico Democracy
    Act of 2007, will allow the Puerto Rican people to decide how they
    would like to be governed. We owe it to the Puerto Rican people to work
    together and pass this important legislation so this group of U.S.
    citizens can sensibly plan their future.
                                     ______

        [A statement submitted for the record by Hon. Ron Kind, a
    Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin,
    follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable Ron Kind, a Representative in Congress from
                             the State of Wisconsin

        Madam Chairman: While I am not a member of the Subcommittee, as a
    cosponsor of H.R. 900, I would like to weigh-in to add my voice to
    those supporting the bill. It offers us the opportunity to transcend
    the confused and befuddled ideological debate that has kept Congress
    and the people of Puerto Rico from finding a solution to the issue of
    the island's status. In keeping with the traditions and ideals of our
    nation, this bill will allow the people of Puerto Rico to determine
    their own destiny.
        It is fitting that we consider this legislation one week after the
    House passed the D.C. House Voting Rights Act, which would give
    residents of the District of Columbia a voice in the House of
    Representatives so that they, too, may have the same democratic voice
    as their fellow citizens in every other city, town, and village in the
    50 United States.
        The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2007 would test the assertion made
    by some that a majority of voters in the territory favor continuation
    of the status quo. If that is, indeed, the case, this bill will accept
    the democratic verdict of the people and maintain the current
    relationship with the United States. Alternatively, it would allow a
    majority of citizens the ability to exercise their right to call for
    change if that is what they desire.
        H.R. 900 offers a fair, status neutral, and, most importantly, a
    constitutionally valid approach to discerning the will of the people of
    Puerto Rico. This bill is the best way to establish true and legitimate
    majority rule in Puerto Rico on the question of whether or not the
    voters want to maintain the current status as defined by federal law.
    Such a determination is the first step that must be taken. Congress
    should become involved in deciding next steps only if a majority of
    Puerto Ricans rejects continuation of the current status.
        H.R. 1230 is the alternative proposed by opponents of H.R. 900. By
    proposing that the island's status be determined through a
    constitutional convention, it would allow a less democratic local
    process than is currently required under the local constitution. Such a
    convention could produce a proposal based on the local commonwealth
    party's platform rather than one that is supported by a majority of
    residents, and which Congress would likely reject.
        The responsible course for Congress is to approve H.R. 900 and find
    out if the people of Puerto Rico do or do not want change. Only then
    will this body be able to move forward with a status determination that
    meets the needs and the will of the people who would be affected.
                                     ______

        [A statement submitted for the record by Hon. Loretta
    Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from the State of
    Califonnia, follows:]

                  Statement of The Honorable Loretta Sanchez,
           a Representative in Congress from the State of California

        Madame Chair,
        Thank you for allowing me to participate in this important
    discussion, and for calling this hearing on the future of Puerto Rico.
    The two bills we will review here today concern the most glaring lack
    of democracy under our flag. Last week, this House voted to grant the
    District of Columbia, and its 60,000 residents, the right to be
    represented in our government. There has been a lot of attention to the
    issue, but an even more egregious disenfranchisement is going on almost
    without notice.
        There are nearly four million people in Puerto Rico. They have been
    U.S. citizens for 90 years but they remain without a single real vote
    in the government that makes and implements their national laws. This,
    even though ALL of their leaders want a democratic government at the
    national level.
        There is scarcely a more important issue before the Congress than
    righting this historical wrong.
        It is of special significance to those of us who are Latino or who
    represent Latinos. One of the reasons that the issue has not been
    resolved is the wrong-headed view that equal rights and
    responsibilities and permanence within our Union should not be an
    option for our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico because of their Latin
    culture. I reject that view completely.
        I personally have no preference regarding the territory's ultimate
    status; Puerto Ricans have earned the right to make the choice among
    all the options--statehood, independence, nationhood in a free
    association with the United States. They even could choose to continue
    as a territory if they don't want to decide yet on the islands'
    ultimate status.
        One of the bills before you, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, H.R.
    900, which I have co-sponsored, would enable Puerto Ricans to make the
    choice among all the options.
        The other bill, H.R. 1230, would not. It excludes one of the
    options, free association.
        It also would include the ill-defined option of a ``Commonwealth'',
    a proposal that would only confuse and further delay the choice.
        This ``option'' for a non-territory ``Commonwealth status'' has
    already been rejected by the Clinton Administration on constitutional
    and basic policy grounds, as well as by President Bush's Task Force on
    Puerto Rico's status. It is a proposal that Congress could not accept
    even if it wanted to.
        Under this proposal, Puerto Rico would be a nation with the power
    to enter into international agreements but the United States would be
    permanently bound to it, granting:
          an additional subsidy to the insular government;
          all current aid to Puerto Ricans;
          free entry to all goods shipped from the islands; and
          citizenship.
        U.S. laws would apply and U.S. courts would have jurisdiction--but
    the ``Commonwealth'' government would be able to nullify federal
    authority.
        To be fair and meaningful, the decision has to be made among real
    choices of status.
        I urge the Subcommittee to favorably report H.R. 900 without delay
    and enable Puerto Rico to finally attain a democratic national
    government.
        Thank you again, Madame Chair, for letting me join you here today.
                                     ______

        [A statement submitted for the record by Hon. Nydia M.
    Velazquez, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
    York, follows:]

                Statement of The Honorable Nydia M. Velazquez,
            a Representative in Congress from the State of New York

        Thank you, Chairwoman Christensen, for holding this hearing today.
    I appreciate the opportunity to be here and offer my views on our
    bipartisan bill H.R. 1230, The Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of
    2007. It is so important that we clarify what is really at stake here.
        As I have said from the beginning--the path to self-determination
    for the people of Puerto Rico must be a conclusion that Puerto Ricans
    forge themselves. Whether they reside in Puerto Rico, New York,
    Illinois or Florida--it is up to them to decide their future.
        In addition to discussing H.R. 1230, we are also focusing on the
    alternative legislation, H.R. 900, today. While this bill is well
    intended, it mandates a flawed process. It only exacerbates the
    divisions on the island and fails to offer any hope to settle the
    matter.
        The status of Puerto Rico has been an issue for the past century--
    any solution today needs to be one that has the consensus and support
    of the people of Puerto Rico. This is why I introduced ``The Puerto
    Rico Self-Determination Act.'' I saw the need for a true path towards a
    long-term solution to the status issue. This is a bipartisan bill, co-
    sponsored by my colleagues Congressmen Gutierrez and Wicker. H.R. 1230
    represents a fair and just path because it seeks to bring consensus to
    the over 8 million Puerto Ricans that live on the island, and in the
    States.
        It is apparent that the real issue here is process. Members of
    Congress cannot favor Puerto Ricans deciding their future, but then
    support legislation that dictates the key terms to them, and fails to
    define those terms. What happened to real freedom to choose? I thought
    we were talking about a self-determination process, not Congressional
    mandates and meddling. The best thing Congress can do is to step aside;
    it is the Puerto Ricans process of self-determination we are trying to
    discuss here.
        Congress' best role at this stage should be to facilitate, not
    dictate. My friends, a vote can only be fair when you know what you are
    voting for and know the consequences of that vote. Have we not learned
    the hard way in Congress the consequences of voting for something
    without having all the correct information? How can we ask Puerto
    Ricans to make the most important decision without helping them see
    what it all means?
        You may be asking why H.R. 1230 is better? This bill does provide
    for a democratic self-determination process. It is fair--Congress does
    not place one group or idea ahead of any other. It is open--groups
    advocating for one option or another get to convince voters that their
    way is the best option. It is transparent--the people will be able to
    decipher what the options mean to them, for the future of Puerto Rico,
    and then vote. H.R. 1230 ensures people will be able to debate the
    ideas and reach consensus.
        The Governor of Puerto, and the followers in his party, perceive
    H.R. 900 as unfair. Just looking back at history, you will see that
    bills that have been perceived in similar ways in the past, by either
    of the main parties, have not succeeded. Without a consensus the
    process would always be under suspicion by a large segment of the
    population in Puerto Rico. If this is a true self-determination
    process, it would not be for us to define their status option for
    them--it would be for them to define it on their own consensus. That is
    what my bill allows.
        Chairwoman Christensen, I appreciate the time you have granted me
    today and I urge you to act judiciously on this important issue. I
    would like to again strongly encourage you to convene a third hearing
    so that this sub-committee can hear from local community leaders in New
    York, Illinois and Florida. They are also part of this process and
    their opinions must be heard. Thank you.