[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2499, ``PUERTO RICO DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2009''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-26
__________
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
50-610 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, June 24, 2009......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 10
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina................................ 8
Duncan, Hon. John J., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Tennessee..................................... 9
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 4
Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 8
Pierluisi, Hon. Pedro R., the Resident Commissioner in
Congress from Puerto Rico.................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Sablan, Hon. Gregorio, a Delegate in Congress from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands............... 9
Statement of Witnesses:
Berrios-Martinez, Hon. Ruben, President, Puerto Rican
Independence Party......................................... 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Bhatia, Hon. Eduardo, Senator, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico... 74
Prepared statement of.................................... 76
Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana................................................. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Dalmau-Santiago, Hon. Jose L., Minority Leader of the Popular
Democratic Party, Senate of Puerto Rico.................... 67
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
Letter from Barack Obama dated February 12, 2008......... 70
Ferrer Rios, Hon. J. Hector, President, Popular Democratic
Party...................................................... 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Fortuno, Hon. Luis G., Governor of Puerto Rico............... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Letter from President-Elect Barack Obama dated January 2,
2009................................................... 28
Gonzalez-Colon, Hon. Jenniffer, Speaker, Puerto Rico House of
Representatives............................................ 71
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
Grayson, Hon. Alan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Rivera-Schatz, Hon. Thomas, Senate President, Senate of
Puerto Rico................................................ 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 65
Romero Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, Former Governor of Puerto Rico
(1977-1982)................................................ 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Additional materials supplied:
Hogan, J. Aloysius, Esq., Government Relations Director,
English First, Statement submitted for the record.......... 86
Hoyer, Hon. Steny H., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland, Statement submitted for the record...... 87
Ramirez, Miriam J., MD, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 15
Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, Statement submitted for the record.. 88
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2499, ``PUERTO RICO DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2009''
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m. in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rahall, Kildee, Faleomavaega,
Napolitano, Bordallo, Sablan, Christensen, Baca, Sarbanes,
Pierluisi, Hastings, Young, Duncan, Brown, and Bishop.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come
to order, please. The Committee is meeting today to commence
with the consideration of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy
Act of 2009, introduced by our colleague from Puerto Rico, very
dear friend and valued member of our Committee, Pedro
Pierluisi. I would like to start out this morning by
recognizing the great contribution that the people of Puerto
Rico have made to the defense of our United States.
To the families who have lost a husband, a father, a
daughter or son in our wars, I would take this moment to salute
each of you. We can debate political status, but what is not
subject of debate is the patriotism of the people of Puerto
Rico. The island's century-long history with the American
family has been significant. Ceded by Spain as a result of war,
Puerto Rico was one of the first areas outside of the
continental U.S. where the American flag was raised.
To the United States, it marked a milestone in our own
political development. When our union of states was comprised
of renegade English colonies, we then stepped into a role that
we previously had fought against. Given our own experience,
would anyone have imagined that our new colony would be
disenfranchised and kept unequal in our political framework?
Our commitment to Puerto Rico's advancement under the 1898
Treaty of Paris would be our judge.
If our measure of success is today's Puerto Rico, then I
say Puerto Rico has done well by the United States. It is a
showcase of democracy in the Caribbean. Having some of the
highest voter turnout rates in our nation, Puerto Rico shames
with many of our states its energy and enthusiasm in electing
its leaders. Economically, it is a powerhouse in the Caribbean
and considered a home away from home for many mainland Fortune
500 companies. Equal in importance to Puerto Rico's political
and economic prowess is the island's contributions to our own
social fabric.
Every aspect of American art, music, theater and sport has
been influenced by Puerto Rico's own culture and by its people.
And beyond such contributions, there remains Puerto Rico's
patriotism, beginning in World War I when thousands of Puerto
Ricans were serving in our U.S. military. There is no doubt
that many more thousands are currently serving in our armed
forces, fighting our wars and dying for our country.
The Committee convenes this morning because in spite of
what we have gained from each other, there has been no ultimate
achievement in Puerto Rico's political status, which really is
the greatest commitment the United States has to all of our
territories.
Since the establishment of the current commonwealth status
in 1952, four popular votes have been held on the status of
Puerto Rico in three plebiscites and one referendum, but none
of them were sanctioned by the Congress of the United States.
Going back just to the 1970s, at least 40 separate measures
have been introduced in the Congress to resolve or clarify
Puerto Rico's political status. In addition, Congress has held
at least 12 hearings and four measures have received either
House or Senate action.
In the last Congress, the Bush Administration issued the
President's Task Force Report on Puerto Rico's Status, which
served as a basis for legislation introduced by our former
colleague and current Governor of Puerto Rico, The Honorable
Luis Fortuno. With this history behind us, I join those who say
it is time for Congress to provide the people of Puerto Rico
with an unambiguous path toward permanently resolving its
political status that is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
When this Committee considered similar legislation in the
last Congress, we exhaustively examined the question of the
constitutionality of the various status options available under
the Constitution. What emerged from that process was a clear
consensus that settled on the permanent status options that are
reflected in the bill we are considering today. The Resident
Commissioner is to be congratulated for carefully crafting a
bill that seeks to ``authorize a fair, impartial and democratic
process for self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico.''
Today's meeting of the Committee is to hear from the
political leaders from the island of Puerto Rico. I want to
welcome all of our witnesses, especially our former colleagues,
the current Governor of Puerto Rico and former Governor Carlos
Romero Barcelo. Both Governors worked tirelessly to advance the
resolution of the Puerto Rico status question when they served
with us in this body. In closing, let me reaffirm my continuing
commitment to press for self-determination for the people of
Puerto Rico.
We have arrived at the mountain and can see the promised
land on the other side and, for my part, I pledge to do all I
can to see that we get there soon. Thank you, and I now
recognize our Ranking Member, the gentleman from Washington,
Mr. Hastings.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
The Committee on Natural Resources is meeting today to commence
with the consideration of H.R. 2499, the ``Puerto Rico Democracy Act of
2009'', introduced by our colleague from Puerto Rico, Pedro Pierluisi.
I would like to start out this morning by recognizing the great
contribution the people of Puerto Rico have made to the defense of the
United States. To the families who have lost a husband, a father, a
daughter, or a son, in our wars, I take this moment to salute you. We
can debate political status. But what is not subject of debate is the
patriotism of the people of Puerto Rico.
The Island's century long history within the American family has
been significant. Ceded by Spain as a result of war, Puerto Rico was
one of the first areas outside of the continental United States where
the American flag was raised. To the U.S., it marked a milestone in our
own political development. When once our union of States was comprised
of renegade English colonies, we then stepped into a role that we
previously had fought against.
Given our own experience, would anyone have imagined that our new
colony would be disenfranchised and kept unequal in our political
framework? Our commitment to Puerto Rico's advancement under the 1898
Treaty of Paris would be our judge.
If our measure of success is today's Puerto Rico, then I say Puerto
Rico has done well by the United States. It is a showcase of democracy
in the Caribbean. Having some of the highest voter turnout rates in our
Nation, Puerto Rico shames many of our own States with its energy and
enthusiasm in electing its leaders. Economically, it is a powerhouse in
the Caribbean and considered a home away from home for many mainland
Fortune 500 companies.
Equal in importance to Puerto Rico's political and economic prowess
is the Island's contributions to our own social fabric. Every aspect of
American art, music, theater, and sport has been influenced by Puerto
Rico's own culture and its people.
And beyond such contributions, there remains Puerto Rico's
patriotism, beginning in World War I when thousands of Puerto Ricans
served in the U.S. military. There is no doubt that many more thousands
are currently serving in our armed forces; fighting our wars and dying
for our country.
The Committee convenes this morning because in spite of what we
have gained from each other, there has been no ultimate achievement in
Puerto Rico's political status--which really is the greatest commitment
the U.S. has to all of our territories.
Since the establishment of the current Commonwealth status in 1952,
four popular votes have been held on the status of Puerto Rico in three
plebiscites and one referendum. But none of them were sanctioned by the
Congress of the United States.
Going back just to the 1970's, at least 40 separate measures have
been introduced in Congress to resolve or clarify Puerto Rico political
status. In addition, Congress has held at least 12 hearings and four
measures have received either House or Senate action.
In the last Congress, the Bush Administration issued the
President's Task Force Report on Puerto Rico's Status, which served as
the basis for legislation introduce by our former colleague and current
governor of Puerto Rico, The Honorable Luis Fortuno.
With this history before us, I join those who say it is time for
Congress to provide the people of Puerto Rico with an unambiguous path
toward permanently resolving its political status that is consistent
with the U.S. Constitution.
When this committee considered similar legislation in the last
Congress, we exhaustively examined the question of the
constitutionality of the various status options available under the
constitution.
What emerged from that process was a clear consensus that settled
on the permanent status options that are reflected in the bill we are
considering today.
The Resident Commissioner is to be congratulated for carefully
crafting a bill which seeks to ``authorize a fair, impartial and
democratic process for self-determination'' for the people of Puerto
Rico.
Today's meeting of the committee is to hear from the political
leaders from the island of Puerto Rico. I want to welcome all the
witnesses, especially our former colleagues, the current governor of
Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, and former governor, Carlos Romero Barcelo.
Both governors worked tirelessly to advance the resolution of the
Puerto Rico status question when they served with us in the House.
In closing, let me reaffirm my continuing commitment to press for
self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico. We have arrived at
the mountain and can see the promise land on the other side. And for my
part, I pledge to do all I can to see to it that we get there soon.
Thank you.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
very much your scheduling and having this hearing today. I know
this issue has been around for some time. I know the whole time
I have been here, there have been many changes in the
legislation that has been introduced from time to time, but
there is one noticeable change this year from the past. That is
the election in Puerto Rico of a very young, energetic, and
highly intelligent reform-minded Governor and, of course, I am
speaking about our former colleague, Mr. Fortuno.
So I look forward to hearing the testimony. I know this
legislation differs in part from legislation that has been
introduced in the past. Nothing unusual about that. There are
differing views and it is an issue that I know that this
Congress needs to address, so with that, Mr. Chairman, I just
want to say I look forward to hearing the testimony of all the
members, and with that, I will yield back my time.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi, whose bill we are considering today
and whose leadership on this issue has been very valuable to
us. I certainly salute his determination and dedication.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, THE RESIDENT
COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Chairman Rahall. Thank you,
Ranking Member Hastings. I want to begin by expressing my
appreciation to Chairman Rahall. Both of us believe that after
111 years, it is imperative that the 111th Congress finally ask
the people of Puerto Rico for their views on the island's
future. Patience is a virtue, but my constituents have been
patient enough. Since its introduction just over one month ago,
H.R. 2499 has obtained more cosponsors than any other Puerto
Rico status bill in history.
I want to thank the 150 Members of Congress who have
cosponsored this legislation. The strong bipartisan support for
the bill is proof positive that Puerto Rico's status dilemma
troubles men and women all along the political spectrum. The
subject of Puerto Rico's political status is fraught with
history and passion. The island's political parties are divided
on the status question and the debates between them can be
ferocious. Because of these divisions, some Members of Congress
who support the principle of self-determination have
nonetheless been reluctant to become involved. I hope that
today's hearing will help convince those members that this bill
is a just solution to an unjust state of affairs.
I would now like to address my fellow Puerto Ricans in
leadership positions who have expressed concerns with the bill.
I know your love for Puerto Rico is as great as my own. Because
the destiny of millions is at stake, we must overcome our
differences, not surrender to them. I am certain we can reach a
fair compromise, and I fear history will not forgive us if we
don't. President Obama said it best in a letter to Governor
Fortuno when he wrote ``I am fully aware of the difficulties
that Puerto Rico has faced in the past when dealing with this
issue, but self-determination is a basic right to be addressed,
no matter how difficult.''
Mr. Chairman, through this bill, Congress would formally
consult the people of Puerto Rico regarding the island's
political status, something that has never been done since
Puerto Rico came under the U.S. flag in 1898. This bill
authorizes the government of Puerto Rico to conduct a
plebiscite. Voters would be asked whether they wish to maintain
the current political status or to have a different status. If
a majority favors the current status, the government of Puerto
Rico would be authorized to ask voters this threshold question
again at eight-year intervals.
The purpose of this provision is for Congress to regularly
consult the people of Puerto Rico to obtain their continued
consent to an arrangement that, whatever its merits, denies
them self-government at the national level. If on the other
hand a majority favors a different status, the bill authorizes
a second plebiscite among the three non-territorial status
options recognized under U.S. and international law:
independence, statehood and national sovereignty in association
with the United States.
The bill does not define this last option, except to say
that it would entail an agreement between two sovereigns that
is not subject to the territorial clause. As will be true of
any bill that seeks to address an issue of such importance,
there are some dissenting voices. While consensus is ideal, the
most relevant question is whether the arguments against the
legislation have any merit. The search for consensus cannot
become justification for inaction because, while we wait, four
million American citizens remain voiceless.
The strength of this bill is that it sponsors a referendum
process based on legally valid status options, but leaves it to
the people of Puerto Rico to decide which of those options they
prefer. Some critics of the bill may argue that by informing
the people of Puerto Rico about their valid status options and
limiting the ballots to only those options, Congress is somehow
dictating the self-determination process to my constituents.
This reasoning is misguided.
Although couched in language intended to convey respect for
the island's residents, this argument, if allowed to prevail,
would resign the people of Puerto Rico to yet another century
of voicelessness. For too long, many on the island have been
led to believe that if they bargain wisely enough, they can
have U.S. citizenship and national sovereignty, receive all
Federal funds and have veto power over Federal law. For the
Federal government to perpetuate this comforting but false
belief would be wrong. This bill shows the highest respect for
the people of Puerto Rico by refusing to mislead them. This
bill will enable the people of Puerto Rico to choose among
viable status options through one or more popular votes. Some
argue that the bill should provide for a constitutional
convention rather than a plebiscite process, but it is hard to
see how this mechanism would be a better way to resolve the
status question than hearing directly from the people.
The fact is that the valid status choices available to
Puerto Rico are crystal clear. The people of Puerto Rico do not
need to elect delegates to propose status options. All the
people of Puerto Rico need is the opportunity to express
themselves directly at the ballot box. Finally, this
legislation does not exclude or favor any status option. Yet,
today you will hear testimony from certain witnesses that the
bill is intended to stack the deck in favor of statehood.
Specifically, there are theories that voters who support
statehood and voters who support independence will vote in
favor of a different political status in the first plebiscite,
creating a so-called artificial majority against the current
status. This argument is flawed. Before a single vote has been
cast, these critics have used their crystal ball to predict the
results. The reality is that none of us has any real way of
knowing how most voters will respond to the options on the
ballot.
In any event, the bedrock principle of our system is
government by consent, and the first plebiscite informs
Congress whether a majority consents to the present
arrangement. If a majority of the people do not wish to
maintain the current status, they should have the chance to
express their preference among the viable alternatives. This
bill would, at long last, provide them with this opportunity.
Let me say something in plain terms. I support statehood,
because I believe the people of Puerto Rico have earned the
right, should they choose to exercise it, to become full and
equal citizens of the United States, but I was elected to
represent all of the people of Puerto Rico, including those
whose vision for the island's future differs from my own. The
intention of this bill is to sponsor a fair self-determination
process, not to predetermine the outcome of that process.
In closing, while I do not find the arguments against the
bill persuasive, I am open to any amendments that would result
in a fair process. I will not let the perfect become the enemy
of the good. Opponents of this legislation should make a
similar pledge. In our democracy, elections have consequences.
Last November, the people of Puerto Rico, by historic margins,
spoke clearly in favor of self-determination and against those
who would obstruct it. We must allow their voices to be heard.
I welcome the witnesses, and I thank you again, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pierluisi follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Pedro R. Pierluisi,
the Resident Commissioner in Congress from Puerto Rico
Thank you, Chairman Rahall. I want to begin by expressing my
appreciation to you. Both of us believe that, after 111 years, it is
imperative that the 111th Congress finally ask the people of Puerto
Rico for their views on the Island's future. Patience is a virtue, but
my constituents have been patient enough.
I also want to thank former Chairman Don Young, who has done as
much as any member of this body to seek self-determination for the
people of Puerto Rico--and who has the scars to prove it. In addition,
I want to convey my gratitude to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and to
Congressmen Dan Burton, Patrick Kennedy, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and Alan
Grayson, all of whom have been such strong champions of H.R. 2499.
These gentlemen come from different political parties and different
parts of the country, but they are bound together by their fierce
desire to secure fair treatment for the four million U.S. citizens of
Puerto Rico.
Since its introduction just over one month ago, H.R. 2499 has
obtained more co-sponsors than any other Puerto Rico status bill in
history. I want to thank the 150 Members of Congress--106 Democrats and
44 Republicans--who have co-sponsored this legislation. This strong
bipartisan support is proof positive that Puerto Rico's status dilemma
troubles men and women of conscience all along the political spectrum.
The subject of Puerto Rico's political status is fraught with
history and passion. The Island's political parties are divided on the
status question and the debates between them can be ferocious. As a
result of these divisions, some Members of Congress who support the
principle of self-determination have nonetheless been reluctant to
become involved. I hope that today's hearing will help convince those
members that this bill represents a just solution to an unjust state of
affairs.
I would now like to address my fellow Puerto Ricans in leadership
positions who have expressed concerns with the bill. I know your love
for Puerto Rico is as great as my own. Because the destiny of millions
is at stake, we must overcome our differences, not surrender to them. I
am certain we can reach a fair compromise. And I fear history will not
forgive us if we don't. President Obama said it best in a letter to
Governor Fortuno when he wrote: ``I am fully aware of the difficulties
that Puerto Rico has faced in the past when dealing with this issue,
but self-determination is a basic right to be addressed no matter how
difficult.''
* * *
Mr. Chairman: Through H.R. 2499, Congress would formally consult
the people of Puerto Rico regarding the Island's political status--
something that has never been done since Puerto Rico came under the
United States flag in 1898. This bill authorizes the government of
Puerto Rico to conduct a plebiscite. Voters would be asked whether they
wish to maintain the current political status or to have a different
status. If a majority favors the current status, the government of
Puerto Rico would be authorized to ask voters this threshold question
again at eight-year intervals. The purpose of this provision is for
Congress to regularly consult the people of Puerto Rico to obtain their
continued consent to an arrangement that, whatever its merits, denies
them self-government at the national level.
If, on the other hand, a majority favors a different status, the
bill authorizes a second plebiscite among the three non-territorial
status options recognized under U.S. and international law:
independence, statehood, and national sovereignty in association with
the United States. The bill does not define this last option, except to
say that it would entail an agreement between two sovereigns that is
not subject to the Territorial Clause.
As will be true of any bill that seeks to address an issue of such
importance, there are some dissenting voices. While consensus is ideal,
the most relevant question is whether the arguments against the
legislation have any merit. The search for consensus cannot become a
justification for inaction. Because while we wait, four million
American citizens remain voiceless.
The strength of H.R. 2499 is that it sponsors an orderly referendum
process based on legally-valid status options, but leaves it to the
people of Puerto Rico to decide which of those options they prefer. You
may hear some opponents of the bill argue that, by informing the people
of Puerto Rico about their valid status options and limiting the
authorized ballots to only those options, Congress is somehow
``dictating'' the self-determination process to my constituents. This
line of reasoning is misguided. Although couched in language intended
to convey respect for the Island's residents, this argument--if allowed
to prevail--would resign the people of Puerto Rico to yet another
century of voicelessness. For too long, many on the Island have been
led to believe that if they bargain wisely enough, they can have U.S.
citizenship and national sovereignty, receive all federal funds and
have veto power over federal law. For the federal government to
perpetuate this comforting but false belief would be wrong. This bill
shows the highest respect for the people of Puerto Rico by refusing to
mislead them.
H.R. 2499 will enable the people of Puerto Rico to choose among
legally-viable status options through one or more popular votes. Some
have argued that the bill should provide for a ``constitutional
convention'' rather than a plebiscite process. But it is hard to see
how this mechanism would be a better way to resolve Puerto Rico's
political status question than hearing directly from the people. The
fact is that the legally-viable status choices available to Puerto Rico
are crystal clear, no matter how loudly some may insist otherwise. The
people of Puerto Rico do not need to elect delegates to propose status
options. All the people of Puerto Rico need is the opportunity to
express themselves directly at the ballot box.
Finally, H.R. 2499 does not exclude or favor any status option.
Yet, today you will hear testimony from certain witnesses that this
bill is intended to ``stack the deck'' in favor of statehood.
Specifically, their theory is that voters who support statehood and
voters who support independence will vote in favor of a different
political status in the first plebiscite, creating a so-called
``artificial majority'' against the current status.
This argument is flawed. Before a single vote has been cast,
critics of the bill have used their crystal ball to predict the
results. The reality, of course, is that none of us has any real way to
know how most voters will respond to the options on the ballot. In any
event, the bedrock principle of our system is government by consent,
and the first plebiscite informs Congress whether a majority consents
to the present arrangement. This is a fundamental question of
democracy: if a majority of the Puerto Rican people do not wish to
maintain the current status, they should have the chance to express
their preference among the viable alternatives. H.R. 2499 would--at
long last--provide them with this opportunity.
Let me say something in plain terms. Like Governor Fortuno, over
60% of the Island's 78 municipal mayors, and nearly 70% of the Puerto
Rico Legislature, I am a strong proponent of statehood for Puerto Rico.
Residents of Puerto Rico have contributed immeasurably to the life of
this nation in times of peace and war. They serve as U.S. government
officials, ambassadors and federal judges. For generations, our sons
and daughters have served alongside their fellow citizens from the
states on battlefields in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. During a
late-night patrol in enemy territory, as soldiers from San Juan,
Sacramento and San Antonio watch each other's backs, the differences
between them mean nothing. What matters is that the flag stitched to
their uniform is the same. I support statehood because I believe the
people of Puerto Rico have earned the right, should they choose to
exercise it, to become full and equal citizens of the United States.
But I was elected to represent all of the people of Puerto Rico,
including those whose vision for the Island's future differs from my
own. The intention of H.R. 2499 is to sponsor a fair, neutral and
democratic process of self-determination in Puerto Rico, not to
predetermine the outcome of that process.
In closing, I want to reiterate that while I do not find the
arguments against the bill persuasive, I am open to any amendments that
would result in a fair process of self-determination. I will not let
the perfect become the enemy of the good. Opponents of this legislation
should make a similar pledge. In our democracy, elections have
consequences. Last November, the people of Puerto Rico--by historic
margins--spoke clearly in favor of self-determination and against those
who would obstruct it. We must allow their voices to be heard.
I welcome the witnesses and I thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Brown, South Carolina?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY E. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today. I will submit my full text for the record, but I
just would like to welcome the former member of this Committee,
now the Governor of Puerto Rico, and all the other folks that
have traveled such a distance to come to be a part of this
process. I am original cosponsor of the bill and so I look
forward to the dialogue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DALE E. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much for having this hearing.
This is an issue that has been before this Congress for a long
time. I think we should give the people of Puerto Rico the
right to make their decision. I think this is a good vehicle
that has been introduced Mr. Pierluisi. I worked with Carlos
Romero Barcelo for a long time and Luis Fortuno, and I welcome
their presence here today and I hope we wind up with a bill
that will be satisfactory to the people of Puerto Rico.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
had the great privilege of visiting Puerto Rico on three
different occasions over the years and I think it is a
wonderful place and the people have been so kind to me, so I
have nothing but positive and good feelings toward Puerto Rico
and its people, and I also was able, fortunately, to establish,
I think, good friendships with former Congressman Romero
Barcelo and also former Congressman Acevedo Vila and also with
the current Governor Fortuno, and I join Congressman Brown in
welcoming Governor Fortuno back to be with us today.
I have also tried to help Puerto Rico on several bills in
other committees, but I don't really have strong feelings, I am
not really for statehood or against statehood or for
commonwealth or against commonwealth. The main thing I would
like to see is a fair process set up or a fair vote. I have met
with people over the years on both sides of this issue and I do
have difficulty in understanding why we have to have two votes,
why you don't just put one simple thing out there and say,
statehood, commonwealth, independence, just have it plain and
simple, one vote, and then I do have some concern, I have read
or heard and read over the years that about 80 percent of the
people in Alaska and Hawaii voted to become a state, and I do
have some concern about having a state where half or less than
half want the statehood.
I would feel more comfortable with it if we had 80 or 85
percent or more of the people of Puerto Rico who wanted to be a
state, but with those questions, I am willing to listen, and I
do have to go to another committee shortly, but I am willing to
listen and consider all of the arguments on this issue. Thank
you very much.
The Chairman. The gentlelady from California, Ms.
Napolitano? If not, the gentleman from CNMI, Mr. Sablan?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORIO SABLAN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman, Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Hastings. Good
morning, Mr. Pierluisi. Ladies and gentlemen, I am here in
support of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009. I
am from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which
is a commonwealth that has a permanent relationship with the
United States. The commonwealth status in the Marianas was
derived from looking at the Puerto Rico status.
Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands have a long
history. We were a part of Spain just prior to the Spanish-
American War, but prior to the covenant approval between the
U.S. and the CNMI, the Political Status Commission had to
decide the future political status for all the people of the
Northern Mariana Islands. This was no easy feat for a group of
Pacific Islanders who had been colonies for hundreds of years,
and by an act of political self-determination, we chose a
permanent relationship with the United States.
We too had a plebiscite to decide whether we wanted to vote
for commonwealth status or reject it with the caveat to
participate in the determination of an alternative future
political status. I feel that H.R. 2499 allows the people of
Puerto Rico more opportunities to define their political
status. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Bishop, who I
might say looks a lot better today than he did last night for
votes. Glad you found your coat and tie.
Mr. Bishop. Yeah, but I can't play softball in this suit,
so I am sorry about that. And Mr. Chairman, we won't talk about
footwear, will we?
The Chairman. No, we won't.
Mr. Bishop. OK, all right. Fair enough.
The Chairman. The Ranking Member, though, wants to know if
you can play without.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. You know, I can get abuse in other places
besides--no.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. I just want to--appreciate your being here. I
appreciate Pedro, what he is doing here, and I just want to
welcome the Governor of Puerto Rico back. It is just not the
same since your office was through the wall of my office, but I
have moved as well, so it is good to have you back here again.
Welcome, and I am looking forward to the testimony, and just
for the record, I think I look good in shorts.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Without objection, all members, of course,
will have the usual opportunity to insert their remarks in the
record, and we will proceed now with our first panel. The first
panel is composed of two of our distinguished colleagues. The
first is from Indiana, The Honorable Dan Burton, and our second
panelist, the new member, I am very happy to have him before us
today, from the great State of Florida, The Honorable Alan
Grayson.
Gentlemen, we welcome you both to the Committee, and as
with all members, we have your prepared testimony. It will be
made part of the record as if actually read. You may proceed in
the manner which you desire. Dan, do you want to go first?
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the picture of our
colleague in shorts really wakes me up this morning.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Burton. I wish you would send a copy of that to my
office.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Burton. Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Hastings,
Governor Fortuno, Governor Romero Barcelo, thank you very much,
all of you, for this hearing and for the hard work that the
Governors have put into this. Puerto Rico has been a U.S.
territory for 111 years and is the longest existing U.S.
territory. Puerto Ricans have fought in all our wars as proud
U.S. citizens. In fact, Puerto Ricans have sent more of their
sons and daughters to serve in the United States military than
all but one other state in the whole union.
Puerto Rico is a very special and significant part of the
makeup of this great nation, and as I have been saying for
years, I believe that they deserve the opportunity to express
their status preference in relation to the United States.
Through this past 111 years, we have been debating what to do
about Puerto Rico, whether it should continue to be a U.S.
territory or whether we should allow the people of Puerto Rico
to work with Congress to determine whether they would like to
have a more permanent status.
We have never given the people of Puerto Rico an
opportunity to declare their preference in this democratic way,
and that is why I am a strong supporter of H.R. 2499, the
Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009, that my friend Resident
Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi has introduced. The Puerto Rico
Democracy Act of 2009 is a fair and democratic piece of
legislation. In simple terms, the bill provides the 4 million
people of Puerto Rico with a chance to determine their own fate
through a two-part popular vote or plebiscite.
During the first part, the Puerto Rican people will vote on
whether to preserve the status quo and remain a U.S. territory
or to pursue a path toward permanent, non-territorial status.
Should they decide to go forth with the latter option, the
second plebiscite would present them with a choice of
independence, sovereignty in association, or it could become
the 51st state of the United States. If the Puerto Rican people
wish to maintain current territorial status, they may, but we
will continue to poll the people of Puerto Rico in years to
come to make sure that that is still what they want.
This bill doesn't force them into anything that they do not
want or something that they may regret 10 or 15 years later,
and that is why I support this bill. Congress should not
dictate to the people of Puerto Rico what is best for them. The
people themselves must be allowed to decide their fate.
Congress doesn't face the same realities day in and day out
that the people of Puerto Rico face, realities like serving in
the United States military without being able to elect its
Commander-in-Chief, and I would just like to make a comment
about that.
For people to serve in this country and give their lives
and risk their lives and put their families through all kinds
of heartache and not be able to vote for the Commander-In-Chief
I think is just almost criminal. So many men and women from
Puerto Rico have given their lives for American freedom but
don't have the opportunity to vote for their President, and
although Congress makes laws that govern Puerto Rico, they have
no voting representation.
Our role in Puerto Rico is to be sure that the Puerto Rican
people are able to determine exactly what it is they want to do
with their great island. It is our responsibility to ensure the
self-determination process is free and fair. We need to provide
the Puerto Rican people the same chance for the full democracy
we advocate for the rest of the world, but first we need to
allow them to tell us how and what they want to do about going
about getting it, and with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very
much. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burton follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana
Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for 111 years, and is the
longest existing U.S. territory. Puerto Ricans have fought in our wars
as proud U.S. citizens. In fact, Puerto Ricans have sent more of their
sons and daughters to serve in the United States military than all but
one other state. Puerto Rico is a very special and significant part of
the makeup of this great nation and, as I have been saying for years, I
believe that they deserve the opportunity to express their status
preference in relation to the United States.
Through this past 111 years, we have been debating what to do about
Puerto Rico; whether it should continue to be a U.S. territory, or
whether we should allow the people of Puerto Rico to work with Congress
to determine whether they would like to have a more permanent status.
We have never given the people of Puerto Rico an opportunity to declare
their preference in this democratic way. That is why I am a strong
supporter of the H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 that
my friend, Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi has introduced.
The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 is a fair and democratic
piece of legislation. In simple terms, the bill provides the four
million people of Puerto Rico with a chance to determine their own
fate, through a two-part popular vote or ``plebiscite.'' During the
first part, the Puerto Rican people will vote to either preserve the
status quo and remain as a U.S. territory, or to pursue a path toward
permanent non-territorial status. Should they decide to go forth with
the latter option, the second plebiscite would present them with the
choice of independence, sovereignty in association, or to become the
51st state of the U.S.
If the Puerto Rican people wish to maintain current territorial
status they may, but we will continue to poll the people of Puerto Rico
in years to come, to make sure that is still what they want. This bill
doesn't force them into anything they do not want, or something they
may regret in 10 or 15 years time. That is why I support this bill.
Congress shouldn't dictate to the Puerto Rican people what is best
for them; the people themselves must be allowed to decide their fate.
Congress doesn't face the same realities day in and day out that the
people of Puerto Rico face; realities like serving in the United States
military without being able to elect its Commander-in-Chief. So many
men and women from Puerto Rico have given their lives for American
freedom, but don't have the opportunity to vote for their President.
And although Congress makes laws that govern Puerto Rico, they have no
voting representation.
Our role in Puerto Rico is to be sure the Puerto Rican people are
able to determine exactly what it is they want to do with their great
island. It is our responsibility to ensure the self-determination
process is free and fair. We need to provide the Puerto Rican people
the same chance for the full democracy we advocate to the rest of the
world, but first we need to allow them to tell us how they want to go
about it.
______
The Chairman. Alan?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN GRAYSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity that you allow me today to testify before the
Committee about this important matter. I am proud to be one of
the original cosponsors of the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of
2009. This legislation is about what is right and about what is
fair. Under this legislation, voters will be asked by Congress
whether they wish to maintain Puerto Rico's present form. If a
majority of the voters cast their ballots and favor a different
political status, the government of Puerto Rico will be
authorized to conduct a second vote among three options,
independence, statehood or sovereignty in association with the
United States.
Since 1898, residents of Puerto Rico have been deprived of
full and equal political representation. Though its residents
are American citizens, the island is not a state and its
residents have no equal voting representation in Congress.
Given the choice, Puerto Ricans might opt to change the
situation. Some in Puerto Rico might opt for statehood for the
island, some might opt for independence, and some might opt for
sovereign association, but Puerto Ricans have never been
invited by Congress to make this choice.
They are American citizens but they are deprived of their
fundamental voting rights. If Puerto Rico were a state, it
would have six representatives in Congress instead of only one
who cannot be the deciding vote on the Floor of the House. If
Puerto Rico were a state, it would have two senators instead of
none. If Puerto Rico were a state, their people could help to
choose our President. Now they cannot. A host of policy
decisions are made in Puerto Rico's name on behalf of Puerto
Rico's people without their full and equal input or consent.
This is deeply, deeply unfair. Whether Puerto Ricans decide
in favor of statehood or not, there is an existing inequality
that needs to be addressed. The people of Puerto Rico could
have more representatives in Congress than they have today,
with or without statehood. While I do not represent Puerto
Rico, there is a very large Puerto Rican population in central
Florida, and I am here because the people of Puerto Rico have
the right to full and equal representation.
Residents of Puerto Rico have laid down their lives in
defense of American democratic values for over nine decades. In
that time, they have never been given the chance to express
their views about their political relationship with the United
States by means of a fair, neutral and democratic process
sponsored by Congress. This must change. Our history, our
American history, is a history of progress toward equality,
diversity and tolerance.
Originally, our Constitution provided that black slaves
counted as only three-fifths of a human being. We needed to
fight a civil war to change that and to end that. In 1958, we
admitted the first state, Hawaii, that was a state, most of
whose people are not white. Now we have a Supreme Court nominee
who is a Puerto Rican and we have our first African-American
president. This is our progress toward equality, diversity and
tolerance. The people of Puerto Rico deserve no less.
In any case, we owe it to them to let them make their
choice. This is what democracy means. This is what freedom
means. Thank you for allowing my testimony before the
Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Alan Grayson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida
Thank you for allowing me to testify before this committee on such
an important matter. This legislation is about what is right and what
is fair.
Since 1898, residents of Puerto Rico have been deprived of full and
equal political representation. Though its residents are American
citizens, the island is not a state, and its residents have no equal
voting representation in Congress. Given the choice, Puerto Ricans
might opt to change this situation. Some in Puerto Rico might opt for
statehood for the island, some might opt for independence, and some
might opt for sovereign association of the status quo. But Puerto
Ricans have never been invited by Congress to make this choice. They
are American citizens, but deprived of voting rights.
If Puerto Rico were a state, it would have six Representatives in
Congress, instead of one who cannot vote on the floor of the House. If
Puerto Rico were a state, it would have two Senators instead of none.
If Puerto Rico were a state, the people there could help choose our
President. Now they cannot. A host of policy decisions are made in
Puerto Rico's name, on behalf of Puerto Rico's people, without their
full and equal input or consent. That is deeply, deeply unfair.
Whether Puerto Ricans decide in favor of statehood or not, there is
an existing inequality that needs to be addressed. The people of Puerto
Rico could have more representatives in Congress than they have today,
with or without statehood.
While I do not represent Puerto Rico, there is a very large Puerto
Rican population in Central Florida. And I'm here because the people on
the island of Puerto Rico have the right to be full and equal
representation. Under this legislation, voters will be asked by
Congress whether they wish to maintain Puerto Rico's present form. If a
majority of voters cast their ballots in favor of a different political
status, the government of Puerto Rico will be authorized to conduct a
second vote among three options: independence, statehood, or
sovereignty in association with the United States.
Residents of Puerto Rico have laid down their lives in defense of
American democratic values for over nine decades. In that time, they
have never been given the chance to express their views about their
political relationship with the United States by means of a fair,
neutral, and democratic process sponsored by Congress. This must
change. I am proud to be one of the original co-sponsors of the Puerto
Rico Democracy Act of 2009.
In any case, we owe it to the people of Puerto Rico to let them
make this choice. This is what democracy means. This is what freedom
means.
Thank you for allowing this testimony before the committee.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. The Chair would also
ask unanimous consent at this point in the record to insert the
statement of our Honorable Majority Leader of the House, Steny
Hoyer, in support of this legislation.
The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Hastings?
Mr. Hastings. I will yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. I want to thank the
witnesses that are going to be on the panel. I notice we have
the distinguished Governors and ex-Governors. This is not a new
subject to this congressman. Everybody knows where I stand on
this issue. I have promoted this bill, passed it through this
Committee and onto the Floor of the House and when I got to the
Floor the day of the vote, we had a 45-vote margin. By the time
the vote was taken, it passed by one vote.
I don't think the issue is, frankly, what we were trying to
do. At that time, it was the English only language that really
killed us and hopefully this won't come up again, but again, I
thank the witnesses. This is something that is long overdue,
and we should do it, give them a chance to do what is right,
give us a chance to do what is right, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for having the hearing. At this time, though, I would
like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record Miriam
J. Ramirez's statement, if I could.
The Chairman. Sure. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Young. And I yield back.
Statement submitted for the record by Miriam J. Ramirez, MD,
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Honorable Nick J. Rahall, Chairman of the Natural Resources
Committee, Honorable Members and staff,
I have prepared this statement with the sincere hope that it is
useful to the Members of this Committee and to other Members of
Congress who need to understand the urgency of Self Determination for
the territory of Puerto Rico; so as to improve the life of the U.S.
Citizens who reside there.
I am very disappointed that no time is available to hear mine and
others' oral testimony during the National Resources Committee
Hearings. Having spent the last 30 years of my life working directly
with Congress and the various White House Administrations on this issue
has given me the experience and knowledge to contribute positively to
the process. I am therefore requesting that my statement be introduced
for the record.
I praise the efforts of Congressman Young and others, who organized
and conducted hearings around the island during the Young Bill
legislative process. Not only hundreds of my fellow citizens were able
to express their views, but the process also served to educate all
involved.
I also urge this Committee to search and analyze the thousands of
pages of documents, including remarkable and expensive studies made by
the GAO, the CRS, the various Administrations and the testimonies of
many in hearings, which have touched and reported on all issues
regarding this process. (I am including a partial list of those at the
end of my written statement).
But, I am not too optimistic. Those who might want to help us will
have to overpower the economic powers that benefit from the actual
relationship of the U.S. with Puerto Rico. They have total control over
our dear island, to the extreme of intervening in our elections and
have participation designing our laws and government programs for their
own convenience. I'm still trying to find out where the many millions
of dollars came from, to lobby and campaign in Congress against the
Young bill.
I am totally convinced, and have tons of material to sustain my
theory, that we would probably be more successful if we held these
hearings and negotiated directly with the immense economic powers that
control Puerto Rico. Perhaps we would be better served by testifying
somewhere in Wall Street, or wherever it is that they have their U.S.
tax shelters offices; be it Brussels or K Street.
Since I know they are monitoring these hearings, I take the
opportunity to offer these Corporations a better deal than what they
have now, which results in bilking the U.S. Treasury. After losing
Section 936, they now came up with the gimmick to operate under the IRS
code as CFC's which gives them tax benefits for operating in a foreign
country. Yes, that's right!
Many of you don't know that CFC's operate in PR under the premise
of being domestic Corporations established in a foreign country. And
GUESS WHAT? The Territory of Puerto Rico is the foreign country they
operate on! BINGO! So you wonder why the status question does not move
in over a hundred years.
While the U.S. Tax payer is unemployed, sweating it out and losing
their homes, the U.S. actually rewards these corporations with tax
benefits to operate in foreign countries and do business! So for them,
it is convenient to convert Puerto Rico, as far as the IRS, to a
foreign country! I have found their fingerprints all over every attempt
at self determination we have had, so as to prevent a process that
would convert Puerto Rico into a state. I beg Congress and: President
Obama's Administration, to give incentives to the so called CFC's to do
their operations in the 50 states plus the U.S. territories.
Take some time out also to see what this gimmick is costing the
U.S. Treasury! And while you're doing that, think of the real cost to
the $10k per capita and double digit unemployment of the U.S. citizens
in Puerto Rico.
The CFC's were once known as the ``Corporate Welfare'' Section 936
companies and they thought a bunch of ladies and old people from Puerto
Rico who lobbied against them were harmless. I guess they never heard
the phrase ``never underestimate your enemy.''
Oh... and I just love to see the leaders, with their generously
funded campaigns, from all parties, recently helping them to lobby to
get better tax credits under said IRS Code. They justify their actions
saying it helps the economy. If you believe that, I'd like to sell you
a bridge I have in San Francisco.
Have you been informed that all elected leaders in Puerto Rico,
from all parties, have reached a very good consensus on that issue?
That's right... those leaders who never seem to reach consensus on
anything are now peaches and cream in a united front to raise the
benefits for the CFC's!!
But, relax! I have come up with a way to stop all the fighting and
bring my BP down. After all, I am now a 68 years old retired medical
doctor and lately I have had some difficulty raising the trillions of
$$ needed to beat the CFC's which we beat before when they had a
different disguise..
Therefore, I will use this opportunity to formally ask these
companies to join us in our quest for Statehood. I will personally work
with them to negotiate a good enabling act that will allow them to
operate with benefits until PR's economy comes at par with the rest of
the states.
I also advise them to think twice before refusing my offer... Some
in Washington are very familiar with my persistence and determination.
REGARDING H.R. 2499:
I have studied the language on the bill and consulted with many of
my legal advisors and constitutional experts. We have come to the
conclusion that it is probably the worst designed bill that has been
introduced in Congress to provide for a process of Self Determination
for Puerto Rico, We supported Congressman's Serrano's Bill, the Puerto
Rico Democracy Act of 2007 and cannot understand why it was not re-
introduced.
As it now appears, H.R.2499 promises to be the worst and most
confusing bill ever presented thus far in Congress. If approved as it
is, I am sure the people of Puerto Rico will not know, or make an
informed decision on what they are voting for.
I will assume that the bill in this language is the result of
inexperience. However, I cannot discard that this might be a well
planned concocted process, controlled by those who are served well
economically by Puerto Rico's actual relationship, with the purpose of
legalizing the status quo,
In order to resolve the obvious defects of H.R. 2499, we suggest
the following language to substitute language in H.R. 2499:
SEC. 2. FEDERALLY SANCTIONED PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICO'S SELF-
DETERMINATION.
SEC. 2. (a) First Plebiscite--The Government of Puerto Rico is
authorized to conduct a plebiscite in Puerto Rico. The 2 options set
forth on the ballot shall be preceded by the following statement:
`Instructions: Mark one of the following 2 options:
`(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of
political status. If you agree, mark here XX.
`(2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you
agree, mark here XX.'.
PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE:
SEC. 2. (a) Plebiscite--The Puerto Rico State Elections Commission
shall conduct a plebiscite in Puerto Rico not later than December 31,
2010. The two options set forth on the ballot shall be preceded by the
following statement:
Instructions: Mark one of the following two options:
(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have a territorial relationship
with the United States. If you agree, mark here __
(2) Puerto Rico should pursue a constitutionally-viable permanent
non-territorial status. If you agree, mark here __
Reasoning behind decision to strike out Sections 2.a (1) and (2)
The phrase ``present form of political status'' will confuse people
in Puerto Rico into thinking that the present relationship has been
defined as an acceptable permanent status by Congress.
By changing the first question, Sec. a(2) makes sense.
SEC. 2 (b) Procedure if Majority in First Plebiscite Favors Option 1--
If a majority of the ballots in the plebiscite are cast in
favor of Option 1, the Government of Puerto Rico is authorized
to conduct additional plebiscites under subsection (a) at
intervals of every 8 years from the date that the results of
the prior plebiscite are certified under section 3(d).
PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE:
SEC. 2 (b) Procedure if Majority in First Plebiscite Favors Option 1--
If a majority of the ballots in the plebiscite are cast in
favor of Option 1, the Government of Puerto Rico is authorized
to conduct additional plebiscites as deemed necessary.
Reasoning behind decision to strike out (b):
Congress should not, by law, rule legislate intervals of eight
years before the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico can initiate a self
determination process.
SEC. (c) Procedure if Majority in First Plebiscite Favors Option 2--If
a majority of the ballots in a plebiscite conducted pursuant to
subsection (a) or (b) are cast in favor of Option 2, the Government of
Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct a plebiscite on the following 3
options:
(1) Independence: Puerto Rico should become fully independent from
the United States. If you agree, mark here __
(2) Sovereignty in Association with the United States: Puerto Rico
and the United States should form a political association between
sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of
the United States Constitution. If you agree, mark here XX.
(3) Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of the
Union. If you agree, mark here XX. completely and keep (1) and (3).
Reasoning behind decision to striking out all of Sec. C.(2):
People already voted on the territorial relationship in the first
question.
A sovereign association with the U.S. cannot be negotiated into
permanent status.
WARNING
If the language for (Sec. c.2) remains as is, the following may be
heard during the campaign pre-referendum process:
``Sovereignty in Association with the United States:''
(WOW! That means I will keep getting food coupons, welfare, Pell
grants, and unemployment and continue not paying taxes permanently?
YEAH! I'm voting for that one!)
``Puerto Rico and the United States should form a political
association between sovereign nations ``
(This gets better... that means I will keep my U.S. citizenship,
with all its benefits! Is this permanent? Whadda you mean No? I don't
believe you... Congress passed that bill!)
On ....``That will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the
United States Constitution. If you agree, mark here''.
(Great! Then we will be under some other section of the U.S.
Constitution! NO? Then why is that mentioned? ``.I don't believe you.
Can someone from Congress clarify please?)
Our heartfelt and sincere thanks to our friends and heroes,
President George H.W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, President George W.
Bush, and Congressmen Don Young, Dan Burton, Elton Gallegly, Jose
Serrano, Bob Lagomarsino, and to our dedicated friends, Mr. Manase
Mansur, Mr. Jeffrey Farrow, Mr. Andrew Card, and Mr. Ruben Barrales,
who with many others, have dedicated an outstanding portion of their
time trying to help the people of Puerto Rico.
Oh, and if you decide to have a hearing to hear the people, please
include me. In the meantime I am adding to my statement, a summary of
historical data that I hope may be useful to you.
Thank you,
Miriam J. Ramirez MD
______
Dr. Miriam J. Ramirez is Past Vice President of the New Progressive
Party in Puerto Rico until her resignation in November of 2008. She was
also National Committeewoman for the Republican Party in Puerto Rico,
President of the Republican Women of Puerto Rico and former Puerto Rico
State Senator (2000-2004).
In addition; of founder and President of Puerto Ricans in Civic
Action, a non-partisan organization working to secure political and
economic equality for the four (4) million United States citizens
resident on the island and who delivered 350,000 individually signed
petitions to Congress to address the statehood issue.
Since 1982, Dr. Ramirez spearheaded the grassroots lobbying efforts
of the group in the United States Congress. She was instrumental in
scaling back Section 936 tax exempt benefits in the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993. Tax Sparing benefits have played a
significant role, and influence, in the political and economic life of
Puerto Rico. She was also instrumental in the introduction and passage
of H.R.856, also known as the Young Bill.
Dr. Ramirez also spearheaded the effort to support of the
permanence and training of the U.S. Armed Forces and the Navy in
Vieques, Puerto Rico.
Dr. Ramirez, is an Army brat, a widow, a mother of five children,
cherishes six grandchildren and is retired from a gynecological medical
practice located in Puerto Rico.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0610.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0610.006
HISTORICAL EVENTS REGARDING PUERTO RICO'S RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE UNITED STATES
Treaty Of Paris: December 10, 1898
Article II--Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States.
Article IX--``In case they (Spanish subjects) they remain in the
territory they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by
making before a court of record, within a year from the date of the
exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their
decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration
they shall be held to have renounced it and to have adopted the
nationality of the territory in which the may reside. The civil rights
and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories
hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the
Congress.''
First Organic Act Of Puerto Rico--1900
Enacted temporarily to provide revenues and civil government for
Puerto Rico, and for other purposes
Section 7: ``That all inhabitants continuing to reside therein who
were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred
and ninety-nine (April 11, 1899) and then resided in Puerto Rico, and
their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be
citizens of Puerto Rico, and as such entitled to the protection of the
United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their
allegiance to the Crown of Spain on or before the eleventh day of April
nineteen hundred, in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of
peace between the United States and Spain entered into on the eleventh
day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety nine;''
Organic Act Of 1917, As Amended ( Jones Act )
Section 5: That all citizens of Puerto Rico, as defined by section
seven of the Act of April 12th, nineteen hundred...... and are not
citizens of any foreign country, are hereby declared, and shall be
deemed and held to be, citizens of the United States.''
Public Law 600--Approved by the 81st. Congress, July 3, 1950
ADDENDUM
HISTORICAL CONGRESSIONAL AND EXECUTIVE ACTIONS
REGARDING THE STATUS OF PUERTO RICO.
Roosevelt Administration: (1933-1945)
As a result of a personal relationship between then Senator Munoz
Marin (the ``creator'' of Commonwealth ) and a reporter by the name of
Ruby Black, and in turn through this reporter's close relationship with
Mrs. Roosevelt, they convinced President Roosevelt that in the 40's,
Puerto Rico was on a verge of a revolution.
Munoz also enlisted the support of then Secretary of Interior,
Harold Ickes, who sent President Roosevelt a memo on March 3, 1943,
urging him to announce the decision to order a revision of the Organic
Act so as to provide for the election of a governor. He recommended
Munoz Marin as the leader of the Puerto Rican group. Finally on March
5, 1943, Pres. Roosevelt sends a letter to Congress urging the revision
of the Organic Act.
Truman Administration: (1945-52)
1947--Congress authorized the people of Puerto Rico to elect their
own governor.
1949--Under President Truman, Munoz Marin became the first elected
governor of Puerto Rico. (By now Munoz Marin is the man with good ties
to Washington.) He succeeds in convincing President Truman that the
people of Puerto Rico be allowed to adopt a Constitution.
1950--A bill, S. 3336, was introduced in Congress to authorize the
people of Puerto Rico to adopt their own Constitution and to organize a
local government.
Senate Report No. 1779 and the House Report No. 2275 of S. 3336
(Pgs. 2682-2683) ``It is important that the nature and general
scope of S. 3336 be made absolutely clear. The bill under
consideration would not change Puerto Rico's fundamental,
political, social and economical relationship to the United
States. Those sections of the Organic Act of Puerto Rico
pertaining to the political, social, and economic relationship
of the United States and Puerto Rico concerning such matters as
the applicability of United States laws, customs, internal
revenue, Federal judicial jurisdiction in Puerto Rico, Puerto
Rican representation by a Resident Commissioner, etc., would
remain in force and effect, and upon enactment of S. 3336 would
be referred to as the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act. The
sections of the Organic Act which section 5 of the bill would
repeal are the provisions of the act concerned primarily with
the organization of the local executive, legislative, and
judicial branches of the government of Puerto Rico and other
matters of purely local concern''.
(Pg. 2684) ``Puerto Rico is unincorporated territory''
(Pg. 2684) Sen. Joseph C. O'Mahoney said: ``Nor will it in any
way preclude a future determination by the Congress of Puerto
Rico's ultimate status. The bill merely authorizes the people
of Puerto Rico to adopt their own constitution and to organize
a local government
1950--Public Law 600--Approved by the 81st. Congress July 3,
1950
1951--President Truman writes Governor Munoz:
``It gives me great pleasure to receive word from you that the
overwhelming majority of the voters of Puerto Rico desire to
draft their own constitution.''... ``It seems to me in fairness
to the people of Puerto Rico, that only when these economic and
social goals are clearly in sight can they decide as to what
ultimate relationship with the United States they desire.''
1952--Resolution 22:
The PDP controlled Puerto Rico Constitutional Convention
purposely approves an erroneous translation of Commonwealth
into ``Free Associated State'' (Estado Libre Asociado).
1953--January 16: (THE UNITED NATIONS)
Gov. Munoz exerts political pressure on President Truman, days
before Truman leaves the Presidency on January 19, 1953, to
inform the United Nations that Puerto Rico should not be
included among the non-self governing areas. Truman does this,
hours before leaving office, on the eve of Eisenhower's
swearing in ceremony.
Eisenhower Administration: (1953-1960)
(This is exactly the moment in history when Munoz Marin and the
Commonwealth Party, truly begins to misinform Washington and the people
of Puerto Rico, regarding Puerto Rico's relationship with the US.)
Puerto Rico's Resident Commissioner, at Munoz' urging,
introduces the Fernos-Murray bill to culminate Commonwealth.
Its pretensions were so outrageous that it was defeated in
Congress.
January 17, 1953:
Governor Munoz sent a letter to the President Eisenhower, who
swore office on January 19th, where he misconstrues the facts
on Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States.
Among other things, the letter said:.
``On July 25, 1952, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was
formally installed in response to the wish of an overwhelming
majority of the people of Puerto Rico pursuant to a compact
between them and the Government of the United States. Puerto
Rico became a Commonwealth in free and voluntary association
with the United States.''
False: The United States did not create a status in the
nature of a compact with Law 600.
``In the 1948 elections the three alternatives were fully
presented to the electorate by the three main political
parties''. The preference of the people, expressed in an
election which was as democratic as any in the world, was
unmistakably expressed in favor of the third alternative: a
free commonwealth associated with the United States on the
basis of mutual consent.
False: No plebiscite on the status formulas was ever held
in Puerto Rico until 1967. The 1948 election was a general election,
authorized by Congress, where the people were given for the first time
the opportunity to elect a governor in Puerto Rico.
``Their choice is aptly summed up in the Spanish name for the
new body politic, ``Estado Libre Asociado. On July 3, 1950, the
81st. Congress enacted Public Law 600. This was, in effect, an
offer by the Congress to the people of Puerto Rico, which we
might accept or reject, to enter into a compact defining the
status of Puerto Rico and the relationship between the
respective communities.''
False: The Constitutional Convention specified that Free
Associated State would signify Commonwealth, not a compact of free
association. No public hearings were held for Law 600, and the House
and Senate Reports on Law 600 specifically say that Puerto Rico's
status would not change.
``Our status and the terms of our association with the united
States cannot be changed without our full consent''
False: Law 600 in no way precluded a future determination
by the Congress of Puerto Rico's ultimate status
``The government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will be
ready at all times to cooperate with the United States in
seeking to advance the purposes and principles of the United
Nations.''
False: The United States citizens in Puerto Rico do not
``Cooperate with the United States'' we are part of the United States
and as such, have fought in all wars since World War I.
Governor Munoz Marin, the man in charge of federal funds and
programs since Roosevelt's New Deal, was too powerful in Puerto Rico
for anyone to question his party's assertions.
Kennedy Administration: (1961-1963)
Through Governor Munoz Marin, relationship with the Democrat Party
and President John Kennedy, the PDP Party pushed for a ``new compact''
with greater powers for Puerto Rico.
When this was proposed to the Kennedy Administration, Harold F.
Reiss, a member of Robert Kennedy's staff said:--If that's what you
want, ask for independence and we'll favor it.''
(Puerto Rico--Whither Commonwealth? J. Garcia Pasalacqua, Orbis,
Vol 15 #3, 1971) According to Pasalacqua, all efforts between 1959 and
1969, to make permanent the creation of Commonwealth permanent, failed.
1961: THE KENNEDY MEMORANDUM
The political relationship of the Munoz administration with
President Kennedy paid off. He issued a Presidential Memorandum
in 1961, based on information given to him by Munoz, which
called Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States
``unique'' and in the nature of a ``compact.''
Johnson Administration: (1964-1968)
As a mandate left from the Kennedy Administration, a Commission
on Status was created to look into the status issue. This
Commission was composed of Members of Congress and appointed
individuals from Puerto Rico.
During the Congressional debate, the Congressmen noted in their
findings, that PR Law 95 would be a safety net for the people
since it provided for a plebiscite by petitions from the
people, if the people wanted a change in status. However, when
the Law calling for a plebiscite in 1967 was passed by the
local legislature, they derogated Law 95 so as to take away
that right from the United States citizens in Puerto Rico.
Note: All of our efforts to have Law 95 reintroduced from 1980 to
1992, failed. We were blocked by the PDP's Resident
Commissioner at the time. This would give a powerful tool to
the UJS citizens in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue
1967--A locally defined plebiscite was held in 1967 where,
even though commonwealth was defined with all the privileges of
a state of the Union without taxation, statehood received a
good number of votes. With extraordinary benefits without
taxation, Commonwealth won easily. The Republican statehood
party and many statehooders boycotted the process, claiming it
was stacked and would not solve the final status for Puerto
Rico. Under Luis Ferre, a group of statehooders bolted from the
Republican Party and participated in the plebiscite.
From that moment on, the information on Puerto Rico became very
confusing, both for members of the United States Congress and for the
Executive branch. This alteration of the historical facts regarding the
political relationship of Puerto Rico with the United States created
the turbulent atmosphere from where Congress started new discussions in
1985.
The pro-statehood groups organized in a new political party, called
the New Progressive Party (NPP), which won the 1968 elections and Luis
Ferre became Governor. The NPP did not initiate any processes during
the next 20 years to further the debate and achieve Congressional
action to resolve the Status of Puerto Rico.
It is no wonder that people in Washington and in Puerto Rico are
confused about the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United
States. This has been a well planned process, which goes back fifty
years, to attempt to by pass the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the
United States, to create a unique unconstitutional status for the
territory of Puerto Rico, without the U.S. approval or the people
voting for it.
1967-1985 No significant status actions were made either by Congress
or the Executive.
Reagan Administration: (1981-1988)
1985--Puerto Ricans in Civic Action, a grassroots
organization organized in Puerto Rico which delivered 350,000
petitions for Statehood to the United States Congress. This
effort sparked the discussion and definite actions by Congress.
As a first response, Congressman Robert Lagomarsino and Senator
Bob Dole introduced similar bills in the House and Senate to
discuss statehood for Puerto Rico. Congressional action has
continued until today.
George H.W. Bush Administration: (1989-1992)
President Bush mentioned Puerto Rico in his first State
of the Union message at the request of Puerto Ricans in Civic Action.
Senator Bennett Johnston introduced a bill in the Senate
to discuss Puerto Rico's status. This effort failed when then Governor
of Puerto Rico, Hernandez Colon, President of the Popular Democratic
Party (PDP), bolted from the process because of the PDP's
unsatisfaction with Congress' definition of Commonwealth.
BUSH MEMORANDUM--President Bush signs a new Memorandum,
derogating the Kennedy Memorandum, to clarify Puerto Rico's
relationship with the United States to the various agencies.
William Clinton Administration: (1993-2000)
Created the Task Force on Puerto Rico at the request of
then Governor Pedro Rossello.
George W. Bush Administration: (2001-2008)
TASK FORCE REPORT--President Bush continued the work
begun by his predecessor and ordered the Task Force to deliver a final
report. This was presented in December 2005 and is the topic of this
Committee's hearing today.
______
The Chairman. The gentleman from Puerto Rico?
Mr. Pierluisi. Unless we are going to be posing questions,
I am fine. I just want to thank both of you for appearing. It
is my privilege to have both of you as cosponsors, and so this
is a good day for Puerto Rico, and I am happy you are being
part of it.
The Chairman. Do any members wish to ask questions of their
colleagues? What did you say, Don? If not, then gentlemen, we
thank you very much. Of course, as our fellow colleagues, you
are welcome to join the Committee if you wish and listen to the
remaining witnesses and participate however fashion you wish.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman, as we leave the table, I would
just like to say, I hope all of my colleagues get a chance to
go and visit Puerto Rico and talk to the people down there. I
think if they do, they will have a very positive attitude about
Puerto Rico and what they really should be doing.
The Chairman. The Chair will second those comments. OK,
thank you, gentlemen. I will now call up panel number two,
composed of our former dear colleague yet still dear friend and
a member of this Committee on Natural Resources, now the
Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno. Governor, we are happy
to have you with us today. We appreciate your many visits back
to your old stomping grounds to work on this issue and your
dedicated leadership on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico.
We do have your prepared testimony. It will be made part of
the record as if actually read, and you may proceed as you
desire. Luis?
STATEMENT OF LUIS G. FORTUNO,
GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you Mr. Chairman and certainly Ranking
Member Hastings and the other members of the Committee for the
opportunity to appear before this Committee to express my
support of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009.
Mr. Chairman, I appear before you as Governor of Puerto Rico.
As you know, I am also President of the New Progressive Party,
which advocates statehood as a final solution for the island's
more than a century old status issue, but today, as Governor, I
appear before this Committee in representation of all of the
residents of the island.
I have asked former Governor and former Resident
Commissioner and long-time member of this Committee, Carlos
Romero Barcelo, to present the official position of the New
Progressive Party, and he will do so later on this morning. Mr.
Chairman and Ranking Member Hastings, I want to commend both of
you for your leadership in bringing forward the discussion of
this fundamental issue of American democracy. I also want to
thank, commend Resident Commissioner Pierluisi for his
leadership in introducing this bill, thus bringing his 4
million strong constituency of disenfranchised American
citizens one step closer to true self-determination.
As you know, the right of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico
to decide their political future was one of my priorities when
I served in Congress and on this Committee from 2005 until last
year when I was elected Governor, and continues to be a top
priority of my administration. For that reason, I was
especially grateful to President Obama for his commitment, the
commitment he expressed not just to me, but the people of
Puerto Rico on the occasion of my inauguration as Governor, to
work together to ensure that the issue of Puerto Rico's
ultimate political status is finally resolved during the first
four years of his administration.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit
President Obama's letter for the record along with my entire
written testimony.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Fortuno. Mr. Chairman, the reasons to support this bill
are so self-evident they should not have to be argued. 233
years after the Declaration of Independence, and 220 after the
ratification of the U.S. Constitution, our nation continues to
sanction an arrangement of governance over 4 million of its
citizens that is abhorrent to the sacred principles enshrined
in that declaration because of the anachronistic survival of
the territory clause of that Constitution.
That quandary of American democracy must come to an end. It
is the right thing to do, and the time to do it is now.
Whatever may have been the role of this territorial system in
the birth and growth of our nation, the fact is that our
founding fathers never intended it as a permanent way of
governance for the Federal government over the citizens of the
republic. More importantly, it clearly offends the values of
American democracy in the 21st century, especially after
Congress has allowed such an inherently undemocratic system to
remain in place without expressly providing the governed the
opportunity to voice their opinion.
Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for 111 years and its
residents have been U.S. citizens since 1917. Yet, Congress has
never formally consulted us about our preferences regarding the
island's political status. Not once. With this bill, it would.
It should. It is the right thing to do. Though surely Puerto
Ricans have expressed their views on the island's political
status before. In fact, some members may think that is all we
do when we come here.
Indeed, for far too long all Congress has had to do is
listen courteously from time to time, but it has never asked
directly the 4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico what they
think, and asking makes all the difference in the world. It
invests you in the process in a way that just listening does
not. Puerto Ricans have made myriad contributions to the
nation, both in peace and in wartime, as thousands of our sons
and daughters have laid down their lives in defense of American
democratic values for over nine decades.
Yet, we have never been given the chance to express our
views about our political relationship with the United States
in the context of a fair, neutral and democratic process
sponsored by Congress. This bill will, at long last, give us
that chance. What could be more right? The bill provides for a
just and impartial process of self-determination for Puerto
Rico. The legislation does not exclude or favor any status
option. It allows the people of Puerto Rico to maintain the
island's present territorial status if they so choose.
If they do, the bill provides for periodic plebiscites to
ask the question again, thus underscoring the sense of the
Congress that our territorial status is, by nature,
nonpermanent. But if instead the people of Puerto Rico opt for
change, then they must choose among the three constitutionally
valid, permanent non-territorial options of statehood,
independence, or sovereignty in association with the United
States. No smoke or mirrors allowed.
In short, the bill enables the people of Puerto Rico to
express their wishes regarding the island's political status
directly, in the ballot box, through a series of democratic
votes that will ensure that the views of all the people are
heard on this fundamental question. Mr. Chairman, over the
years the congressional record has been filled with testimony
that explains why it is both crucial and urgent for the people
of Puerto Rico to finally resolve the political status issue.
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. Despite the influx
of some $20 billion in overall Federal assistance every year,
Puerto Rico's chronic economic underperformance in comparison
to the national standard continues to be a source of bitter
disappointment. This economic reality translates into human
discouragement over unrealized dreams that continue to force
thousands of my constituents every month to move to the
mainland in search of better opportunities and equality.
Thus, we have forged and overall and growing consensus in
Puerto Rico that our current relationship with the United
States--territorial, unequal in the rights and duties of its
citizens, not fully democratic, not fully self-governing and
not fully consensual--no longer serves either Puerto Rico or
the U.S. well. But Mr. Chairman, the urgency over this matter
is not only Puerto Rico's, but the nation's. As the enemies of
our country seek to question our moral leadership around the
world, America must ensure that it continues to lead by
example, and it must do so boldly, as President Reagan did in
Berlin when he challenged President Gorbachev to dismantle the
Iron Curtain, or as President Obama has done recently reminding
us repeatedly that America must live true to its values and
that support for democracy begins right here at home.
The importance of the U.S. leading by example by holding
itself to the same standards it demands of others is no less
applicable in the case of Puerto Rico. If anything, more so,
precisely because Puerto Ricans are proud American citizens.
Yet, the American citizens of Puerto Rico are separated from
their counterparts in the States by a wall of political
inequality built upon the foundation of our current territorial
status.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to tear down that wall. I urge the
Committee to favorably consider H.R. 2499. It is the right
thing to do, and the very least that the 4 million U.S.
citizens of Puerto Rico deserve. Thank you very much, and thank
you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fortuno follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Luis G. Fortuno,
Governor of Puerto Rico
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Hastings for the
opportunity to appear before this Committee to express my support of
H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009.
Mr. Chairman, I appear before you as Governor of Puerto Rico. As
you know, I am also the president of the New Progressive Party, which
advocates statehood as the final solution for the island's more-than-a-
century-old status issue. But today, as Governor, I appear before this
Committee in representation of all the residents of the island. I have
asked former Governor and former Resident Commissioner--and long-time
member of this Committee--Carlos Romero-Barcelo to present the official
position of the New Progressive Party and he will do so later on this
morning.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Hastings, I want to commend both of
you for your leadership in bringing fore the discussion of this
fundamental issue of American democracy. I also want to commend
Resident Commissioner Pierluisi for his leadership in introducing this
bill, thus bringing his four million-strong constituency of
disenfranchised American citizens one step closer to true self-
determination.
As you know, the right of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico to
decide their political future was one of my priorities when I served in
Congress and on this Committee from 2005 until last year--when I was
elected Governor--and continues to be a top priority of my
administration. For that reason, I was especially grateful to President
Obama for the commitment he expressed not just to me, but to the people
of Puerto Rico, on the occasion of my inauguration as Governor, to work
together to ensure that the issue of Puerto Rico's ultimate political
status is finally resolved during the first four years of his
Administration.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit
President Obama's letter for the record along with my entire written
testimony.
Mr. Chairman, the reasons to support this bill are so self-evident
they should not have to be argued. Two hundred and thirty three years
after the Declaration of Independence and two hundred and twenty after
the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, our Nation continues to
sanction an arrangement of governance over four million of its citizens
that is abhorrent to the sacred principles enshrined in that
Declaration because of the anachronistic survival of the Territory
Clause of that Constitution. That quandary of American democracy must
come to an end. It is the right thing to do. And the time to do it is
now.
Whatever may have been the role of the territorial system in the
birth and growth of our Nation, the fact is that our Founding Fathers
never intended it as a permanent way of governance by the federal
government over the citizens of the Republic. More importantly, it
clearly offends the values of American democracy in the 21st century,
especially as Congress has allowed such an inherently undemocratic
system to remain in place without expressly providing the governed the
opportunity to voice their opinion.
Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for 111 years and its
residents have been U.S. citizens since 1917. Yet Congress has never
formally consulted us about our preferences regarding the Island's
political status. Not once. With this bill it would. It should. It is
the right thing to do.
Oh, surely Puerto Ricans have expressed their views on the Island's
political status question before. In fact, some Members may think
that's all we do when we come here. Indeed, for far too long all
Congress has had to do is to listen courteously from time to time. But
it has never asked directly the four million U.S. citizens in Puerto
Rico what they think--and asking makes all the difference in the world.
It invests you in the process in a way that just listening does not.
Puerto Ricans have made myriad contributions to the Nation, both in
peace and in wartime--as thousands of our sons and daughters have laid
down their lives in defense of American democratic values for over nine
decades. Yet, we have never been given the chance to express our views
about our political relationship with the United States in the context
of a fair, neutral and democratic process sponsored by the Congress.
This bill will, at long last, give us that chance. What could be more
right?
The bill provides for a just and impartial process of self-
determination for Puerto Rico. The legislation does not exclude or
favor any status option. It allows the people of Puerto Rico to
maintain the island's present territorial status, if they so choose. If
they do, the bill provides for periodic plebiscites to ask the question
again, thus underscoring the sense of the Congress that our territorial
status is, by nature, non-permanent. But if instead the people of
Puerto Rico opt for change, then they must choose among the three
constitutionally valid, permanent, non-territorial options of
statehood, independence or sovereignty in association with the United
States. No smoke and mirrors allowed.
In short, the bill enables the people of Puerto Rico to express
their wishes regarding the Island's political status directly, in the
ballot box, through a series of democratic votes that will ensure that
the views of all the people are heard on this fundamental question.
Mr. Chairman, over the years the Congressional Record has been
filled with testimony that explains why it is both crucial and urgent
for the people of Puerto Rico to finally resolve the political status
issue.
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.
Despite the influx of some $20 billion in overall federal
assistance every year, Puerto Rico's chronic economic under-
performance, in comparison to every national standard, continues to be
a source of bitter disappointment. This economic reality translates
into human discouragement over unrealized dreams that continue to force
thousands of my constituents every month to move to the mainland in
search of better opportunities and equality.
Thus, we have forged an overall and growing consensus in Puerto
Rico that our current relationship with the U.S.--territorial, unequal
in the rights and duties of citizenship, not fully democratic, not
fully self-governing and not fully consensual--no longer serves either
Puerto Rico or the U.S. well.
H.R. 2499 is about the right of the inhabitants of Puerto Rico to
self-determination as a means to achieve a full measure of self-
government. But the issues before this Committee are not whether Puerto
Rico is an ``unincorporated territory''; what is the meaning of the
phrase ``in the nature of a compact'' included in Public Law 600; or
whether the so-called ``enhanced Commonwealth'' would be subject to the
Territory Clause of the Constitution.
Puerto Rico's political status problem is neither complex nor
difficult to solve. It only takes principled leadership.
The fundamental issue that the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009
brings before Congress is the significance of American citizenship and
it puts before you one simple question: did the framers of our
Constitution intend American citizenship to be a source of equal
rights?
The action required from Congress will plainly derive from the
answer--and one would hope not to find a single Member of Congress that
says the answer is ``no'', or that ``it depends.''
The answer was clearly and unequivocally ``yes'' when the Civil War
was fought to end slavery...``yes'' when women were recognized the
right to vote...and ``yes'' when the Supreme Court decided that
separate was not equal.
Clearly, the framers of the Constitution did not intend some
American citizens to be deprived of rights that other American citizens
enjoy. And yet Puerto Rico is a community of American citizens who are
deprived of the most basic rights of citizenship in a representative
democracy: the right to vote and the right to be represented in the
political body that enacts the laws by which they must abide.
Thus, the consequence of not taking action would be to renounce the
principles of the Declaration of Independence and to devalue the rights
recognized in the Constitution into a rhetorical expression. Is this
Nation not dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal?
And are not all citizens guaranteed the equal protection of the laws?
But, Mr. Chairman, the urgency over this matter is not only Puerto
Rico's, but the Nation's. As the enemies of our country seek to
question our moral leadership around the World, America must ensure
that it continues to lead by example. And it must do so boldly--as
President Reagan did in Berlin when he challenged President Gorbachev
to dismantle the Iron Curtain. Or as President Obama has done recently
reminding us repeatedly that America must live true to its values and
that support for democracy begins at home.
The importance of the U.S. leading by example by holding itself to
the same standards it demands of others is no less applicable in the
case of Puerto Rico; if anything, more so precisely because Puerto
Ricans are American citizens. Yet the American citizens of Puerto Rico
are separated from their counterparts in the States by a wall of
political inequality built upon the foundation of our current
territorial status. Mr. Chairman, it's time to tear down that wall.
I urge the Committee to favorably consider H.R. 2499. It is the
right thing to do...and the very least that the four million U.S.
citizens of Puerto Rico deserve.
Thank you very much.
______
[The letter from President-Elect Barack Obama submitted for
the record by Mr. Fortuno follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0610.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0610.002
The Chairman. Thank you, Governor, for your superb
testimony and the excellent points made therein. I would note
as well that this is not the only issue that you come visit me
or other Members of Congress. You as well as your predecessors
have visited with me in my capacity as Vice Chairman of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as well, in regard
to your unique transportation problems in Puerto Rico, and
other issues, but your leadership and your dedication to the
people of Puerto Rico are to be highly commended.
I have no specific questions. I will recognize the
gentleman from Washington, Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. President,
good seeing you again. I just have two questions. The first one
would be on the second plebiscite where this legislation
eliminates the option of commonwealth, and I would just like
you to respond to that. I know the Resident Commissioner did
that, but I would like you to respond to that because I know it
is something that is heavily discussed within Puerto Rico, so
if you would respond to that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Fortuno. Sure. Let me tell you something. I believe
that the reason why we come here is because the 4 million U.S.
citizens that I represent deserve a fair playing field to
express their feelings as to their status, and only Congress
can provide for that, and what we have done is make sure that,
first of all, understand whether the people of Puerto Rico want
change or not. It may be that the voters will decide that they
want to remain a territory.
If they decide to do so, then so be it. However, if we
decide for change, there are only three viable options, and
actually, I refer you to this Committee's report dated April
22, 2008, where actually it states very clearly that there are
only three options acceptable under the U.S. Constitution. One
is statehood and there are 50 extremely successful examples of
that. There is independence, and there are over 200 examples of
that. Some are successful, some are not.
And then the third one is nationhood in free association
with the United States, which means that it could be
unilaterally terminable by either side, and that is very clear
and actually three different administrations under Republicans
and Democrats, the Justice Department, the GAO and this
Congress have stated so clearly. I will go even further. In
this bill, 2499, there are three options if we decide we want
change. One is statehood, one is independence, as cited here,
and then the other one is that association of two sovereign
nations.
The platform presented by the second largest party in
Puerto Rico stated very clearly that they were moving in that
direction, and actually, the language in this bill is taken
from their platform. So, it is taken from what they proposed to
the people of Puerto Rico less than a year ago. I would hope
that they would not come here today to argue against what they
proposed to the people of Puerto Rico less than 12 months ago.
So we are being fair. These are exactly what the different
three parties of Puerto Rico have proposed to the voters, and
the voters, less than 12 months ago, very clearly stated that
they wanted to express themselves directly in the ballot box
through a plebiscite.
That was one of the main issues in our campaign, and the
other main opposition parties stated that they wanted a
different vehicle for that, and Mr. Pierluisi and I clearly
stated that if you voted for us, we would come here to ask for
a congressionally mandated process.
Mr. Hastings. I appreciate the President's response to
that, and my second question, I know we have votes going on,
H.R. 2499 removes the constitutional convention. The most two
recent states that were introduced, as alluded to by our friend
from Tennessee, Alaska and Hawaii did have that. That is not
involved here, and I would just like your response on that
also.
Mr. Fortuno. Sure, and I thank you for that question. First
of all, Mr. Pierluisi and I in our respective campaigns stated
that we wanted the people to express themselves directly,
through the ballot box, in the same way we do it here in every
state, in the same way we have asked and promoted that the
people of Iraq and Afghanistan do so. It is not through
conventions, but through a direct vote. So in that sense, that
was our commitment. We won by the largest margin in two
generations in Puerto Rico, so that is the mandate that we got
from the people of Puerto Rico.
They want to express themselves. I saw a poll recently
about this issue, and not only do most people want to express
themselves directly, but actually, 74 percent believe that it
is a very important issue. So, we are coming here, not because
we have a special interest on this issue. It is because our
constituents believe it is very important. Just imagine, these
are 4 million U.S. citizens that actually, as Mr. Burton so
eloquently put it this morning, actually we have contributed
more of our men and women in uniform to war than any other
state but one, and every time I would sit here and I would
leave to visit our soldiers at Walter Reed, my question will
actually come back to haunt me: Why couldn't these men or women
in uniform, just for the fact that they are from Puerto Rico,
they could not elect their Commander-In-Chief?
That is morally wrong in the 21st century. If we are going
around the world declaring that democratic values should be
preserved, we must start at home, and this is the way to do it.
Mr. Hastings. I thank you for your consideration and your
time and thank you for your response.
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you.
The Chairman. As the gentleman from Washington noted, we do
have votes going on now on the Floor of the House. I am going
to have to excuse myself to attend that and then a mark-up in
our Transportation Committee, and I am going to ask the
gentlelady from Guam if she would be so kind as to continue the
hearing so that we don't disparage our witnesses' time, and we
will not recess but continue this hearing under the gentlelady
from Guam's leadership.
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And before I leave, I will recognize the
gentleman from Puerto Rico for his questions.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Governor Fortuno. Thank you for
your service to Puerto Rico, for your friendship and for your
testimony this morning. I only have one question for you.
Sometimes I am asked, why does the Federal government need to
authorize this? Can't the Governor of Puerto Rico simply do a
referendum in Puerto Rico? I am sure you have been asked the
same thing. How do you respond to this?
Mr. Fortuno. Sure. Thank you for that question, actually. I
will say there are two main reasons why we come before this
Committee to request for an opportunity to express ourselves
directly. The first one is that there is a dispute in Puerto
Rico as to what the options are, and I don't think that is news
to anyone here. This Committee has been very clear. Actually,
in its report dated April 22, 2008, it states what the options
are, but there are some that, depending on the month or the
year, may change their positions.
So this will actually make sure that the voters will know
and understand clearly what the options are, and that we will
have a just and level playing field for everyone. Second, it
will give Puerto Rican voters some assurance that the status
choices before them will be meaningful and that the process
will be meaningful, because we have had a couple of votes in
the past that led us nowhere. This way, we would know that
there is an engagement on the part of Congress to request our
opinion and to continue that dialogue, and that has to happen
and the only way for it to happen would be through a direct
vote in a plebiscite that is sanctioned by this Congress.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman from
Puerto Rico and before we proceed, this is a good example here.
We are not able to vote for final passage of a bill in the
House of Representatives, so we have American Samoa here, we
have Puerto Rico and Guam. So at this time as Chair, I would
like to recognize the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to offer my personal
welcome to the Governor of Puerto Rico, my dear friend and
former colleague of this Committee and a member of the House,
Governor Fortuno.
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I also want to commend the gentleman
from Puerto Rico, the Resident Commissioner, for his initiative
in leadership, and what a beautiful display of true leadership
to see that there is mutual understanding and working
relationship between the Governor and our Resident
Commissioner, to see that ultimately, the people of Puerto Rico
must make this decision independently, not from any pressures,
although I do respect that some of our colleagues have already
stated publicly their preferences.
This member, Madam Chair, does not have a preference. I
really would hope that there is a sense of neutrality, so there
is no--I don't know what is a better word, I am still learning
how to speak English--interference, I suppose, undue influence
I think is a better word, but that ultimately this decision
must be made by the good people of Puerto Rico, and I think
this legislation provides for that. So, again, I want to
commend our good friend, the Resident Commissioner and Governor
Fortuno.
Always good to see you, and I also notice our former
colleague and former Governor of Puerto Rico, Governor Romero.
Good to see you as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you. If I may, it is great to see you
again and I thank you for those kind words, and as Madam Chair
was stating, it behooves all of us to understand why,
representing U.S. citizens, yet when laws that apply to our
citizens are voted on, we would not have a direct participation
in that process. Perhaps 200 years ago it was something that
could be worked out. Now, it is something that has to be
resolved right away.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, if I might note also, the
Governor's comments, I never forget what the former delegate
from Guam had said, the Brigadier General retired Marine Corps
former member of the House, our good friend, Congressman Ben
Blaz, he said, we are equal in war but not in peace, and he
could not have said it better. Thank you, Governor. Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you for those kind words.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from American Samoa,
and I wish to make very brief remarks before we continue on
with the second panel. Again, welcome Governor. Buenos dias to
everyone from Puerto Rico. I see many of my old friends, former
Governors, in the audience and it is good to see you all again.
First I would like to welcome you as a former colleague.
Governor Fortuno, we worked on many projects here in the House
of Representatives.
In fact, we were co-chair of the Congressional Art Awards,
and that is ongoing right now. I also add my welcome to all of
the party leaders and legislators from Puerto Rico who have
traveled to testify today and to share with us on behalf of the
people of Puerto Rico their insights and views on this most
important issue. I also commend our distinguished colleague,
Mr. Pierluisi, for his diligent efforts in crafting H.R. 2499,
and for working to advance it so quickly to the stage in the
process.
We are encouraged by the steadfast leadership and
commitment of our Chairman, Mr. Rahall, in addressing the
issues important to the territories. Guam, like Puerto Rico,
was ceded to the United States from Spain under the Treaty of
Paris in 1898, which ended the Spanish-American War. The
Chamorro people of Guam, who I represent, like our brothers and
sisters in Puerto Rico, are awaiting fulfillment of their
political aspirations and an opportunity to fully exercise
their rights to self-determination.
This hearing affords us the opportunity, once again, to
learn of the current views of the leaders of Puerto Rico on the
status issue. Congress must be responsive to the views of the
people of Puerto Rico, and this Committee holds the
institutional obligation for the faithful discharge of the
constitutional responsibility to address the political status
of Puerto Rico and other territories under Article IV of the
United States Constitution.
Congress has historically given greater attention to
addressing the status issue for Puerto Rico than it has for
Guam. It is apparent, given this track record and the political
reality, that Guam's status is unlikely to be addressed by
Congress as long as the issue of status for Puerto Rico remains
under consideration. So we are looking to you as leaders, and I
urge this Committee to impartially and promptly respond to the
views of the people of Puerto Rico on the issue, and I thank
you, Governor, for testifying this morning.
Mr. Fortuno. Well, thank you for those kind words and for
your leadership as well, and you have always been a friend of
Puerto Rico and I thank you for that, on many issues, not just
this one. So again, we are in debt with you and with the people
you represent.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Governor, and now I
would like to thank you and excuse you, and we will bring on
Panel 3, The Honorable Carlos Romero Barcelo, former Governor
of Puerto Rico and a good friend of mine; The Honorable J.
Hector Ferrer Rios, President of the Popular Democratic Party;
The Honorable Ruben Berrios-Martinez, President of the Puerto
Rican Independence Party. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming to
Washington to testify on this very important issue, and at this
time I would like to recognize The Honorable Carlos Romero
Barcelo, former Governor of Puerto Rico from 1977 to 1982.
Welcome to Washington, Governor.
STATEMENT OF CARLOS ROMERO BARCELO,
FORMER GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Romero Barcelo. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman,
all the members of the Committee here, and our Resident
Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi and Eni Faleomavaega and the
Congressman from--I am sorry.
Ms. Bordallo. Staff.
Mr. Romero Barcelo. Oh, he is staff. OK. I didn't recognize
him. It is a pleasure to be here and to have an opportunity to
talk about a very, very dear subject to all of us in Puerto
Rico, and as we discuss H.R. 2499, we must ask ourselves, why
are we involved in seeking congressional action to sanction the
self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico? In
the first place, because the vast majority of the people of
Puerto Rico are not satisfied with the existing legal,
constitutional, political and economic colonial relationship
with our nation called commonwealth.
In the second place, because we, the vast majority of
American citizens in Puerto Rico, believe in democracy. We are
tired of and upset with our undemocratic colonial, or
territorial as you wish, relationship with the Nation of our
citizenship, where we are denied the right to vote in national
elections and to be fully represented in Congress. We have been
disenfranchised American citizens for 92 years. It is time to
end it.
In the third place, because our so-called commonwealth
relationship with the Federal government has been rejected by a
majority of the voters in the last two referendums held in 1993
and 1999. Therefore, we are now being ruled by the President
and Congress without the consent of the majority of the people
of Puerto Rico. And in the fourth place, because we are tired
of being lied to and hoodwinked by the political leaders who
advocate and defend the disenfranchisement of all American
citizens in Puerto Rico, by those who cynically claim to
believe in democracy, yet are willing to remain disenfranchised
forever as long as they don't have to pay Federal income taxes,
and by those who want to participate and be treated equally in
all Federal programs but do not want to contribute to the U.S.
Treasury as do our fellow citizens in the 50 states.
H.R. 2499, like its predecessor, H.R. 900, seeks to move
Congress and the President into more active roles in providing
the 4 million disenfranchised American citizens in Puerto Rico
with a process by which to achieve full sovereignty or to share
the nation's sovereignty as equal partners with the 50 states
of the union. In order to provide a process that will achieve
the solution to Puerto Rico's unsolved status dilemma, we must
start by officially unmasking commonwealth, so that the U.S.
citizens of Puerto Rico will not be lied to and deceived once
more.
Our people, our Federal citizens of the 50 states and the
world, have been lied to since our commonwealth constitution
was adopted in 1952. As I have more fully explained in my
column in Caribbean Business on June 15, 2009, a copy of which
I attached to my statement, when the bills authorizing the
drafting and adoption of our local constitution were in the
process of being considered by Congress, Governor Munoz Marin
wanted the name ``Free Associated State,'' which is the proper
translation of ``Estado Libre Asociado,'' to be used in the
bills to be considered by Congress, but his legal advisor and
lobbyist, Abe Fortas, may he rest in peace, warned him that the
name ``Free Associated State'' would never be approved by
Congress because it was obviously misleading.
Puerto Rico was not a state, nor free, nor associated with
the United States. Puerto Rico was a United States territory
subject to Article IV, Section III of the U.S. Constitution,
better known as the territorial clause. On the other hand, the
word ``commonwealth'' has no specific meaning and is applied to
any body politic, such as a state, a territory, a province, a
nation if you have it. As a matter of fact, we have four states
in the union whose official name is commonwealth instead of
state: Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Virginia.
Instead of clarifying the political and legal relationship,
the name commonwealth opened the doors for the biggest
political hoax ever perpetrated upon the people of Puerto Rico,
upon our fellow American citizens, upon the Latin American
countries and the United Nations. Puerto Rico was touted as
having become a fully self-governing commonwealth. The truth
is, the fact is that Puerto Rico didn't achieve any more powers
or control of government affairs than it had as a territory. In
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the supreme law of the land is
the Constitution of the United States, followed by Federal laws
which prevail over our own local constitution and our own local
laws.
We are subject to the laws passed by Congress, laws dealing
with taxation, minimum wage, unfair labor practices, commerce,
health care, banking, transportation, communications, criminal
acts, and many others which are enacted by Congress without our
consent. However, they are fully applicable in Puerto Rico.
Sine 1898, we have been and still are governed by the President
and Congress without our consent. Before 1952, we were a colony
by conquest as a result of the Spanish-American War 1898.
Nothing shameful about that, but in 1952, the U.S. citizens
in Puerto Rico were enticed and led to vote to become a colony
by consent. By voting for a commonwealth, the people of Puerto
Rico consented to the colonial relationship. The consent was
obtained by misleading the people into believing that we are
becoming a fully autonomous body politic. The commonwealth
supporters who have continuously lied to and misled our people
now demand consensus in the decolonization process.
They demand consensus because they know that consensus will
never be achieved. They will never agree to a true and clear
definition of the legal, political and economic relationship
between the 4 million American citizens in Puerto Rico and our
fellow citizens in the 50 states. If they refuse to tell the
people of Puerto Rico the truth, a consensus will never be
achieved. To accept or insist on consensus is to become an
accomplice to the lies perpetrated on our people since 1952.
The commonwealth supporters object to the truth regarding the
legal, political and economic relationship between Puerto Rico
and the 50 states.
They also object to telling the people the truth about what
full sovereignty would mean in relation to our American
citizenship and how Congress would react to the proposal of a
sovereign nation fully populated by U.S. citizens not subject
to congressional authority. In Congress, that is a no-no. If
Lincoln had sought consensus between those who demanded the
emancipation of slaves and those who defended slavery, the
Emancipation Proclamation would never have been signed and the
history of our nation would be very different from what it has
been. Most probably, Barack Obama would not be our President
today.
If the President and Congress had sought consensus before
the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were enacted,
would they have been considered and enacted when they were? Of
course not. They were passed because the majority ruled, as it
should be in a democracy. The proposals and arguments of the
minority must be considered and analyzed, but to require a
consensus is to turn our democratic system upside down and
allow the minority to prevail by allowing them to veto the
majority.
No one can disagree that Puerto Rico needs to solve its
status dilemma, but so does our nation. The United States
cannot remain and act as an inspiration and example of
democracy throughout the world while it maintains 4 million of
its citizens disenfranchised and deprived of representation in
their nation's Congress. Such a disenfranchisement and denial
of representation is anathema to democracy. How can our nation
spend billions of dollars to bring democracy to Iraq where it
isn't appreciated and the majority probably are not sure they
even want it, while it denies the right to vote and the right
to representation to 4 million of its own citizens?
Why is it right to impose democracy by force in Iraq while
it is considered unfair to tell the truth to 4 million American
citizens so that they can make an intelligent and realistic
choice? In 1952, Puerto Rico's constitution was adopted and a
referendum held in spite of the opposition of the then second
largest political party, the Independence Party, which proposed
independence for Puerto Rico. Did Congress require consensus
then? No.
In 1967, a plebiscite was held by the majority party, the
Popular Party, and the three options, commonwealth, statehood
and independence, were defined by the Popular Party. The
opinions and proposals of the Statehood Republican Party and
the Independence Party were disregarded. Both opposition
parties boycotted the plebiscite. There was no consensus in
1967. Now, the Popular Party demands consensus because it
doesn't want any referendum which presents to the people the
true facts of our relationship with our fellow citizens in the
50 states.
They know that if the naked truth is presented to our
people, the so-called commonwealth will be soundly rejected. If
the people want an association with the United States as the
sovereign nation of Puerto Rico, that is a relationship to be
negotiated after Puerto Rico becomes a separate sovereignty if
the people so choose, not before. For the reasons set forth
above, the New Progressive Party promised the people of Puerto
Rico in its party platform submitted to the voters in 2008 that
it would propose and promote a congressionally sanctioned
plebiscite.
The New Progressive Party's candidate for Governor, Luis
Fortuno, won by a landslide with a majority of more than
225,000 votes, the largest majority obtained by any candidate
for Governor since our early 60s. The results were a clear
mandate for his proposed socioeconomic alternatives and for
fulfillment of the promise to promote a congressionally
sanctioned status plebiscite. In further--to our party's and
our government's commitment to propose a plebiscite sanctioned
by Congress, our Resident Commissioner, Pedro Pierluisi,
together with numerous Members of Congress, introduced House
bill 2499.
In representation of the New Progressive Party, which
achieved a landslide victory in the House and Senate elections
in Puerto Rico in 2008, we wholeheartedly support the proposal
of a Federally sanctioned self-determination process proposed
by Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi in H.R. 2499. However,
we propose that H.R. 2499 be amended to incorporate more
precise and clear definitions of the alternatives to be
submitted to the voters, such as those contained in H.R. 900,
filed by Congressman Jose Serrano and Luis Fortuno, by the
Chairman of the Committee, Nick Rahall, Don Young, Steny Hoyer
and many others.
The wording of the ballot proposed for the first
plebiscite, and I am talking about the bill that was submitted,
not the bill that came out of Committee, on page 4 of H.R. 900,
it is more precise and clear than the language proposed in H.R.
2499 for the ballot on the first plebiscite. The only change I
would propose to the language in H.R. 900 would be to eliminate
the page 4, the word ``basic,'' which precedes ``laws'' in the
third line of paragraph, subparagraph 1.
The paragraph would read as follows, ``Puerto Rico should
continue the existing form of territorial status, as defined by
the Constitution, laws and policies of the United States. If
you agree, mark here.'' That would be the first proposal to the
people of Puerto Rico. If they vote yes, it stays the same. If
they vote no, well, then we would have another plebiscite. I
propose that H.R. 900 as introduced be redrafted with minimum
changes, such as eliminating Section 2 in the findings,
starting on page 2, which is the one that gives a vote to those
born in Puerto Rico.
That clause cannot be worked out. It is impossible to work
it out because some people were born there and they have never
come back and they don't even think about Puerto Rico. Others
were born there and they come here, they have lived here, they
are interested, but they are not going to die in Puerto Rico,
their children are not going to be in Puerto Rico so how could
they vote on the future of Puerto Rico? And besides,
logistically, it would be impossible.
All definitions and proposals in H.R. 900 are very clear,
concise and true. It presents the choices as they are, leaving
little room for misleading and lying as to what is the reality
and what is constitutionally, legally and politically
achievable. It protects the U.S. Congress from becoming an
accomplice to the lies and demagoguery of the previous
plebiscites. If the explanation of the commonwealth status
option is not politically or economically attractive, it is
because it isn't.
There is nothing attractive about the commonwealth if you
look at it as what it is, and that is what they don't want to
tell the people, what it is, which is a colony. Why should
Congress allow them any more room to misrepresent their option?
Now, the time has come for the United States to fulfill its
responsibility and its commitment to put an end to colonial
relationships wherever they exist and to bring the blessings of
democracy to all throughout the world while respecting the
sovereignty and the cultural differences.
President Obama is committed. Congress can do no less. Why
not begin at home with Puerto Rico? Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Romero Barcelo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Carlos Romero Barcelo,
Former Governor of Puerto Rico
As we discuss H.R. 2499, we must ask ourselves--Why are we involved
in seeking congressional action to sanction a ``self-determination
process for the people of Puerto Rico''?
In the first place, because the vast majority of the people of
Puerto Rico are not satisfied with the existing legal, constitutional,
political and economic colonial relationship with our Nation, called
``Commonwealth''.
In the second place, because we, the vast majority of American
citizens in Puerto Rico, believe in democracy. We are tired of and
upset with our undemocratic colonial (or territorial if you wish)
relationship with the nation of our citizenship, where we are denied
the right to vote in National elections and to be fully represented in
Congress. We have been disenfranchised American citizens for 92 years.
It's time to end it.
In the third place, because our so called ``commonwealth''
relationship with the federal government has been rejected by a
majority of the voters in the last two referendums held in 1993 and
1999. Therefore, we are now being ruled by the President and Congress
without the consent of the people of Puerto Rico.
And in the fourth place, because we are tired of being lied to and
hoodwinked by the political leaders who advocate and defend the
disenfranchisement of all American citizens in Puerto Rico; by those
who cynically claim to believe in democracy, yet are willing to remain
disenfranchised forever, as long as they don't have to pay federal
income taxes; and by those who want to participate and be treated
equally in all federal programs, but do not want to contribute to the
U.S. Treasury, as do our fellow citizens in the fifty (50) states.
H.R. 2499, like its predecessor H.R. 900, seeks to move Congress
and the President into more active roles in providing the 4,000,000
disenfranchised American citizens in Puerto Rico, with a process by
which to achieve full sovereignty or to share the Nation's sovereignty
as equal partners with the 50 states of the Union.
In order to provide a process which will achieve a solution to
Puerto Rico's unsolved states dilemma, we must start by officially
unmasking ``Commonwealth'', so that the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico
will not be lied to and deceived.
Our people, our fellow citizens in the fifty states, and the world,
have been lied to since our ``commonwealth'' constitution was adopted
in 1952. As I have more fully explained in my column in Caribbean
Business on June 15, 2009, (copy of which is attached hereto) when the
bills authorizing the drafting and adoption of our local constitution
were in the process of being considered in Congress, Gov. Munoz Marin
wanted the name ``Free Associated State'', which is the proper
translation of ``Estado Libre Asociado'', to be used in the bills to be
considered by Congress. But, his legal advisor and lobbyist, Abe
Fortas, warned him that the name ``Free Associated State'' would never
be approved by Congress, because it was obviously misleading. Puerto
Rico was not a state, nor free, nor associated. Puerto Rico was a
United States Territory subject to article IV, sec. 3 of the U.S.
Constitution, known as the territorial clause.
On the other hand, the word ``commonwealth'' has no specific
meaning and is applied to any ``body politic'', such as a state,
territory or province.
As a matter of fact, we have four states in the Union whose
official name is ``Commonwealth'', instead of ``state''. They are:
Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Virginia. Instead, of
clarifying the political and legal relationship, the name
``commonwealth'' opened the doors for the biggest political hoax ever
perpetuated upon the people of Puerto Rico, our fellow American
citizens, the Latin American countries and the United Nations.
Puerto Rico was touted as having become a fully self-governing
``commonwealth''. The truth of the fact is that Puerto Rico didn't
achieve any more powers or control of government affairs than it had as
a territory. In the ``Commonwealth of Puerto Rico'' the supreme law of
the land is the Constitution of the United States, followed by federal
laws, which prevail over our own local constitution and our local laws.
We are subject to the laws passed by Congress. Laws dealing with
taxation, minimum wage, unfair labor practices, commerce, health care,
banking, transportation, communications, criminal acts and many others
which are enacted by Congress without our consent, however, they are
fully applicable in Puerto Rico.
Since 1898 we have been, and still are, governed by the President
and Congress without our consent. Before 1952 we were a colony by
conquest, as a result of the Spanish American War in 1898. In 1952, the
U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico were enticed and led to vote to become a
colony by consent. By voting for ``commonwealth'', the people consented
to the colonial relationship. The consent was obtained by misleading
the people into believing that we were becoming a fully autonomous body
politic.
The ``Commonwealth'' supporters, who have continuously lied to and
misled our people, now demand ``consensus'' in the decolonization
process. They demand ``consensus'' because they know that ``consensus''
will never be achieved. They will never agree to a true and clear
definition of the legal, political and economic relationship between
the 4,000,000 American citizens in Puerto Rico and our fellow citizens
in the fifty states. If they refuse to tell the people of Puerto Rico
the truth, a ``consensus'' will never be achieved.
To accept or insist on ``consensus'' is to become an accomplice to
the lies perpetuated on our people since 1952. The commonwealth
supporters object to the truth regarding the legal, political and
economic relationship between Puerto Rico and the fifty states. They
also object to telling the people the truth about what full sovereignty
would mean in relation to our American citizenship, and how Congress
would react to the proposal of a sovereign nation fully populated by
U.S. citizens, not subject to Congressional authority. In Congress,
that's a no-no.
If Lincoln had sought ``consensus'' between those who demanded the
emancipation of slaves and those who defended slavery, the Emancipation
Proclamation would never have been signed and the history of our nation
would be very different from what it has been. Most probably Barack
Obama would not be our President today.
If the President and Congress had sought ``consensus'' before the
Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were enacted, would they
have been considered and enacted when they were? Of course not. They
were passed because the majority ruled, as it should be in a democracy.
The proposals and arguments of the minority must be considered and
analyzed. But, to require a ``consensus'', is to turn our democratic
system upside down and allow the minority to prevail, by allowing them
to veto the majority's proposal.
No one can disagree that Puerto Rico needs to solve its status
dilemma, but so does our Nation. The United States cannot remain and
act as the inspiration and example of democracy throughout the world,
while it maintains 4,000,000 of its citizens, disenfranchised and
deprived of representation in their nation's Congress. Such a
disenfranchisement and denial of representation is anathema to
democracy.
How can our Nation spend billions of dollars to bring democracy to
Iraq, where it isn't appreciated and the majority probably is not sure
they even want it, while it denies the right to vote and the right to
representation to 4,000,000 of its citizens. Why is it right to impose
democracy by force in Iraq, while it is considered unfair to tell the
truth to 4,000,000 American citizens so that they can make an
intelligent and realistic choice?
In 1952, P.R.'s Constitution was adopted in a referendum held in
spite of the opposition of the then second largest political party; the
Independence Party, which proposed independence for Puerto Rico. Did
Congress require ``consensus'' then? No.
In 1967, a plebiscite was held by the majority party, the Popular
Party, and the three options: commonwealth, statehood and independence
were defined by the Popular Party. The opinions and proposals of the
Statehood Republican Party and the Independence Party were disregarded.
Both opposition parties boycotted the plebiscite. There was no
consensus in 1967.
Now the Popular Party demands ``consensus'', because it doesn't
want any referendum which presents to the people, the true facts of our
relationship with our fellow citizens in the fifty states. They know
that if the naked truth is presented to our people, the so called
``commonwealth'' will be soundly rejected.
If the people want an association with the United States as the
sovereign nation of Puerto Rico, that is a relationship to be
negotiated after Puerto Rico becomes a separate sovereignty if the
people so chose.
For the reasons set forth above, the New Progressive Party promised
the people of Puerto Rico in its party platform, submitted to the
voters in 2008, that it would propose and promote a congressionally
sanctioned plebiscite.
The New Progressive Party's candidate for Governor, Luis Fortuno,
won by a landslide with a majority of more than 225,000 votes. The
largest majority obtained by any candidate for Governor since the early
60's. The results were a clear mandate for his proposed socioeconomic
alternatives and for fulfillment of the promise to promote a
congressionally sanctioned status plebiscite.
In furtherance of our party's and our Governor's commitment to
propose a plebiscite sanctioned by Congress, our Resident Commissioner,
Pedro Pierluissi, together with numerous members of Congress,
introduced H.R. Bill 2499.
In representation of the New Progressive Party, which achieved a
landslide victory in the House and Senate elections in 2008, we
wholeheartedly support the proposal of a federally sanctioned self-
determination process proposed by Resident Commissioner, Pedro
Pierluissi, in H.R. 2499.
However, we propose that H.R. 2499 be amended, or a substitute bill
presented, which incorporates more precise and clear definitions of the
alternatives to be submitted to the voters, such as those contained in
H.R. 900, filed by Congressman Jose Serrano and Luis Fortuno, joined by
the Chairman of this Committee, Nick Rahall, Don Young, Steny Hoyer and
many others.
The wording of the ballot proposed for the First Plebiscite on page
4 of H.R. 900 is more precise and clear than the language proposed in
H.R. 2449 for the ballot on the First Plebiscite. The only change I
would propose to the language in H.R. 900 would be to eliminate on page
4, the word ``basic'' which precedes ``laws'' in the third line of
subparagraph (1). The paragraph would read as follows:
``(1) Puerto Rico should continue the existing form of
territorial status as defined by the Constitution, laws and
policies of the United States. If you agree, mark here------
--.''
The rest of bill H.R. 900 is not only clearer and more precise in
the definitions and choices to be submitted to the voters, than H.R.
2499, but it was discussed at length with the New Progressive Party
leadership, and was enthusiastically endorsed. H.R. 2499 has just been
recently distributed to the party leadership, but has not yet been
discussed in detail.
I propose that H.R. 900 be redrafted with minimum changes, such as
eliminating ``Sec.2 Findings'' starting on page 2, line 8, up to page 4
line 8. Eliminate also the word ``basic'' as indicated above, and
eliminate subparagraph (2) of paragraph (d) on page 7, beginning on
line 17, and ending on page 8, line 2. With the changes indicated
above, H.R. 900 should be filed as a substitute bill for H.R. 2449.
All definitions and proposals in H.R. 900 are clear, concise and
true. It presents the choices as they are, leaving little room for
misleading and lying as to what is the reality and what is
constitutionally, legally and politically achievable. It protects the
U.S. Congress from becoming an accomplice to the lies and demagoguery
of the previous plebiscites. If the explanation of the ``commonwealth''
status option is not politically or economically attractive is because
in reality, it isn't. Why should Congress allow them any room to
misrepresent their option?
No. The time has come for the United States to fulfill its
responsibility, and its commitment to put an end to colonial
relationships wherever they exist and to bring the blessings of
democracy to all throughout the world while respecting the sovereignty
and the cultural differences. President Obama is committed. Congress
can do no less. Why not begin at home, with Puerto Rico.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Governor, for your
impassioned testimony, and I would now like to recognize The
Honorable J. Hector Ferrer Rios, President of the Popular
Democratic Party.
STATEMENT OF HECTOR FERRER RIOS, PRESIDENT,
POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Ferrer Rios. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman,
Commissioner Pierluisi and distinguished members of this
Committee. My name is Hector Ferrer. I come before you as
President of the Popular Democratic Party, House Minority
Leader, and on behalf of thousands of Puerto Ricans who will be
denied their natural right of self-determination if H.R. 2499
becomes law. Along with my oral testimony, I am submitting for
the record our previously written testimony to the Committee,
sent electronically on Monday, June 22, 2009.
H.R. 2499 is not a self-determination process. How can it
be when the process has been carefully crafted to favor
statehood in a highly irregular two-round plebiscite whereby
the commonwealth option is put for ratification or rejection,
alone and unnamed in the first round? Their intention is
obvious. Commonwealth has been the winner of all plebiscites
held in the past 60 years. Statehood cannot beat commonwealth
in a face-to-face contest, but this scheme, wherein
commonwealth is faced against a merger of pro-statehood and
independence forces, would create a narrow majority against
commonwealth.
The second round will be then a runoff election, but not in
the traditional sense of a runoff between the two most
supported options in the first round. It would be a runoff
between the historically second and third places finishers and
a third option that is not supported by any principal party on
the island. This second round is conceived only to construct an
artificial majority for statehood. Members of the Committee,
this bill is not a self-determination process.
It is a well designed scheme to force statehood upon Puerto
Rico without a fair and democratic process. Madam Chairwoman,
H.R. 2499 doesn't comply with two important commitments made to
the people of Puerto Rico. First of all, on February 12, 2008,
President Barack Obama wrote to the former Governor Acevedo
Vila that he as President, and I quote, ``will work closely
with the Puerto Rican government, its civil society, and with
Congress to create a genuine and transparent process for self-
determination that will be true to the best traditions of
democracy. As President, I will actively engage Congress and
the Puerto Rican people in promoting this deliberative, open
and unbiased process that may include a constitutional
convention or a plebiscite, and my administration will adhere
to a policy of strict neutrality on the Puerto Rican status
matter. My administration will recognize all valid options to
resolve the questions of Puerto Rico's status, including
commonwealth, statehood and independence.''
President Obama rejected the White House Task Force
report's conclusion. Second, the 2008 Democratic National
Convention Platform states on page 57 that the White House and
Congress will work with all groups in Puerto Rico to enable the
question of Puerto Rico's status to be resolved during the next
four years. So my question to you, distinguished members of the
Committee, is this an open and an unbiased process? In what
page or section of H.R. 2499 the people of Puerto Rico can
choose the valid option of commonwealth, as promised by
President Barack Obama and defined by those who support it?
And finally, when was my party invited to create a genuine
and transparent process for self-determination that will be
true to the best traditions of democracy? Madam Chairwoman and
distinguished members of the Committee, I invite you to start
all over again. As President of the Popular Democratic Party, I
encourage Congress to insist upon a real self-determination
mechanism that will not force statehood upon the people of
Puerto Rico.
I instead support a process that will provide productive
and democratic ballot options. H.R. 2499 does not do that.
Nevertheless, if the determination of this Committee and of
Congress is to favor statehood, I will make things simpler for
you. I propose only one simple plebiscite. Let the people of
Puerto Rico decide, statehood, yes or no. Governor Fortuno
recently said, it is time for them to consult us. Grant
Governor Fortuno's wish. Let the people of Puerto Rico decide,
statehood, yes or no.
I will also insist, respectfully, that you outline
statehood to the people of Puerto Rico. Tell us if you are
willing to commit to statehood on a first vote with a simple
majority, or if it is going to be like the process held by
Hawaii and Alaska that took at least three elections and a
supermajority of the vote of almost 90 percent. Tell us, the
people of Puerto Rico, if we will be admitted as the first
Spanish-speaking state, if the seven representatives from
Puerto Rico to this Congress will be allowed to express
themselves in their native language, or tell a country where
less than 15 percent of its people are fully bilingual if we
need to comply with English as our primary language, like
Louisiana, Oklahoma and Mexico do.
Explain to us that with statehood, our tax burden will
increase. Tell us that we will lose our international
representation in sports and cultural activities, and also,
explain to us, if the route to statehood is through becoming an
incorporated territory for an unknown amount of years. Tell us
that Alaska fought for almost 40 years before being granted
statehood, and Hawaii for almost 60 years after being accepted
as an incorporated territory.
H.R. 2499 is the continuous effort started 10 years ago in
this same Congress with what was known as the joint bill. When
the bill didn't prosper, the same characters that come here
today went to Puerto Rico and approved a plebiscite defining
commonwealth without our participation. Their goal was to
provoke an artificial majority in favor of statehood, and with
the intention of disenfranchising the majority of the voters of
Puerto Rico.
The result of that attempt was that 50.3 percent of the
voters rejected all the definitions and voted for none of the
above. Statehood lost again. To avoid a repetition of that
humiliating defeat, Governor Fortuno's recently appointed
judges to our Supreme Court have, in a three-week-old decision,
also disenfranchised that 50.3 percent of the votes by
eliminating that option. So, Madam Chairwoman and distinguished
members of the Committee, what I am saying is that it is a
shame that people come here to this Congress asking for
statehood based on disenfranchising the majority of the voters.
What a way of asking for statehood. On behalf of myself and
thousands of American citizens who support the full development
of the autonomous character of the commonwealth based on the
principles of sovereignty, association and joint
responsibilities within a compact with the United States,
respectfully request to be included in this process and not
excluded. The Popular Democratic Party believes in a political
association with dignity, not colonial or territorial, between
Puerto Rico and the United States, based in the right of the
people of Puerto Rico to decide its fundamental issues and the
permanence and irrevocability of our American citizenship.
Therefore, distinguished Members of Congress, I urge you
not to approve H.R. 2499 and instead begin a true self-
determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferrer Rios follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Hector J. Ferrer Rios, President of Popular
Democratic Party, and House Minority Leader, Puerto Rico House of
Representatives
Dear Chairman Rahall:
My name is Hector Ferrer Rios, President of the Popular Democratic
Party and House Minority Leader.
H.R. 2499 simply appears to call for a non-binding expression by
the Puerto Rican people as to their political status preference. Beyond
its seemingly innocuous facade, lies an unusual and unprecedented two
round voting scheme designed to predetermine the outcome by producing
an artificial statehood majority.
Fundamentally, plebiscites and referenda are democratic mechanisms
for determining by direct vote a people's own destiny. These are
methods with which to identify, and subsequently implement, the
people's most favored avenues of politico-constitutional evolution--as
selected by those peoples themselves. And the common denominator of any
such democratic exercise is fairness. The legislator's fair and
equitable treatment of the options is paramount to assuring the
legitimacy of any such self-determination process.
To the extent the legislative authority decides to sub-categorize
the options to be presented to the people, in order to configure the
voting system in a way that would assure a particular outcome, it is
imposing its bias and annulling the legitimacy of the process.
That is what H.R. 2499 attempts. In it, the drafters have
arbitrarily separated what they regard a ``territorial and
impermanent'' option from purportedly ``non-territorial and permanent''
ones. Following that rationale, the bill calls for an initial round
limited to a yes or no vote on the ``current political status'',
followed by a second round among all other options if the current
political status fails to achieve 50% of the vote in the first round.
Such action renders the process patently biased.
Historical background illustrates what is at play here. Back in
1993, after a landslide victory in the general elections, the pro-
statehood governor quickly called for a plebiscite expecting his
personal popularity to translate into a similar win for statehood. The
governor allowed each of the parties to decide how their status option
would appear defined on the ballot. To his surprise, Commonwealth won
with 48.6% of the vote to statehood's 46.5% and independence's 4.4.%.
Pledging not to let that happen again, governor Rossello called for
a new plebiscite in 1998, but this time he drafted the Commonwealth's
definition himself and in such unpalatable terms that the Commonwealth
party could not endorse it. To his total dismay, the Commonwealth party
asked its supporters to vote instead under a ``none of the above''
option sanctioned by local courts. Commonwealth status d/b/a ``none of
the above'' prevailed again with 50.3% of the vote against statehood's
46.5%, independence's 2.5%. A new option called Free Association got a
meager 0.3%.
After the 1998 humiliation, the statehood party went back to the
drawing board and came up with a scheme that now takes the form of H.R.
2499. The 1993 plebiscite taught them that statehood can never beat
Commonwealth in a face to face contest and the 1998 plebiscite showed
them that the Commonwealth supporters are not easily excluded from the
process. And so the idea of a two round vote.
The pro-statehood Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico reasonably
thinks that splitting the vote should result in a huge win for
statehood. That conclusion is supported by history. Take the 1993
plebiscite results mentioned above. Commonwealth was the people's top
choice. If that vote had been divided into two rounds, as H.R. 2499
proposes, Commonwealth's otherwise 48.6% victory would have meant a
rejection, and the people would have been forced to choose between what
were, and probably still are, their second and third choices. Based on
those 1993 numbers, it is reasonable to conclude that statehood,
although not the people's preferred choice, would achieve an
overwhelming majority of the votes in the second round.
The statehood party has already made sure that the ``none of the
above'' option can no longer foil a statehood majority as it did in
1998. ``None of the above'' was a judicially mandated option based on
constitutional grounds regarding the individual's right to vote. But
the current pro-statehood governor had the opportunity to change the
Puerto Rico Supreme Court's ideological composition by filling three
vacancies; and just a few ago, a 4-3 majority, without having a case or
controversy on this issue before it, quickly reversed the earlier
ruling requiring this option.
H.R. 2499 is now the final piece of the statehood party's assault
on Puerto Rico's right to self-determination. It is crude, unabashed,
undemocratic gimmickry.
The two round setup has its genesis in heavily flawed conclusions
regarding the current Commonwealth status found in a Presidential Task
Force Report.
Executive Order 13183 (dated December 23, 2000), as amended by
Executive Order 13319 (dated December 3, 2003), created a President's
Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status (the ``Task Force'') to ``report on
its actions to the President as needed, but no less than once every 2
years, on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico's ultimate
status.'' Pursuant to such directive, the Task Force issued its initial
report on December 22, 2005, and the first follow up addendum report on
December 21, 2007 (hereinafter the ``Task Force Reports''). A final
report is due this coming December 2009.
Ever since the publication of the initial Task Force Report in
December 2005, the Popular Democratic Party openly challenged the Task
Force Reports' main legal conclusions; namely, that despite the
establishment of Commonwealth status in 1952, Puerto Rico remains to
this day an unincorporated territory of the United States subject to
Congress's plenary powers under the Territory Clause of the U.S.
Constitution 1 and as such can be unilaterally ceded or
conveyed to any other sovereign country and, moreover, that the U.S.
citizenship of the people of Puerto Rico is likewise revocable by
Congress. For the past three and a half years, the PDP has forcefully
contended that the authors of the Task Force Reports blatantly failed
to substantiate their obtuse legal conclusions and inexcusably
overlooked the robust and consistent corpus of U.S. Supreme Court
precedent to the contrary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, President Obama explicitly
rejected the legal conclusions contained in the Task Force Reports. In
a letter addressed to then Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila (the
``President's Letter'') (dated February 12, 2008), President Obama
challenged head-on the Task Force's irrational proposition that Puerto
Rico (along with the 4 million Puerto Ricans inhabiting the island) can
be ceded or transferred to a foreign country at Congress's whim.
I reject the assertion in reports submitted by a Presidential
Task Force on December 22, 2005 and December 21, 2007 that
sovereignty over Puerto Rico could be unilaterally transferred
by the United States to a foreign country.
Moreover, the president contended that,
The American citizenship of Puerto Ricans is constitutionally
guaranteed for as long as he people of Puerto Rico choose to
retain it. The erroneous legal conclusions put forward by the
Task Force, as referenced above, are derailing Puerto Rico's
self-determination process into a profound, unnecessary and
unfair state of confusion. Such conclusions have now been used
to legitimize and recommend a highly irregular two-round self-
determination process, whereby the current Commonwealth option
(in light of its alleged territorial nature) is put on for
ratification or rejection in the first round, and, assuming
rejection, then statehood and independence face it off in a
second and definitive last round. This is contrary to the norm
in all two-round voting processes where electors vote all
status options in the first round, and then vote again in a
face-off between the two most voted formulas in the final
round.
As the subsequent sections show, President Obama was right in
rejecting the legal conclusions rendered by the Task Force Reports
because they run afoul the most basic values of substantive justice and
equality under the law; all of which have been at the heart of American
constitutionalism since the early days of the Republic--as were so
eloquently echoed in the President's Letter.
A. Congress no longer holds plenary powers over Puerto Rico and
consequently cannot unilaterally cede Puerto Rico.
The Task Force Reports embrace the untenable proposition that the
Federal Government can unilaterally cede Puerto Rico, if it so wishes,
to any other sovereign (e.g. Venezuela, Cuba or Iran) without the
consent of the people of Puerto Rico as an exercise of its plenary
powers over the island under the Territory Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Specifically, the authors of the Task Force Reports
conclude that: ``[t]he Federal Government may relinquish United States
sovereignty by granting independence or ceding the territory to another
nation--'' Ignoring the canon of legal construction articulated through
the years by the U.S. Supreme Court to the effect that Puerto Rico shed
its status as an unincorporated territory with the attainment of
Commonwealth status in 1952, the drafters of the Task Force Reports
claim that such event did not change Puerto Rico's relationship with
the United States. Such posturing, in turn, rests on the perverse
notion that Congress intentionally deceived the people of Puerto Rico
when it entered into the compact elevating Puerto Rico's status from an
unincorporated territory to a Commonwealth, and instead retained
plenary powers--including the authority to unilaterally cede or even
sell Puerto Rico to any foreign nation.
President Obama was right in rebuffing such untenable conclusion.
Neither the 2005 Task Force nor its 2007 sequel identifies any legal
authority substantiating a contention so incendiary that flies in the
face of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence (blithely ignored by the
drafters of the Task Force Reports) that has explicitly recognized that
the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was effected through a
compact wherein Congress relinquished powers over Puerto Rico making it
sovereign over matters not ruled by the U.S. Constitution.
Not surprisingly, the federal courts have forcefully rejected the
argument that would render Public Law 600 an entirely illusory
legislative gesture. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
addressed the issue in one of its first judicial interventions shortly
after the Commonwealth's creation. Rejecting the contention that Public
Law 600 was merely another Organic Act, Chief Judge Magruder, writing
for the First Circuit, concluded that, ``We find no reason to impute to
the Congress the perpetration of such a monumental hoax.''
If, as suggested in the Task Force Reports, the compact entered
into pursuant to Public Law 600 did not transform Puerto Rico's
political status, then the United States perpetrated a ``monumental
hoax'' not only on the people of Puerto Rico, but also on the General
Assembly of the United Nations. Specifically, in 1953 the United States
advised the United Nations that it would no longer report on Puerto
Rico as a ``non self-governing territory'' under Article 73(e) of the
United Nations Charter.''
In the Cessation Memorandum, the United States formally advised the
United Nations that the incremental process of the ``vesting of powers
of government in the Puerto Rican people and their elected
representatives'' had ``reached its culmination with the establishment
of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the promulgation of the
Constitution of this Commonwealth on July 25, 1952.'' The Cessation
Memorandum explicitly declares that, ``[w]ith the establishment of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the people of Puerto Rico have attained a
full measure of self-government.''
In describing the ``principle features of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth,'' the Cessation Memorandum noted that the new
Constitution, ``as it became effective with the approval of the
Congress, provides that ``[i]ts political power emanates from the
people and shall be exercised in accordance with their will, within the
terms of the compact agreed upon between the people of Puerto Rico and
the United States of America.''
Mason Sears, the United States Representative to the Committee on
Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories, explained the legal
significance under American law of the fact that Puerto Rico's
Constitution resulted from a compact,
A most interesting feature of the new constitution is that it
was entered into in the nature of a compact between the
American and Puerto Rican people. A compact, as you know, is
far stronger than a treaty. A treaty usually can be denounced
by either side, whereas a compact cannot be denounced by either
party unless it has the permission of the other.
Moreover, Frances Bolton, U.S. Delegate to the United Nations'
Fourth Committee, made it plain clear that while ``the previous status
of Puerto Rico was that of a territory subject to the absolute
authority of the Congress of the United States in all governmental
matters [...] the present status of Puerto Rico is that of a people
with a constitution of their own adoption, stemming from their own
authority, which only they can alter or amend [...]''
The United Nations accepted at face value the representations made
by the United States. The General Assembly recognized, ``the people of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, by expressing their will in a free and
democratic way, have achieved a new constitutional status.'' Resolution
748, VIII (Nov. 3, 1953). On approving the Cessation Memorandum on
Puerto Rico, the General Assembly further stated that,
[I]n the framework of their Constitution and of the compact
agreed upon with the United States of America, the people of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have been invested with
attributes of political sovereignty which clearly identify the
status of self-government attained by the Puerto Rican people
as that of an autonomous political entity.
The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed that view. In Calero Toledo v.
Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974), the Supreme Court motu
proprio addressed the issue of whether Puerto Rico statutes were State
statutes for purposes of the Three-Judge Court Act (28 U.S.C.
Sec. 2281). The issue was of great import, for the predominant reason
behind the law was requiring that issues about the constitutionality of
State statutes be resolved before a three judge district court panel in
order to avoid unnecessary interference with the laws of a sovereign
State of the Union. That ``predominant reason'' did not exist in
respect of territories because they do not enjoy the attributes of
sovereignty of States within the U.S. federal structure. For that
reason, the Supreme Court had already ruled in Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke
Lok Po, 336 U.S. 368 (1949) that the legislative enactments of the
Territory of Hawaii were not State statutes for purposes of Judicial
Code Sec. 266 (predecessor to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2281). Similarly, the
First Circuit had arrived at the same conclusion with respect to Puerto
Rico in Benedicto v. West India & Panama Tel. Co., 256 F.417 (1st Cir.
1919).
Stainback and Benedicto, of course, were decided before Puerto Rico
became a Commonwealth, so the issue had to be examined afresh and the
opportunity finally arouse in Calero Toledo. As the Calero Toledo Court
narrates, Puerto Rico's Commonwealth status was preceded by a series of
Organic Acts,
Following the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico was ceded to this
country in the Treaty of Paris, 30 Stat. 1754 (1898). A brief interlude
of military control was followed by congressional enactment of a series
of Organic Acts for the government of the island. Initially these
enactments established a local governmental structure with high
officials appointed by the President. These Acts also retained veto
power in the President and Congress over local legislation.
The creation of the Commonwealth, as the Court suggests by voice of
Justice Brennan, followed a materially different procedure,
By 1950, however, pressures for greater autonomy led to
congressional enactment of Pub. L. 600, 64 Stat. 319, which offered the
people of Puerto Rico a compact whereby they might establish a
government under their own constitution. Puerto Rico accepted the
compact, and on July 3, 1952 Congress approved, with minor amendments,
a constitution adopted by the Puerto Rican populace [...] Pursuant to
that constitution the Commonwealth now ``elects its Governor and
legislature; appoints its judges, all cabinet officials, and lesser
officials in the executive branch; sets its own educational policies;
determines its own budget; and amends its own civil and criminal code''
(citing Leibowitz, The Applicability of Federal Law to the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, 56 GEO. L. J. 219, 221 (1967)).
The Calero Toledo Court recognized that the Commonwealth's creation
effected ``significant changes in Puerto Rico's governmental
structure.'' It then quoted at length, and with apparent approval, from
Chief Judge Magruder's observations in Mora v. Mejias, 206 F.2d 377
(1st Cir. 1953) that ``Puerto Rico has thus not become a State in the
federal Union like the 48 States, but it would seem to have become a
State within a common and accepted meaning of the word--It is a
political entity created by the act and with the consent of the people
of Puerto Rico and joined in union with the United States of America
under the terms of the compact.''
Two years later, in Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S.
572 (1976), the Supreme Court again examined the juridical nature of
Puerto Rico's Commonwealth status and held that for purposes of Section
1983 jurisdiction the island enjoyed the same attributes of sovereignty
as a State of the Union. The Court found that ``the purpose of Congress
in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the
degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with States of
the Union [...].'' The Court reasoned, moreover, that through the
establishment of the Commonwealth, ``Congress relinquished its control
over the organization of the local affairs of the island and granted
Puerto Rico a measure of autonomy comparable to that possessed by the
States.''
Six years later, in Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S.
1 (1982), the issue before the Supreme Court was whether a local
political party could be granted statutorily the power to fill an
interim vacancy in the Puerto Rican Legislature. Arguing for the PDP,
former Justice Abe Fortas wrote,
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as this Court has stated,
``occupies a relationship to the United States that has no
parallel in our history''. Califano v. Torres 435 U.S. at 3, 98
S.Ct. at 907, fn. 4. That it is an ``autonomous political
entity,'' ``in the framework of the compact agreed upon with
the United States'' has been recognized by formal action and
resolution of the United Nations on the basis of
representations of the United States.
Fortas added,
There can be no doubt that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has
``freedom from control or interference by the Congress in
respect of internal government and administration...'' Mora v.
Mejias, 115 F.Supp. 610 at 612 (D.P.R. 1953) (Three-Judge
Court), quoted in Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.,
416 U.S. at 674, 94 S.Ct. at 2087. The Compact between the
United States and the people of Puerto Rico incorporated the
repeal of most of the provisions of the Organic Act of 1917,
including repeal of the Bill of Rights contained therein and
the provisions for local government. The provisions of the
Organic Act that were continued by the Compact were directed to
the interrelationships of Puerto Rico and the United States:
Affirmation that Puerto Ricans are citizens of the United
States; that Puerto Rico is free of United States Internal
Revenue laws; that trade between the two shall be free of
export duties; and that the rights, privileges and immunities
of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto
Rico.
The Court, agreeing with the PDP's position, accorded the same
deference to the Puerto Rico Legislature that it accords the States,
``Puerto Rico, like a state, is an autonomous political entity,
`sovereign over matters not ruled by the Constitution.''' Based on the
principle that fundamental constitutional rights apply to the people of
Puerto Rico, the Court concluded that ``it is clear that the voting
rights of Puerto Rico citizens are constitutionally protected to the
same extent as those of all other citizens of the United States.'' In
reaching this conclusion the Court cited approvingly the following
excerpt from a decision authored by then Circuit Judge Stephen Breyer
in Cordova & Simonpietri Ins. Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N.A.,
649 F. 2d 36, 39-42 (1st Cir. 1981),
[In 1952] Puerto Rico's status changed from that of a mere
territory to the unique status of Commonwealth. And the federal
government's relations with Puerto Rico changed from being
bounded merely by the territorial clause, and the rights of the
people of Puerto Rico as United States citizens, to being
bounded by the United States and Puerto Rico Constitutions,
Public Law 600, the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and the
rights of the people of Puerto Rico as United States citizens.
Between Flores de Otero (1976) and Rodriguez (1982), the Supreme
Court delivered a very short per curiam decision that has been
misinterpreted by anti-Commonwealth sectors in Puerto Rico, by some
federal courts and by the Task Force. In Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S.
651 (1980), the Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico could receive less
assistance than the States under the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children Program. In a two paragraph decision, the Court found that
Congress pursuant to the Territory Clause of the U.S. Constitution
could treat Puerto Rico differently than the States so long as there is
a rational basis for its actions.
The Task Force Report interprets Harris as holding ``that Puerto
Rico remains fully subject to congressional authority under the
Territory Clause.'' But that reading confuses what Harris is about and
ignores that the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly recognized that Puerto
Rico enjoys full sovereignty over its internal affairs. If the Supreme
Court said in 1976 that ``Congress relinquished its control over the
organization of the local affairs of the island and granted Puerto Rico
a measure of autonomy comparable to that possessed by the States''
2 and then in 1982 that Puerto Rico is ``sovereign over
matters not ruled by the Constitution'' 3 it is then wrong
to interpret Harris in 1980 saying that Puerto Rico remains fully
subject to congressional authority under the Territory Clause. These
two notions are antithetical. So either the Supreme Court was twice
contradicting itself, or Harris is being misread. We strongly believe
the latter is the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ [sic]
\3\ [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court did not contradict itself. Harris deals with a
federal assistance program, a legislative area within Congress'
exclusive purview. It does not deal with the internal affairs of the
Commonwealth. In ruling that Congress could treat Puerto Rico
differently than a State for purposes of federal fund allocations, the
Supreme Court was not suggesting that Congress retained its plenary
powers over Puerto Rico under the Territory Clause. But there is even
more to Harris.
The Supreme Court does say in Harris that Congressional power over
Puerto Rico arises from the Territory Clause. That is a reflection of
the Constitution's vintage. Its textual configuration reflects the
conditions of its time. While Congress enjoys plenary powers pursuant
to the Territory Clause, the Supreme Court has long recognized that
Congress can relinquish such authority. It may do so, for instance, by
admitting a Territory as a State, in which case Congressional power
over the former Territory is transformed from plenary to limited under
U.S. Constitution Article 1. While Puerto Rico did not become a State
on July 25, 1952, Congress did relinquish (as the Supreme Court has
consistently found) the same powers over Puerto Rico that it
relinquishes when admitting a Territory as a State of the Union. In the
case of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, while the remaining
Congressional powers are exercised pursuant to the Territory Clause,
for lack of a more specific source of constitutional authority, those
powers are no longer plenary.
The courts and the U.S. Justice Department before 1990 have long
recognized that the territorial power, like other federal powers,
demands flexibility on the part of Congress and hesitation on the part
of those who like the authors of the Task Force Reports would confine
the exercise of those powers to rigid or arbitrary categories. In 1963
the U.S. Justice Department saw this very clearly, and quoted a
memorandum written by future Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1914 when he
was a law officer in the U.S. Department of War:
The form of the relationship between the United States and [an]
unincorporated territory is solely a problem of statesmanship.
History suggests a great diversity of relationships between a
central government and [a] dependent territory. The present day
shows a great variety in actual operation. One of the great
demands upon creative statesmanship is to help evolve new kinds
of relationship[s] so as to combine the advantages of local
self-government with those of a confederated union. Luckily,
our Constitution has left this field of invention open. The
decisions in the Insular cases mean this, if they mean
anything; that there is nothing in the Constitution to hamper
the responsibility of Congress in working out, step by step,
forms of government for our Insular possessions responsive to
the largest needs and capacities of their inhabitants, and
ascertained by the best wisdom of Congress.
Eight years later, the Office of Legal Counsel, under then-
Assistant Attorney General William H. Rehnquist, expounded on
Frankfurter's functionality argument:
[T]he Constitution does not inflexibly determine the incidents
of territorial status, i.e., that Congress must necessarily
have the unlimited and plenary power to legislate over it.
Rather, Congress can gradually relinquish those powers and give
what was once a Territory an ever-increasing measure of self-
government. Such legislation could create vested rights of a
political nature, hence it would bind future Congresses and
cannot be ``taken backward'' unless by mutual agreement.
That is precisely what Flores de Otero holds with respect to Puerto
Rico.
A thorough reading of Harris, moreover, reveals that Congress'
relinquishment of powers over Puerto Rico went beyond matters of
internal governance. Even with regards to the allocation of federal
funds, the Supreme Court makes clear in Harris that Congress cannot
exercise unrestricted powers over Puerto Rico. It can only treat Puerto
Rico differently to the extent there is a rational basis for doing so.
If Congress had plenary powers over Puerto Rico, it would not need to
have a rational basis to discriminate.
The Task Force Reports' erroneous reading of Harris constitutes
their most fatal flaw. It leads their authors to make the colossal
mistake of asserting that, ``[a]s long as Puerto Rico remains a
territory of the United States, Congress may not impair the
constitutional authority of later Congresses to alter the political
powers of the government of Puerto Rico by entering into a covenant or
compact with Puerto Rico or its residents.'' In the same way that a
future Congress cannot de-admit Alaska, Hawaii or Texas, or revoke the
independent status of the Philippines, it cannot reclaim powers
relinquished to the people of Puerto Rico.
The federal circuit courts of appeals have also recognized that
Puerto Rico is no longer merely an unincorporated territory. See e.g.
United States of America v. Marco Laboy-Torres, 553 F. 3d 715, 721 (3rd
Cir. 2009) (``Puerto Rico possesses `a measure of autonomy comparable
to that possessed by the States.'''); Emma Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico
Federal Affairs Administration 435 F. 3d 378, 379-80 (DC Cir. 2006)
(``Through popular referendum, the people of Puerto Rico approved
Public Law 600's proposed allocation of power--supreme national power
to the U.S. Congress and full local control to the Puerto Rican
government--and then adopted a--constitution.''); Romero v. United
States, 38 F. 3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (``Congress approved the
proposed Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which
thenceforth changed Puerto Rico's status from that of an unincorporated
territory to the unique one of Commonwealth.''); United States v.
Quinones, 758 F.2d 40 (1st Cir. 1985) (``The authority of the federal
government emanated thereafter from the compact itself. Under the
compact between the people of Puerto Rico and the United States,
Congress cannot amend the Puerto Rico Constitution unilaterally, and
the government of Puerto Rico is no longer a federal government agency
exercising delegated power.'').
There is scattered case law asserting that Puerto Rico still is
subject to the plenary powers of Congress under the Territory Clause.
In U.S. v. Sanchez, 992 F.2d 1143, 1151-53 (11th Cir. 1993) the
Eleventh Circuit disagreed with consistent First Circuit case law and
held that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign for purposes of the
dual sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. That patently
wrong view is supported by Judge Torruella out of the First Circuit,
who espoused it in his dissident opinion in United States v. Lopez
Andino, 831 F.2d 1164 (1st Cir.1987) and then slipped a line to that
effect writing for the majority in Davila-Perez v. Lockheed Martin
Corp., 202 F.2d 464, 468 (1st Cir. 2000) (holding that Puerto Rico is a
territory under the Defense Base Act). All of these cases rely on the
same erroneous interpretation of Harris v. Rosario. These cases have
been wrongly decided and must be discarded.
Both the constitutional history of the relationship between the
United States and Puerto Rico and 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, likewise, only by the mutual consent of such
parties.
The Task Force Reports' blatantly outrageous conclusion that the
United States can unilaterally cede the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
without the consent of its people, to any foreign country of its
choosing is not only superficial and highly un-American but also
without any legal merit.
B. The U.S. Citizenship of the People of Puerto Rico.
The drafters of the Task Force Reports also adhere to the unfounded
notion that Congress can rescind the U.S. citizenship of the 4 million
Puerto Ricans born in the island. The Task Force Reports adamantly
suggest that ``[i]ndividuals born in Puerto Rico are citizens of the
United States by statute (rather than by being born or naturalized in
the United States),'' and that as such ``if Puerto Rico were to become
an independent sovereign nation, those who chose to become citizens of
it or had U.S. citizenship only by statute would cease to be citizens
of the United States, unless a different rule were prescribed by
legislation or treaty [...].''
It is a well-settled principle of federal law that the citizenship
rights of people born in Puerto Rico are protected by the
constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of the
laws emanating from the U.S. Constitution.
The history of the U.S. citizenship of the Puerto Rican people
begins with the 1899 Treaty of Paris, which provided that, ``[t]he
civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the
territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by
Congress.'' The Foraker Act, enacted on April 12, 1900, put an end to
military rule and established a civil government in the island. But it
was not until the enactment of the 1917 Jones Act that Puerto Ricans
were granted U.S. citizenship. The 1940 Nationality Act, moreover,
defined ``United States'' as ``the continental United States, Alaska,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands of the United States,'' and
determined that the people who were born ``in the United States'' were
citizens at birth. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, from which
most Puerto Ricans today trace their U.S. citizenship, tracked the
language of the 1940 statute.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states, ``All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside.'' By its terms, the text of the Fourteenth
Amendment extends American citizenship to persons born or naturalized
``in the United States.'' The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is certainly
``in the United States,'' as specifically acknowledged in the
Immigration and Nationality Act and elsewhere. Thus, the people of
Puerto Rico clearly qualify as ``constitutional'' or ``Fourteenth
Amendment'' citizens.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as
granting irrevocable constitutional citizenship to those persons born
within a jurisdiction such as Puerto Rico. In the Slaughter-House
Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1872), the Supreme Court directly
rejected the claim that only citizens of a State are United States
citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found inter alia
that ``[...] persons may be citizens of the United States without
regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and--by making all
persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction
citizens of the United States.''
In light of the Slaughter-House Cases and the Supreme Court's
common-law interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, it is clear that
persons born ``within the United States''--such as the people of Puerto
Rico--are constitutional U.S. citizens. In Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S.
253, 262 (1967), the Supreme Court explained that Congress cannot
revoke Fourteenth Amendment citizenship,
[The Fourteenth Amendment] provides its own constitutional rule
in language calculated completely to control the status of
citizenship: ``All persons born or naturalized in the United
States--are citizens of the United States...'' There is no
indication in these words of a fleeting citizenship, good at
the moment it is acquired but subject to destruction by the
Government at any time. Rather the Amendment can most
reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen
keeps unless he voluntary relinquishes it.
Thus, Afroyim makes clear that Congress may not rescind or revoke
the U.S. citizenship of people born in Puerto Rico. The Task Force
Reports' contrary conclusion is patently incorrect. The Supreme Court
has only recognized one revocable variant of U.S. Citizenship. Both the
1940 Nationality Act and 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, as well
as subsequent federal statutes, contain provisions regarding persons
born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents
one of whom is a citizen of the United States. They are regarded as
U.S. Citizens, but if they fail to reside in the United States or its
outlying possessions for a prescribed period or periods of time between
given ages, they automatically, by statute, lose that citizenship.
Quite clearly, the people of Puerto Rico do not fall under this
latter category. Puerto Ricans are born in the United States for
purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Their citizenship, thus, is
irrevocable.
Rather than designing a process whereby all three options--namely
commonwealth, statehood and independence--are voted on side-by-side,
H.R. 2499, in accordance with the Task Force Report, adopts a rigged
two-step process designed to kill the commonwealth option in the first
round of voting.
The intentional exclusion of the Commonwealth option from the
ballot is particularly problematic because it is based on unviable
legal arguments (as discussed in extenso in Section II above). And,
moreover, because it constitutes an openly discriminatory and
politically-motivated maneuver lacking any legitimate, let alone
compelling, governmental interest. It runs afoul the voters of Puerto
Rico's most basic equal protection and due process rights. Moreover, it
is at odds with the Obama Administration's commitment (as stated in the
President's Letter) to ``recognize all valid options to resolve the
question of Puerto Rico's status, including commonwealth, statehood and
independence.''
The Supreme Court has long recognized ``the political franchise of
voting as a fundamental political right, because [it] [is] preservative
of all rights.'' Thus, ``once the franchise is granted to the
electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment'' and will be
``closely scrutinized and carefully confined.'' In adjudicating
challenges to laws regulating elections, the Supreme Court has
consistently invalidated laws that have a ``real and appreciable impact
on the exercise of the franchise'' by denying voters ``a choice on the
issues.''
As contended above, the ballot prescribed by H.R.2499 effectively
denies the voters the option of continuing and enhancing Puerto Rico's
Commonwealth status. Thus, H.R. 2499's voting process clearly infringes
on the voting rights of Puerto Rico's voters by presenting the people
of Puerto Rico with a factually inaccurate choice--a false choice--as
to their future political status. Moreover, it discriminates against a
substantial segment of Puerto Rico's citizens (those who support
Commonwealth status).
It is a well-settled principle of U.S. law that there is no
legitimate governmental interest in mandating the inclusion of
inaccurate information in a voter referendum or plebiscite. Indeed, the
only apparent rationale for H.R. 2499's misguided voting process is a
desire to manufacture an artificial majority in favor of statehood.
Such discriminatory purpose is anathema to the fundamental electoral
rights protected both by the Commonwealth Constitution and the U.S.
Constitution. The Task Force's recommended two-round voting process
does not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
During the campaign, President Obama made a commitment that his
Administration would openly engage the people of Puerto Rico in
engineering a ``genuine and transparent process of self-determination
that will be true to the best traditions of democracy.'' He said:
As President, I will actively engage Congress and the Puerto
Rican people in promoting this deliberative, open and unbiased
process, that may include a constitutional convention or a
plebiscite, and my Administration will adhere to a policy of
strict neutrality on Puerto Rico status matters. My
Administration will recognize all valid options to resolve the
question of Puerto Rico's status, including commonwealth,
statehood, and independence.
H.R. 2499 is anything but deliberative, open or unbiased.
As President of the Popular Democratic Party, I encourage Congress
to insist upon a real self-determination mechanism that will not force
statehood upon the people of Puerto Rico, and instead to support a
process that will provide productive and democratic options. H.R. 2499
does not do that.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman very much for his
views, and now I would like to recognize The Honorable Ruben
Berrios-Martinez, President of the Puerto Rican Independence
Party.
STATEMENT OF RUBEN ANGEL BERRIOS-MARTINEZ,
PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Good morning to the members of this
Committee.
Ms. Bordallo. Would you come closer to the mic?
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Yes, good morning to you. The bill
under consideration, as it stands, is unacceptable and destined
to failure. The experience of the last 20 years demonstrates
that Congress will not enact legislation that directly or
indirectly promises statehood to Puerto Rico as does H.R. 2499.
Aversion to statehood for Puerto Rico is the main obstacle to
the approval of this legislation, even though few Members of
Congress would publicly admit it.
No one wants to be perceived as anti-democratic or
politically incorrect. Some prominent members of this House
have already advanced that there is no consensus among Puerto
Rico's political parties as an excuse to stall even the
consideration of this measure, but Congress should not point to
lack of consensus in Puerto Rico as a pretext for inaction.
Having signed and ratified the International Covenant of Civil
and Political Rights, the United States is legally bound under
Article I of the treaty to, and I quote, ``promote the
realization of the right of self-determination.''
The right of self-determination or independence is an
inalienable right of the Puerto Rican people which can be
exercised even in the face of congressional indifference or
opposition. Nevertheless, the U.S. is under a moral and legal
obligation to promote a process or provide a procedural
mechanism through which the people of Puerto Rico can exercise
this right. It should therefore enact legislation to facilitate
a final status solution for Puerto Rico.
Accordingly, I propose that the bill be amended to achieve
two goals: first, to facilitate its approval by both the House
and the Senate; and second, to accommodate the reasonable
demands of the Puerto Rican political parties and organizations
so that any opposition would clearly be a mere excuse not
deserving any serious consideration. The amendments I propose
here today, taken as a whole, provide a different and more
viable approach to Puerto Rico's status problem.
First of all, the language contained in the bill regarding
the first vote should be amended to clarify the territorial
nature of the present status. Second, and even more important,
simultaneously with this vote, Puerto Ricans should express in
the same ballot their preference for either a constituent
assembly or a plebiscite as the mechanism for expressing their
aspirations concerning substantial non-territorial options for
our political future.
Congress would then be in a position to respond to the
status choice of Puerto Ricans in either a constituent assembly
to be convened under the laws of Puerto Rico or a plebiscite to
be convened under the laws of Puerto Rico. Consequently, the
second vote in H.R. 2499 would be eliminated. This approach
takes into account the different procedural mechanisms proposed
by Puerto Rico's political parties, provides a mechanism to
overcome the existing deadlock through the expression of the
popular will, and bypasses the alleged lack of political
consensus as a rationalization to stall the process.
We may not agree on the substantive status options, but we
can surely agree on a method for selecting a procedural
mechanism to facilitate the solution to Puerto Rico's status
problem. No one who claims to respect the will of the people
should object to having the people decide whether to continue
or not under the present territorial status, or that the people
should decide whether the procedural mechanism for deciding on
the future status should be a constituent or constitutional
assembly or a referendum. That is precisely what we are
proposing here today.
We acknowledge, furthermore, the grave political reality
that the U.S. Congress will not act on status unless it has to,
unless it is forced to, but Congress, by inaction, will not be
able to avoid confronting Puerto Rico's status problem, at
least not this time. If Congress does not legislate, the pro-
statehood leadership has made clear that it will hold a local
plebiscite or referendum which we can surely expect will be
designed to elicit a result favorable to statehood.
Either Congress approves, as we propose, a rational and
fair procedural mechanism to solve Puerto Rico's colonial
problem, or it allows irrational forces propelled by
circumstantial majorities to control the process. To conclude,
let me bring before you an important final consideration. The
Puerto Rican colonial problem affects the foreign relations of
the United States with Latin America. Last week, at the
initiative of nine Latin American and Caribbean countries, the
U.N. Committee on Decolonization approved a unanimous
resolution which requires the U.S. to comply with its
decolonizing obligations with respect to Puerto Rico, in
accordance with General Assembly Resolution 1514 [XV].
Similarly, 33 of Latin America's most important political
parties representing a very wide ideological spectrum also
recently approved a similar resolution. The national interest
of the United States, as proclaimed by President Barack Obama
in the Summit of the Americas two months ago, demands a new
relationship with Latin America. For Latin America, Puerto
Rico's colonial status is a symbol of outdated and discredited
imperial policies. The issue is, and has always been, how far
does the southern border of the U.S. extend into Latin America
and the Caribbean?
If the U.S. aspires to establish a new relationship with
Latin America based on mutual respect and cooperation, it must
squarely face and actively contribute to the solution of the
colonial problem of Puerto Rico, a Latin American nation. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berrios-Martinez follows:]
Statement of Ruben Berrios-Martinez, President,
Puerto Rican Independence Party
The bill under consideration, as it stands, is unacceptable and
destined to failure. The experience of the last 20 years demonstrates
that Congress will not enact legislation that directly or indirectly
promises statehood to PR, as does H.R. 2499.
Aversion to statehood for Puerto Rico is the main obstacle to the
approval of this legislation, even though few Members of Congress would
publicly admit it. No one wants to be perceived as antidemocratic or
politically incorrect.
Some prominent members of this House have already advanced that
there is no consensus among Puerto Rico's political parties as an
excuse to stall even the consideration of the measure. But Congress
should not point to lack of consensus in Puerto Rico as a pretext for
inaction. Having signed and ratified the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights, the United States is legally bound under
Article 1 of the treaty to ``promote the realization of the right of
self-determination'', a basic human right.
The right to self-determination and independence is an inalienable
right of the Puerto Rican people, which can be exercised even in the
face of congressional indifference or opposition. Nevertheless, the
U.S. is under a moral and legal obligation to promote a process or
provide a procedural mechanism through which the people of Puerto Rico
can exercise this right. It should therefore enact legislation to
facilitate a final status solution for Puerto Rico.
Accordingly, I propose that the bill be amended to achieve two
goals: first, to facilitate its approval by both the House and the
Senate; and second, to accommodate the reasonable demands of Puerto
Rican political parties and organizations, so that any opposition would
clearly be a mere excuse, not deserving of any serious consideration.
The amendments I propose here today taken as a whole provide a
different and more viable approach to Puerto Rico's status problem.
First of all, the language contained in the bill regarding the first
vote should be amended to clarify the territorial nature of the present
status. Secondly, and even more important, simultaneously with this
vote, Puerto Ricans should express, in the same ballot, their
preference for either a constituent assembly or a plebiscite as the
mechanism for expressing their aspirations concerning substantive non
territorial options for our future political status. Congress would
then be in a position to respond to the status choice to be made by
Puerto Ricans in either a constituent assembly (proposed by the PDP and
the PIP) or a plebiscite (proposed by the NPP) and to be convened under
the laws of Puerto Rico. The second vote in H.R. 2499 would
consequently be eliminated.
This approach takes into account the different procedural
mechanisms proposed by Puerto Rico's political parties, provides a
mechanism to overcome the existing deadlock through the expression of
the popular will, and bypasses the alleged lack of political consensus
as a rationalization to stall the process. We may not agree on the
substantive status options, but we can surely agree on a method for
selecting a procedural mechanism to facilitate the solution to Puerto
Rico's status problem.
The pro-statehood New Progressive Party has agreed with the Puerto
Rican Independence Party on the desirability of posing the first
question to the people regarding the need to revise the present
relationship. Even the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party,
despite allegations that the first question would be skewed against
commonwealth, advocates various modifications to the present
arrangement. Regarding the second question on procedural mechanisms,
the Puerto Rican Independence Party has long proposed calling for a
sovereign constitutional status assembly, elected by the people in the
exercise of its inalienable right to self-determination and
independence, to choose among non colonial and non territorial
alternatives in accordance to international law. The prevailing status
option would be ultimately approved or rejected by a direct vote of the
Puerto Rican people. The Popular Democratic Party has also endorsed the
idea of the constitutional assembly status, albeit of a different
nature. The New Progressive Party has advocated the alternative
procedural mechanism of a referendum or plebiscite, but agrees with the
fundamental concept that all alternatives posed before the people ought
to be non colonial and non territorial. There are differences between
us, but there is ample common ground for agreement.
No one who claims to respect the will of the people should object
to having the people decide whether to continue or not under the
present status; or that the people should decide whether the procedural
mechanism for deciding on the future status of Puerto Rico should be a
constituent or constitutional status assembly, or a referendum. That is
precisely what we propose.
We acknowledge the political reality that the U.S. Congress will
not act on status unless it has to. But Congress by inaction will not
be able to avoid confronting Puerto Rico's status problem. If Congress
does not legislate, the pro-statehood leadership has made clear that it
will hold a local plebiscite or referendum which we can surely expect
will be designed to elicit a result favorable to statehood. Either
Congress approves, as we propose, a rational and fair procedural
mechanism to solve Puerto Rico's colonial problem, or it allows
irrational forces propelled by circumstantial majorities to control the
process.
To conclude, let me bring before you an important final
consideration. The Puerto Rican colonial problem affects the foreign
relations of the U.S. with Latin America. Last week, at the initiative
of nine Latin American and Caribbean countries, the United Nations
Committee on Decolonization approved a unanimous resolution which
requires the U.S. to comply with its decolonizing obligations with
respect to Puerto Rico, in accordance with General Assembly Resolution
1514 (XV). Similarly, thirty-three of Latin America's most important
political parties representing a wide ideological spectrum, also
recently approved a similar resolution.
The national interest of the U.S., as proclaimed by President
Barack Obama in the Summit of the Americas two months ago, demands a
new relationship with Latin America. For Latin America, Puerto Rico's
colonial status is a symbol of outdated and discredited policies. The
issue is ``and has always been--how far does the Southern border of the
U.S. extend into Latin America and the Caribbean. If the U.S. aspires
to establish a new relationship with Latin America based on mutual
respect and cooperation, it must squarely face and actively contribute
to the solution of the colonial problem of Puerto Rico, a Latin
American nation.
Thank you.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman very much for his views
as a representative of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, and
now, I am going to recognize members in the Committee to ask
questions of the witnesses, and I will begin by recognizing the
Ranking Member, Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I have
no questions. I apologize, with these votes, that I am coming
and going, but I look forward to reviewing your testimony.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Bordallo. I would like to mention for the record, to
show that Governor Fortuno is still with us, and unlike so many
witnesses who testify and then leave the room, by his presence,
Governor Fortuno is showing his commitment to the bill and the
issue at hand. So I thank you, Governor, for staying with us.
I would like to now recognize the author of the bill, The
Honorable Pedro Pierluisi from Puerto Rico.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, and I thank
you so much, all of you, for appearing today. Let me start by
commenting that I noticed that both Governor Fortuno and
distinguished Puerto Rican leader Ruben Berrios coincide in one
issue. I see that both of you are concerned with the fact that
the bill doesn't specify or describe the current status as
territorial, as a territory, as what it is, and I see your
point. Your point is well-taken. I am sure this Committee, the
members of the Committee, will weigh it in due course, and I
thank you for pointing that out.
In the case of Governor Romero Barcelo, I would like you to
expand a bit, if you may, on why--you are so experienced
dealing with this issue, in the Congress, in Puerto Rico,
lifelong. Why is it so important that the Congress take the
lead on this issue?
Mr. Romero Barcelo. Because of what I mentioned in my
testimony, that the people of Puerto Rico have been lied to and
are being lied to as to what commonwealth means. So, people of
Puerto Rico don't--people in the Popular Party believe that the
commonwealth is not a territorial status. They feel that the
commonwealth is autonomy, full autonomy. I have spoken to
lawyers, Popular Party lawyers, that say that Puerto Rico is
sovereign in our labor laws.
What about the minimum wage? What about the unfair labor
practices? All Federal labor laws are applicable in Puerto
Rico, as are so many other laws. They have told the people of
Puerto Rico for ages, for decades, that we were fiscally
autonomous. Now, Congress took 936 away. We are not autonomous.
We have some taxation benefits that are legislated by Congress,
not by the Constitution, not by any compact, but legislated by
Congress, and Congress can take them away.
We are subject to congressional will. So, the people of
Puerto Rico have to understand that if they want commonwealth,
that is the option, that is their right to want it, but that
they are also saying that they want to remain as a territory,
because Congress will not deal with a sovereign nation and have
that sovereign nation have U.S. citizens who are not under the
jurisdiction of Congress. That is a no-no, and we all know
that, so Congress should be clear and let the people of Puerto
Rico know, look, you want an association? That is a form of
independence.
Once you are independent, you can go into an association,
but how can you have a compact of association when you are not
a sovereign nation? So you have to be a sovereign nation first,
so that is a modality of independence. Fine, but it is not a
separate status. It is a modality of independence. So there are
actually only two choices. We can either have sovereignty, full
sovereignty as an independent nation, and then enter into any
kind of association with the United States, or we can share the
sovereignty of the Nation with all the 50 states as equal
partners, with six or seven congressmen and two senators, and
then we share in the sovereignty, and also the Constitution
guarantees to the states all those powers which are not
delegated to Congress by the Constitution, whereas a territory
has no such powers.
The Congress has complete authority over the territory,
pursuant to Article IV, Section III of the Constitution.
Mr. Pierluisi. Mr. Berrios, you are a professor of law? I
see that in your vision, statehood is not something that the
Congress will ever offer to Puerto Rico. I disagree with you.
We don't need to belabor this point, but one thing that comes
to my mind is that, and I want to see if we agree here, as a
matter of international law, it cannot be questioned that there
are three possible political status for Puerto Rico, for any
territory, like Puerto Rico: statehood, incorporation into the
United States as a state; independence, the status that you
advocate for; and what has been called free association, an
association between two sovereign nations that is terminable by
the will of either party.
Now, my question is, first, do you agree that those are the
legally viable options as a matter of international law and
U.S. domestic law, and second question, what are the
differences in your mind between independence and free
association?
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Well, according to international law,
there is no question in anybody's mind, in any jurist's mind,
that there are only three possible alternatives in order for a
nation to comply with the decolonizing factors set about by the
different resolutions, and of course, always maintaining the
inalienable right to self-determination and independence under
any other of the two alternatives. That is from the juridical
point of view, but I must point out that for me, statehood is
unacceptable, not only because of moral, political, ethical
reasons, but because it is another form of colonialism, another
mask of colonialism, not from a juridical point of view; from a
sociological, historical and political point of view.
The problem of Puerto Rico is dependence in every aspect of
life, and statehood will not solve the dependence problem of
Puerto Rico, it will just mask it in another manner. But
juridically, juridically there are three solutions:
independence, integration, that is statehood, or free
association. The difference between free association and
independence is very clear in international law. First of all,
the Nation which, in its sovereignty, delegates certain
aspects, powers, to another nation, retains the capacity to
declare its independence.
But besides that, my main problem with the free association
formula is that I can think of no power that a free and
independent Puerto Rico could delegate or should delegate to
the United States. This is an exceptional solution for very
strange and rare cases, very small islands in the different
places of the world, no less respectful because of that, that
for example, have nobody to operate their landing fields. They
lack those capacities that make for a full independence, so
they delegate temporarily or until either party decides as a
country, certain aspects of their powers, but definitely, it is
a form of sovereignty which people may opt for, and in Puerto
Rico, some people are proposing that idea, some people, I may
say, inside the Popular Democratic Party, but those are
essentially the differences between the two.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous
consent if I can ask one additional question for the third
member of the panel. I know I have exceeded my time.
Ms. Bordallo. No objection. So ordered.
Mr. Pierluisi. OK. Mr. Ferrer, again, thank you so much for
appearing. I listened to your presentation carefully, and there
is something that troubles me and I want to inquire into it.
First of all, I would like to make, Madam Chair, as part of the
record a copy of the platform of the Popular Democratic Party,
specifically the section dealing with Puerto Rico's political
status.
Ms. Bordallo. No objection. So ordered.
2[NOTE: The Popular Democratic Party platform submitted for
the record has been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
Mr. Pierluisi. Mr. Ferrer, and I am sure you know that
platform in and out, I have reviewed it myself as part of the
process of drafting the bill, and when I review this platform,
and it will be part of the record, I see that your party and
all of its candidates before the last elections, less than a
year ago, asked for several things: first, sovereignty; second,
recognition of Puerto Rico as a nation; third, the power to
decide which Federal laws would apply to Puerto Rico; and in
addition, the creation of a national trust consisting of 20
years of Federal funding to promote self-sufficiency in the
island.
And one thing that cannot be contested is that your party
does not want Puerto Rico to be subject to the territorial
clause of the U.S. Constitution. Now, I have read this
platform. All of that is there. Do you stand by that platform
or are you walking away from it?
Mr. Ferrer Rios. Thank you for the question, Mr.
Commissioner, and I will answer the question. First of all, I
would like to say that when you were Secretary of Justice of
Puerto Rico in 1993, you said, and I am going to read it in
Spanish because I am going to translate, when you were invited
as a witness to discuss a plebiscite, the law for the
plebiscite, you said, ``Se le esta dando la oportunidad a los
principales partidos politicos que esposen sus definiciones.''
Translate: We are giving the opportunity to every principal
party, every political principal party, to define their status.
This is what you said in 1993. Before you presented this
bill, I called you, Mr. Commissioner, and I told you that we
were not being represented in your bill, that we wanted to sit
with you and discuss your bill, and you told me that you were
going to present the bill and then if we had any amendment,
just bring it to the Committee. You said that my statement
troubles you. Well, the whole bill troubles me, because you are
disenfranchising 800,000 people, Puerto Ricans, that you
represent here in Congress, because they cannot vote in your
bill.
Second, Puerto Rico is a nation. We are different from the
United States. We have cultural and Latin heritage that United
States doesn't have. We are a different nation, and I think
that is clear in every Puerto Rican mind, because we are proud
American citizens, but we love what we are. We are Puerto
Ricans first. Second, sovereignty. Sovereignty is the right of
the people to choose. Self-determination, the base of self-
determination is sovereignty, and what we said in our platform,
which you are, and I am sorry to say that you are not correctly
reading it, says, and I am going to read it again in Spanish,
``Por eso impulsamos y apoyamos el desarrollo economico del
Estado Libre Asociado, partiendo los principios de soberania,
asociacion y responsabilidad compartidas con Estados Unidos. El
Partido Pro-Democratico cree en una asociacion politica digna,
no colonial ni territorial, entre Puerto Rico y Los Estados
Unidos fundamentada en el poder del pueblo de Puerto Rico a
decidir sus asuntos fundamentales y indisoluble de la ciudania
americana.''
In that platform, it is not free association, and your
definition in that second round, it is free association, but I
am going to translate what I just read. It says, we support the
full development of the autonomous character of the
commonwealth based on the principles of sovereignty,
association and joint responsibilities within a compact with
the United States. Then it says, the Popular Democratic Party
believes in a political association with dignity, not colonial
or territorial, between Puerto Rico and the United States,
based in the right of the people of Puerto Rico to decide its
fundamental issues and the permanence and irrevocability of our
American citizenship.
That is what our platform says. It doesn't say the
definition you have on your bill, with all my respect,
Commissioner.
Mr. Pierluisi. Can you point to any inconsistency? The bill
says, sovereignty in association with the United States. Puerto
Rico and the United States should form a political association
between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the
territorial clause of the United States Constitution. I just
listened to you and I don't see any inconsistency. Can you
point to any?
Mr. Ferrer Rios. Yes, you are talking about free
association, and we are not talking about free association, and
as Mr. Berrios says, free association comes from independence.
Mr. Pierluisi. If I may, Madam Chair, I am going to raise
something else. It is just for clarification, for purposes of
clarifying the record, Mr. Ferrer in his written submission to
the Committee, specifically on page 3 of his written
submission, he states that in a February 12, 2008, letter to
former Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila, then-candidate Barack
Obama contended that the two-plebiscite process is highly
irregular and against the norm.
I would like to make part of the record that specific
letter that Mr. Ferrer is referring to, because when I read
that letter, I do not see any mention whatsoever of the two-
part plebiscite process by now-President Barack Obama. I have
to believe, Mr. Ferrer, that it was just an inadvertent mistake
on your part when quoting from that letter, and I just want to
clarify for the record the statements made by Mr. Obama, then
Mr. Obama, now our President, simply referred to citizenship,
our citizenship, and his view that it cannot be deprived or
withdrawn without due process, without constitutional
implications, and the second statement he made also was he
rejected the fact that Puerto Rico could be ceded or
transferred to another nation.
He made those two points, and I should say for the record,
Madam Chair, that I agree with now-President Obama. This bill,
2499, doesn't deal with either issue, either citizenship or a
transfer of Puerto Rico to a foreign nation, but again, I just
want the record to be clear that Mr. Obama, then-candidate
Obama, now President Obama, never in that letter referred to
the two-part plebiscite process as an irregular process, and
that should be part of the record.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank my colleague. I am going to have to
cut off the discussion here because we have one more panel to
be heard, but the Obama letter will be entered into the
statement along with the others. No objection to that. So
ordered.
I recognize now the gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, in interest of--I realize
the gentleman from Puerto Rico needs additional time. I will be
glad to yield him a portion of my time for any other questions.
Mr. Pierluisi. No, I believe Mr. Ferrer wanted to reply,
and so I do not mind using my time for that purpose, if you
may, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. We will return, but let us, I would like to
recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, if she has
any questions.
Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I, well, I
don't really apologize for not being here earlier, because--but
I regret not having been here at the beginning of the hearing,
because I was at Energy and Commerce and with everyone else
going out to vote I had the opportunity to get my question in
to Secretary Sebelius early and was able to ask her about
lifting the cap on Medicaid for the territories, to which she
really didn't have a specific answer, but indicated a
willingness to work with us on it.
But I would like to welcome Governor Fortuno, our former
colleague, Congressman Romero Barcelo, our Secretary of State
and all of the other distinguished individuals and the
representatives of the Independence Party and the Popular
Democratic Party who are with us this morning. I want to
congratulate my colleague, Mr. Pierluisi, the Resident
Commissioner, for making an attempt to move toward what I
consider to be a somewhat fairer bill, but unlike Governor
Fortuno and Mr. Berrios, I am glad that the word ``territory''
is out.
I had a problem with it in the previous Congress. To me it
is not a description that the people of Puerto Rico have ever
really used in describing themselves, and therefore, to me, it
may be confusing to many and inflammatory to some. My main
concern about the bill, though, is the fact that the
opportunity to vote for a different or perhaps what has been
called an enhanced commonwealth is not present in the second
plebiscite. I think it could possibly be interpreted by the
voters that it too is a different political status because it
would be different from the commonwealth that now exists, and
so my question is, why not give the people of Puerto Rico the
opportunity to choose in that second plebiscite a different
commonwealth?
Basically, that is my question, to all of the panelists.
Mr. Romero Barcelo. If that choice were clear to say that
in order to have any kind of sovereignty, have a separate
sovereign nation, that there would be no U.S. citizenship, I
have no problems with that, but if they think that they can
have a sovereignty with U.S. citizenship, that is a no-no.
Congress would never go for that, so that would be lying to the
people of Puerto Rico, misleading the people of Puerto Rico.
Ms. Christensen. You know, as I envision it, though,
Congressman, I just, I see that as an evolving process of the
people of Puerto Rico, then maybe through a constitutional
assembly or some other process, decide what that commonwealth
would be.
Mr. Romero Barcelo. You know, the constitutional assembly,
I don't--the constitutional assembly, what is it assembled for?
To draft a constitution or to approve a new constitution?
Constitutional assembly called in to define the options of
status? That is absurd.
Ms. Christensen. OK, well, maybe my choice of words, but an
assembly of the people however it might be called. Let me give
the other two panelists an opportunity to answer the question.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Let me start by your first question
and then by the constituent assembly, what it means. Enhanced
commonwealth is another form of territory, and we are trying to
finally decide on the Puerto Rican status issue.
Ms. Christensen. What if the people are not ready to make
that decision?
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Well, they can opt to remain as they
are. They can opt to remain--but you cannot freely determine
yourself out of self-determination, it is a contradiction in
terms. You have status options of equal juridical validity. You
cannot have status options of different juridical validity to
pose before people. Where you can differ and try to reach a
consensus is the procedural mechanism as to how to make the
decision, and there, I must explain that the constituent
assembly for status, or a constitutional assembly for status,
will be elected by the people and the people will choose either
statehooders, independentistas, or people who believe in the
third alternative.
After the constituent assembly meets and reaches a
decision, the alternative that triumphs will be again submitted
to the people in a yes or no referendum. They vote in the first
instance and in the second instance, and then with that
decision we come to Congress, but then we go into a dialogue
with Congress, the representatives of the majority of the
constitutional assembly, with Congress in an ongoing process
until we solve the problem. That is the constitutional
assembly, is a fully democratic by the direct vote of the
people in two instances.
The other choice is a referendum or plebiscite, and then
the people of Puerto Rico, what we propose is that they choose
between the two methods. What can be more democratic than that?
Who can object to the people of Puerto Rico choosing whether
they want a constituent assembly or a referendum or
plebiscites? That is what we are proposing, but I must again
repeat, the alternatives must be of equal juridical stature,
and these are, according to international law, free
association, statehood or independence, but then you give the
people of Puerto Rico to remain in the colonial or territorial
system if they so wish.
It sounds a little absurd to ask people that, but many
people in Puerto Rico have been led to believe that colonialism
is good. But people cannot self-determine themselves out of
self-determination, and what we are trying is to reach a self-
determination bill in this House.
Ms. Christensen. Madam Chair, could I ask unanimous consent
that I get just a response from the third panelist?
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
Ms. Christensen. Thank you.
Mr. Ferrer Rios. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. At this time, I thank the gentlelady from
Virgin Islands and I would like--oh, I see. I am sorry.
Mr. Ferrer Rios. I agree with the definition Mr. Berrios
just gave us about the constitutional assembly, and we believe
in the constitutional assembly. It is not on the bill. Second,
I would like to defer from the interpretation of the
international law. The United Nations has said that the
principles on equality of rights and the free self-
determination of the nations can be sustained not on three
options. It is in Spanish, but I am going to translate.
I am going to read it in Spanish first and then I am going
to translate. ``El establecimiento de un estado soberano
independiente, la libre asociacion o integracion con un estado
independiente, o la situacion de qualquier otra condicion
politica libremente decidida por un pueblo constituyen formas
del ejercicio del derecho de la libre determination de este
pueblo.'' What it says is that a nation can self-determine
itself through the establishment of a free, sovereign state,
would be a republic or independent nation, free association, or
the integration to the independent state, that would be
statehood, and it also says, or any other political condition
freely decided by the Nation constitutes forms of the exercise
of the right of self-determination.
So, enhanced commonwealth in international law can be
recognized.
Mr. Romero Barcelo. Madam Chairman, may I make a statement?
Ms. Bordallo. You are----
Mr. Romero Barcelo. I would like to make a statement on
this issue also. We are talking about sovereignty, we are
talking about constitutional conventions, we are talking
about--but, my concern is this. In Puerto Rico, we are U.S.
citizens. We are American citizens. How can we establish any
kind of a procedure where I and my children and my children's
children and the rest of the American citizens can be
disenfranchised? Isn't that an anathema to our democracy?
Isn't that just the opposite of what our democracy stands
for? How can anybody allow such a process to go? How can anyone
vote against my right to vote? How can anybody impede me from
voting for now and forever, and my children, as an American
citizen? That is the problem here that is not being discussed.
That is the problem with the commonwealthers, that they want to
be a separate nation but they also want to be U.S. citizens.
Oh, and they want the benefits too, but they don't want to pay
taxes.
This is the issue here, U.S. citizenship, and how can we
have U.S. citizenship? Either by being a state where we can
vote and have representation, or be a sovereign nation and we
can then vote in the sovereign nation. Otherwise, we are
disenfranchised.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Yes, I must correct now--I don't want
to speak as an expert on international law or as a professor in
international law, but I am here as a representative of a
political party and I must correct some political mistakes. I
have heard everything from some of the leaders of the PPD
trying to put commonwealth to the level of other alternatives.
Now they dig up this almost 30-year-old resolution of the U.N.
which bears no relationship to the Puerto Rican case that is a
principle of international law that says ``lex specialis deroga
generalis,'' the special law derogates, goes over, the one
which is general.
But aside from that, you have to understand, this
resolution, within the context of Resolution 1514 [XV], nothing
in this resolution, which is a general resolution regarding
general principles of international law and issues of
international law, can run contrary to Resolution 1514 [XV]. Of
course there can be other ways to exercise self-determination.
France can enter into a treaty with China, and that is a way to
exercise self-determination regarding the relationship between
the two nations, but that doesn't mean that you can choose to
be a political slave.
You cannot choose to be undemocratic. You cannot choose
yourself out of self-determination, and in Puerto Rico they are
trying to argue through this indirectly. It is like a rabbit
out of a hat. They pull out now this 2625, which has nothing to
do with Puerto Rico, nor will--nor runs contrary to 1514--
because they have no other argument.
Ms. Bordallo. I want to thank the gentleman. The time is
expired.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. And that should be clear because it
is the last of the desperate moves now in the juridical field
to avoid confronting the issue of finally determining Puerto
Rico's status issue.
Ms. Bordallo. We understand. We would like to go on. I
would remind the witnesses that we have another panel to be
heard and some of the members here have votes, and so I want to
be able to hear everybody's viewpoint. The gentleman from
American Samoa, if you could wrap it up?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. Reclaiming my
time, this panel is very important, Madam Chair, because these
three distinguished gentlemen represent probably the three
major political persuasions among the people of Puerto Rico. I
do want to personally welcome again my good friend and former
colleague, Governor Romero, for being here, and I must say,
sir, I do admire your consistency. You have never wavered once
for the last 30 years or 40 years in being a strong advocate of
statehood, and for that, I respect you for that, and the
gentleman also, Mr. Rios, I suspect that you are with the
Commonwealth Party, and also the gentleman, Mr. Ferrer, I have
also admired your consistency being a strong advocate of----
Mr. Ferrer Rios. On the losing side, that is the difficult
consistency.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, and we were talking about all
different kinds of political associations and I have a fair
list here with me. It is independence, it is statehood, it is
commonwealth, it is free association, it is a territory, like
we can claim the moon also as a territory of the United States,
and then territory can either be unincorporated or unorganized.
That is the great claim that we have in my territory. We are
both an unincorporated and unorganized territory of the United
States.
Then there is also the enhanced commonwealth and then also
the compact of free association that the Micronesian entities
have now achieved, very much similar to the commonwealth
status, I believe, in what the enhanced status commonwealth
that our friend Mr. Rios is trying to advocate here. Gentlemen,
I just wanted to ask you, the bill simply provides for the
first round of the plebiscite in a most fair manner conducted
under the auspices of this Federal mandate, and it is just two
questions, you support the present political status or other
political options.
Is that a fair--I don't see any unfairness in the way it is
proposed in the bill. Is that acceptable to all you three
gentlemen?
Mr. Romero Barcelo. I want to make clear that it is a
territory that we are voting on, whether we want the territory
or not, because it is a territory, but what I feel that cannot
be done is you cannot hide from the people the fact that we are
a territory. It has been decided by the courts, the Supreme
Court. Congress has looked into it. Congress has said yes, they
are a territory. Congress acts as though it were a territory,
so let the people of Puerto Rico know that that is what it is
when they vote.
That is all I am asking. Don't hide it, because if we hide
it that is not telling the truth fully and not telling the
truth fully is lying.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Rios?
Mr. Ferrer Rios. No, it is not, sir. No, it is not. It is a
first round where you merge together the statehood and
independence forces against the commonwealth, and if you sum up
the votes of statehood and independence and even if they
haven't won any plebiscite for the past 60 years, they are
going to defeat, then, commonwealth, because it is two against
one, and then, on a second runoff, you are taking out the
status as one and replace it.
It is like next election, next election, and I will do it
with all respect next election, will go to Puerto Rico and ask
the people of Puerto Rico in a referendum, Mr. Pierluisi, yes
or no, and then Mr. Pierluisi loses that election and then the
runoff is between our candidate and the candidate of the
Independence Party.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Rios, I know it would interest you
that we did have a plebiscite a couple of years ago in Puerto
Rico where the results were 48 percent was with commonwealth,
46 percent was with statehood, and then the remaining
percentage, which is what, 6 percent, went to independence and
the other options. Is this the concern that you have, Mr. Rios,
is the fact that----
Mr. Ferrer Rios. Yes, that was the plebiscite of 1993, but
the plebiscite of 1998, Mr. Pierluisi's party drafted
definitions that didn't define commonwealth, so we had to go in
another option that was none of the above, and in that
plebiscite in 1998, none of the above won 50.3 percent of the
vote, but what happened now, Mr. Congressman, is that the last
three judges appointed to our Supreme Court by Governor Fortuno
dismissed that option, none of the above, in a recent case, so
they have disenfranchised 50.3 percent of those votes in
upcoming plebiscites or local plebiscites because then we won't
have that none of the above option if we are not able to define
commonwealth.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Chair, my time is up. Thank you,
gentlemen. Appreciate it.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from American Samoa
very much, and I welcome my colleague, Mr. Sarbanes from
Maryland. We want to thank all of you for testifying this
morning, because it is still morning, and I would like to
welcome the third panel. Please come forward and take your
seats, The Honorable Thomas Rivera-Schatz, Senate President,
Senate of Puerto Rico; The Honorable Jose L. Dalmau-Santiago,
Minority Leader, Senate of Puerto Rico; The Honorable Jenniffer
Gonzalez-Colon, Speaker, Puerto Rico House of Representatives;
and The Honorable Eduardo Bhatia, Designee of the House
Minority Leader.
Would the second panel please be seated, and in the
interest of time, we do have a five-minute rule, so if you can
reduce your statement to about five minutes, and I would like
to remind you that your full written statement will be entered
into the record, and before we begin, I would like to ask the
Committee that a statement from a group called English First
would be entered into the record as well as a written statement
from The Honorable Jose F. Aponte Hernandez be entered into the
record. I have no objections. So ordered.
I would like at this time now to recognize the Senate
President, the Senate of Puerto Rico, The Honorable Thomas
Rivera-Schatz.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS RIVERA-SCHATZ,
SENATE PRESIDENT, SENATE OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Rivera-Schatz. Madam Chair, good day to you, as well as
to the Resident Commissioner Pierluisi and to each of the other
members of the House Committee on Natural Resources. For the
record, my name is Thomas Rivera-Schatz. I am the President of
the Senate of Puerto Rico. I wish to express my deepest
appreciation on behalf of the Senate of Puerto Rico for the
great interest you have shown in considering the affiliation of
4 million Americans residing in Puerto Rico.
I have come here today to express my support for H.R. 2499,
the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009. It is fitting that we
gather here today to discuss a democracy act for Puerto Rico
when we are about a month away from commemorating 111 years of
becoming a U.S. territory. Full democracy has not been achieved
in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans who live in the island cannot
vote for the President, nor can we elect senators or voting
members in the House of Representatives.
Thus, we are citizens of the most democratic country of the
world but ironically, we have been deprived of enjoying full
benefits and responsibilities of our citizenship. The status
dilemma of 4 million American citizens residing in Puerto Rico
is a civil rights issue. It is an issue of equality and
freedom. The right of self-determination of 4 million American
citizens is also a national Hispanic issue that is being
closely watched by American citizens of Hispanic origin with
great implications in the national political scene today.
Our nation has shown its best colors in conflicts around
the world. It has shown that we are willing to fight and shed
our blood in the cause of freedom. That was the case in world
wars, in Korea and Vietnam, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and many other international conflicts.
Thousands of American citizens from the territory of Puerto
Rico gave their lives, shed their blood in those historical
conflicts, and continue to do so defending democracy and
freedom.
However, those American citizens of Puerto Rico are denied
their rights despite our great contributions to the United
States. Over 100 Puerto Ricans have died in Iraq and
Afghanistan since 2001. Many others have been wounded and
decorated for their valor. Surprisingly, still today, their
vote for their Commander-In-Chief is legally precluded. How can
we argue that we went to Iraq and Afghanistan to, among other
things, provide democracy and self-determination to the
oppressed people of those countries, but refuse to grant the
same basic principles to the people of Puerto Rico?
On this matter, I am encouraged with the President Barack
Obama commitment to the people of Puerto Rico. In a letter sent
to the Governor Luis Fortuno on January 2, 2009, and read
during the Governor's inaugural ceremony, the President
reminded the people of Puerto Rico his pledge to work with the
Congress to enable to question of Puerto Rico status to be
resolved during the next four years. President Obama concluded
with the following commitment, and I quote, ``We will work to
give a voice to the people of Puerto Rico to enable them to
determine their political future.''
The time to give a voice to Puerto Rico is now by approving
H.R. 2499. In Puerto Rico, for the first time in our history,
the three traditional political parties representing different
solutions for the status dilemma agree on the necessity of
seeking a political status that removes Puerto Rico from the
territorial clause of our U.S. Constitution. Continuing with
the territorial status is not a solution since it maintains the
island shackled to a territorial clause.
The only acceptable non-territorial, non-colonial status
solutions under international law are statehood, independence,
and free association. I suggest H.R. 2499 be amended to state
that the three options in the second plebiscite, provided by
Section 2, paragraph 3, shall be in accordance with
international law. This will dissipate any doubts as to the
non-territorial, non-colonial nature of the options. This bill
is a good first step to decolonize the territory of Puerto
Rico, but H.R. 2499 does not commit or mandate the U.S.
Congress to implement the will of the democratic expression of
4 million American citizens.
This bill must establish in the minds of every member of
the Congress and the President that the will of the citizens in
Puerto Rico must be respected and implemented. Without a
commitment from Congress to implement the democratically
expressed result is to deny freedom. Maintaining 4 million
American citizens in the territory without empowerment of
equality is to maintain a state of apartheid in the 21st
century. If our nation wants to project trust and good will to
our neighbors and the international community, it must
eliminate the anachronism of a territory with 4 million unequal
American citizens.
I strongly believe that H.R. 2499 should be amended in
Section 3 to add a new paragraph E stating that U.S. Congress
shall execute the results of the second plebiscite and approve
legislation to implement the mandate of the people of Puerto
Rico. Last May, a handful of individuals from Puerto Rico
interrupted a session of the Congress to express their
frustration about our political status. While we know that the
vast majority of Puerto Ricans do not share the political view
of this small group, the fact remains that the American
citizens of Puerto Rico do want Congress to listen.
Give the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to properly
express themselves by approving H.R. 2499 and you will realize
that just as our men and women in uniform help defend the
American flag, our people deeply value the democratic
principles that America represents. In a letter to Henry Pierce
written on April 6, 1859, President Lincoln said, those who
deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under
a just God, cannot long retain it.
Give the people of Puerto Rico the freedom to choose a
final political solution by providing a fair and legal self-
determination process based on non-territorial, non-colonial
final permanent options. I respectfully ask you to succeed
where more than 50 previous Congresses have failed. I ask that
you recommend to the House approval of the Puerto Rico
Democracy Act of 2009, and I respectfully request that you
adopt the suggested amendments.
I would like to conclude my remarks by paraphrasing
President Obama's statement. Those who stand up for justice are
always on the right side of history. Stand on the right side of
history. Approve H.R. 2499. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rivera-Schatz follows:]
Statement of Thomas Rivera-Schatz, Esq., President of the Senate of
Puerto Rico, 2009- ; Electoral Commissioner of the New Progressive
Party (Statehood Party) of Puerto Rico, 2000-2007; General Secretary,
New Progressive Party (Statehood Party) of Puerto Rico, 2004-2007;
Assistant District Attorney, Puerto Rico Department of Justice, 1996-
1999
Chairman Rahall: good day to you, as well as to Resident
Commissioner Pierluisi and to each of the other members of the House
Committee on Natural Resources. For the record, my name is Thomas
Rivera-Schatz. I am the President of the Senate of Puerto Rico. I was
elected senator-at-large on November 4, 2008 in a landslide victory of
the New Progressive Party, the party that promotes statehood for Puerto
Rico. For the first time in 40 years a political party in Puerto Rico
elected all the candidates it was allowed by law to nominate for the
Senate.
Mr. Chairman I wish to express my deepest appreciation on behalf of
the Senate of Puerto Rico for the great interest you have shown in
considering the aspirations of the 4 million Americans residing in
Puerto Rico in solving their political status dilemma.
I have come here today to express my support for H.R. 2499, the
Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009. It is fitting that we gather here
today to discuss a ``Democracy Act'' for Puerto Rico when we are but a
month away from commemorating 111 years of becoming a U.S. territory.
Indeed the people of the longest held territory in U.S. history have
yet to be inquired by Congress whether they are content with the
territorial arrangement that has besieged us, first under Spain and now
by the United States.
Full democracy has not been achieved in Puerto Rico. True, we elect
all our local and state government officials, but Puerto Ricans who
live in the island cannot vote for the President nor can we elect
Senators or voting members in the U.S. House of Representatives. Living
in a territory means having no say in the national government, despite
the fact that this Congress and the President make decisions every day
that affect the daily lives of 4 million Americans that make Puerto
Rico their home. Thus, we are citizens of the most democratic country
of the world but ironically we have been deprived of enjoying the full
benefits and responsibilities of our citizenship.
The status dilemma of 4 million American citizens residing in
Puerto Rico is a civil rights issue; it is a national issue of equality
and freedom! The right of self determination of 4 million American
citizens is also a national Hispanic issue that is being closely
watched by all American citizens of Hispanic origin, with great
implications in the national political scene today, in the 2010
Congressional elections and in the 2012 Presidential election.
The base for validating the discrimination against 4 million
American Citizens was set by the same U.S. Supreme Court which
validated racial segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537
(1896). In that case, a discriminating majority argued that races could
be ``Separate but Equal''. In the Case of Puerto Rico, in Downes v.
Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244; 21 S. Ct. 770; 45 L. Ed. 1088 (1901), the same
discriminating majority gave birth to a new theory of incorporated and
unincorporated territories, theories not found even in the darkest
penumbras of constitutional interpretation. Using these arguments, as
they did in the Plessy case, they added that Puerto Rico was a
territory ``Belonging to, but not a part of'' and that we were
``Foreign, in a domestic sense''. Some 50 years later, in Brown v.
Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), a progressive U.S. Supreme
Court rejected the argument of ``Separate but Equal'' and established
that ``Anything separate, was inherently unequal''.
More than 100 years later, we still await the sensible voice of
reason that rejects discrimination, and understands that there is no
way you can ``belong to, but not be part of'', and mostly, nothing can
ever be ``foreign in a domestic sense''. This is clearly a case of
geographic segregation. As stated before in the Brown case, ``Anything
separate is inherently unequal''. It is simply un-American for our
Nation to maintain the American territory of Puerto Rico as separate
and unequal.
Our Nation has shown its best colors in conflicts around the World.
It has shown that we are willing to fight and shed our blood in the
cause of freedom. That was the case in the two World Wars, in Korea and
Vietnam, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Iraq and Afghanistan and many other
international conflicts. Thousands of American citizens from the
territory of Puerto Rico gave their lives; shed their blood in those
historical conflicts, and continue to do so defending democracy and
freedom.
However, the American citizens of Puerto Rico are denied their
rights despite our enormous contributions to the United States. In
fact, American soldiers from Puerto Rico have sustained higher per
capita service-connected disabilities than soldiers from the States.
Well over 100 Puerto Ricans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since
2001; numerous others have been wounded and/or decorated for their
valor. Surprisingly, still today, their vote for their Commander-in-
Chief is ``legally'' precluded.
After 111 years of jurisdiction over Puerto Rico, now is the moment
and time for our Nation to show its best colors to the 4 million
American citizens residing in the territory by granting us the freedom
to choose our final political destiny. How can we argue that we went to
Iraq and Afghanistan to, among other things, provide democracy and self
determination to the oppressed people of those countries but refuse to
grant the same basic principles to the people of the U.S. territory of
Puerto Rico? It is ironic that hundreds and hundreds of American
soldiers from Puerto Rico are sent to the Middle East for the purpose
of defending liberties that are denied to those very same soldiers in
their own homeland!
On this matter I am encouraged with President Barrack Obama's
commitment to the people of Puerto Rico. On a letter sent to Governor
Luis Fortuno on January 2, 2009 and read during the Governor's
inaugural ceremony, the President reminded the people of Puerto Rico of
his pledge to work with Congress to enable the question of Puerto
Rico's status to be resolved during the next four years. He went on to
say that he was, and I quote, ``fully aware of the difficulties that
Puerto Rico has faced in the past when dealing with this issue, but
self-determination is a basic right to be addressed no matter how
difficult''. On this subject, President Obama concluded with the
following commitment, and I quote: ``We will work to give a voice to
the people of Puerto Rico to enable them to determine their political
future.'' The time to give a voice to Puerto Rico is now--by approving
H.R. 2499.
In Puerto Rico for the first time in our history the three
traditional political parties representing different solutions for the
status dilemma agree on the necessity of seeking a political status
that removes Puerto Rico from the territorial clause of our U.S.
Constitution. This clause provides Congress with full authority ``to
dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the
Territory...belonging to the United States.'' This authority is
absolute. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1879, ``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''
(First Nat. Bank v. Yankton County, 101 U.S. 129, 133 (1879)).
However, continuing territorial status is not a solution since it
maintains the island shackled to the territorial clause. The only
acceptable non-territorial, non-colonial status solutions under
international law are statehood, independence and free association. I
suggest H.R. 2499 be amended to state that the three options in the
Second Plebiscite provided by Section 2, Paragraph (c), shall be in
accordance with international law. This will dissipate doubts as to the
non territorial, non colonial nature of the options.
In Puerto Rico we have held three local plebiscites in 1967, 1993
and 1998 without any prior commitment from Congress to act upon the
will of the people expressed in the ballot. The result was that once
the vote took place nothing happened in Congress. Thus, the people of
Puerto Rico are reluctant to vote on a plebiscite without Congress
agreeing to implement the results.
This bill is a good first step to decolonize the territory of
Puerto Rico. But H.R. 2499 does not commit or mandate the U.S. Congress
to implement the will of the democratic expression of 4 million
American citizens. This bill must establish in the minds of every
member of this Congress and the President that the will of our citizens
in Puerto Rico must be respected and implemented. Without a commitment
from Congress to implement the democratically expressed result is to
deny freedom. A non-commitment will certainly communicate and transmit
to our Latin American neighbors that this Nation is not willing to
treat as equal citizens of Hispanic origin.
Maintaining 4 million American citizens in the territory without
the empowerment of equality is to maintain a state of apartheid in the
twenty first century. If our Nation wants to project trust and goodwill
to our neighbors and the international community it must eliminate the
anachronism of a territory with four million unequal American citizens.
I strongly believe that H.R. 2499 should be amended in Section 3,
to add a new Paragraph (e), stating that the U.S. Congress shall
execute the results of the Second Plebiscite and approve legislation to
implement the mandate of the people.
The status issue is simply an issue of civil rights. It is an issue
of recognizing equality for 4 million American citizens. Today, our
Nation is in a defining moment. The way this Congress and this
President resolves the political condition of 4 million American
citizens residing in Puerto Rico is being watched by all free men and
all freedom-loving nations to determine how committed is the United
States in recognizing our right to be equal.
Last May, a handful of citizens from Puerto Rico interrupted a
session of Congress to express their frustration about our political
status. While we know that the vast majority of Puerto Ricans do not
share the political views of this small group, the fact remains that
the American citizens of Puerto Rico do want Congress to listen. Give
the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to properly express
themselves by approving H.R. 2499 and you will realize that, just as
our men and women in uniform have defended the American flag, our
people deeply value the democratic principles that America represents.
In a letter to Henry Pierce written on April 6, 1859 President
Lincoln said ``those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for
themselves; and under a just God, cannot long retain it.'' Give the
people of the territory of Puerto Rico the freedom to choose a final
political solution by providing a fair and legitimate self-
determination process based on non territorial, non colonial final
permanent options.
I respectfully ask you to succeed where more than 50 previous
Congresses have failed. I ask that you recommend to the House the
approval of the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 and I respectfully
request that you adopt the suggested amendments.
Thank you very much.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you very much, Senator, for your
testimony, and I would like to now recognize The Honorable Jose
L. Dalmau-Santiago, the Minority Leader of the Senate of Puerto
Rico.
STATEMENT OF JOSE L. DALMAU-SANTIAGO,
MINORITY LEADER, SENATE OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Dalmau-Santiago. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and
honorable members and Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi. I was
invited as Senate Minority Leader of the Popular Democratic
Party to testify before this Committee regarding H.R. 2499. The
principal language spoken in Puerto Rico is Spanish, and as
such, I will present my testimony in Spanish, but you have a
copy in English from my testimony.
[Testimony in Spanish.]
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dalmau-Santiago follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jose L. Dalmau-Santiago,
Minority Leader of the Popular Democratic Party, Senate of Puerto Rico
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee on Natural
Resources:
I was invited as Senate Minority Leader of the Popular Democratic
Party to testify before this Committee regarding H.R. 2499.
The principal language spoken in Puerto Rico is Spanish. Therefore,
I will present my testimony in Spanish.
Before providing my comments regarding H.R. 2499, I deem necessary
to address a serious concern. Puerto Rico has had a relationship with
the United States for more than a century; the last 57 of which under
the Commonwealth status, as recognized under the pact contained in
Public Law 600. During this relationship there have been various
plebiscites to consult the status preferences of the People of Puerto
Rico. The results of those electoral events, have demonstrated a firm
rejection of the independence and statehood options.
There have been other Congressional initiatives for a self-
determination process, including the one promoted by congressman J.
Bennet Johnston's in the 1980's, H.R. 856, known as the Young Bill in
1998--which was also considered by this Committee, H.R. 900 two years
ago and now H.R. 2499.
At the core of a self-determination process is the will of the
Members of Congress to respect and fulfill the will of the People of
Puerto Rico, since it is up to the People of Puerto Rico to finally
decide their status preference. Are you ready to accept the will of the
People of Puerto Rico which could include modifications under a new
Commonwealth model or to grant statehood or independence? That is a
question you have to answer.
Now, as a firm believer in the Commonwealth status option, which
has served the People of Puerto Rico well for over half a century, I
hereby submit to this Committee my statement in opposition of H.R.
2499.
H.R. 2499 is the offspring of the failed H.R. 900, which was, in
turn, the product of the Bush-Cheney task force on Puerto Rico. It
reflects the same distorted democratic values that became prominent
during the previous Administration. The Bush-Cheney task force report
adopts the flawed conclusion that the U.S. Constitution somehow
prohibits a relationship with Puerto Rico based on mutual consent,
anchored in the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico and our U.S.
citizenship.
H.R. 2499 promotes a sui-generis two-round election process, which
is totally biased in favor of the statehood option, as it proposes a
Commonwealth yes or no vote, with a run-off round between various
status options which have not been the historical preference of the
People of Puerto Rico. This is clearly not a democratic self-
determination process but a heavy biased plebiscite from the start.
President Obama laid out the framework for resolving the Puerto
Rico status question in his February 12, 2008, letter to Gov. Acevedo
Vila, copy of which is included for the record. The process, the
President said, has to be ``genuine and transparent'', ``true to the
best traditions of democracy''. It has to be ``deliberative, open and
unbiased'' and must ``recognize all valid options... including
commonwealth, statehood, and independence.'' On that same spirit, the
platform of the 2008 Democratic Party Convention states that ``[t]he
White House and Congress will work with all groups in Puerto Rico to
enable the question of Puerto Rico's status to be resolved during the
next four years. H.R. 2499 is not on the same track as the President or
the Democratic National Committee which received the endorsement of the
People of the United States A just and democratic self-determination
process requires that all valid options receive equal treatment. That
is what International Law requires and what is fair in a democracy.
I recommend a self-determination process which will provide the
People of Puerto Rico with an alternative to reach a consensus
regarding the acceptable status options. I am referring to the
Constitutional Assembly method. This alternative provides for an ample
dialogue and a frank discussion between proponents of the different
status options as well as facilitates a viable consensus for the status
solution in the Island.
The Constitutional Assembly is not a new or novel process for the
United States or Puerto Rico. The Constitution of the United States was
adopted by a Constitutional Assembly convened in Philadelphia, in 1787.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was adopted by a
Constitutional Assembly convened from September 1951 to July of 1952.
Both Magna Cartas are important documents that have served as model for
other democratic societies. Many Puerto Ricans have given their lives
to defend the principles therein contained.
The Constitutional Assembly has been also amply used as the method
of choice by the different territories in their quest to petition for
statehood. The Constitutional Assembly should be considered by this
Committee as a viable alternative to finally resolve the status
question. H.R. 2499 does not include this alternative. I totally agree
with the petition from various factions in the sense that we have to
express our preferences on the status issue. However, the method
proposed by H.R. 2499 is incorrect, anti-democratic and unjust to the
People of Puerto Rico. H.R. 2499 does not provide for a fair process.
Nevertheless, our current relationship with the United States
requires modifications to facilitate our insertion in the global
economy and benefit from it.
There are other issues that should be part of the status
discussion. For example, the restrictions imposed by the Maritime
Cabotage Laws. Puerto Rico is currently required to exclusively use
U.S. merchant vessels for maritime transportation. This situation
results in the imposition of a significant additional cost to the
Island's cargo operations that depends almost 100 % on maritime
transportation for the importation and exportation of goods. This
restriction imposes on Puerto Rico a serious competitive limitation in
the Island's ability to market its products internationally. The
Commonwealth should have the flexibility to choose maritime providers
based on competitive principles which would benefit the Island's
consumers, would provide investors with an additional incentive to
invest in our economy and would promote the economic development of our
country.
Exclusion from the applicability of the Maritime Cabotage Laws is
nothing new to Congress because the Virgin Islands, Marianas, Guam,
American Samoa, Wake and Midway are currently exempted from this
restriction. The proposed exclusion is an indispensable component for
the development of strategic projects in our country, such as the Port
of the Americas, a major transshipment with value added and domestic
cargo port. Hawaii and Alaska are other Untied States jurisdictions
that are exploring alternatives to become excluded from this
restriction, to further the development of their economies.
For the reasons described above, we oppose H.R. 2499 and submit the
Constitutional Assembly alternative as the most democratic and viable
option to allow the People of Puerto Rico to express its will.
Thank you.
Annex: Letter of Barack Obama to the Hon. Anibal Acevedo-Vila,
Governor of Puerto Rico, February 12, 2008
[The letter from Barack Obama follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0610.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0610.004
------
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Minority Leader from the Puerto
Rico Senate for his testimony, and we do have the English
version here for the record, and now I would like to recognize
The Honorable Jenniffer Gonzalez, the Speaker of the Puerto
Rico House of Representatives. Madam Speaker.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
SPEAKER, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair and all
distinguished members. First of all, I would like to clarify
that the Bush Task Force reports were based on legal opinions
of the Clinton Justice Department, and I think that is
important to the record. I am the Speaker of the Puerto Rico
House of Representatives, and here on behalf of over 4 million
of your fellow citizens living in Puerto Rico. We are American
citizens but we cannot vote for our nation's President and do
not have a voting representation in this Congress.
We have one representative who cannot vote in the full
House, not even for this bill which determines our future. In
the past days, we have witnessed millions of people marching
and protesting in a distant land to defend the votes they cast.
They are risking their lives to defend their right to vote. I
am here to support H.R. 2499 because we, your fellow citizens,
also have the right to choose our destiny. This bill will
finally authorize our people to vote on whether we want to
continue under current conditions or choose a different one.
Opponents allege that the bill is not fair and that is
leans the vote against the current relationship. Of course,
that is not true. The basic question before voters whether they
still consent to live in a territory, if the voters support the
territory, then it is clear that the majority of Puerto Ricans
truly favored the current colonial arrangement. However, if the
territory is democratically rejected, it means that the true
majority of Puerto Ricans no longer consents to the territorial
government. If that is the case, Puerto Ricans will then choose
between status options that end the territorial condition.
Opponents also allege a lack of consensus. I do not agree
on that either. The language of the bill reflects our Resident
Commissioner's efforts to reach a consensus and address
opponent objections, well-grounded or not. For instance, I
believe that the current undemocratic arrangement is the real
problem, and as such, it should not be an option. Yet, this
bill allows Puerto Ricans who support it a vote in order to
extend it. Further, the bill does not label the current
commonwealth as territorial, as some requested, nor does it
make clear that under it, Puerto Rico is subject to
congressional authority under the territory clause, allowing
some supporters to continue the claim that claims that it is
not.
Despite the both, I support this bill. I support H.R. 2499.
I also reject the claim of lack of consensus because some use
it to further delay a right to vote. There is consensus that a
non-colonial solution is needed, but if what opponents mean by
consensus is unanimity about means and ends, then that is just
a way to prevent anything from happening. Despite the numerous
bills that have been discussed in this Congress to this day,
supporters of some sort of new territory are still debating
exactly what they want to propose.
On multiple occasions, members of the House and the Senate
have rejected the variations presented by those who favor an
enhanced form of territorial government, because they were not
viable under the Constitution. Accordingly, and after a strong
lobbying effort, the process has been delayed, ironically
because supporters of the current relationship cannot even
reach an internal consensus on what they want. But while they
claim to reach a consensus of their highly mutating territorial
option, they continue to deny us our right to vote.
That should not be the case right now. As mentioned above,
the current territory is on the first ballot. Despite arguments
to the contrary, the bill does reflect our Resident
Commissioner's efforts to address opponent objections and to
reach a real consensus. I have to add that that effort, despite
the fact that the opinions as to how we will solve Puerto
Rico's status were very clear to the voters in the last
November election, opponents of this bill ran on a platform
that included the arguments brought forth today. However,
supporters of this bill won most office in Puerto Rico,
including Governorship, the Resident Commissioner, as well as
the State House and Senate. The will of the people, of course,
is very clear.
Finally, a lot has been said about the fact that in over
111 years, Congress has never given Puerto Ricans an
opportunity to hold a vote between viable alternatives to solve
this fundamental issue. We think the time has come for this to
change. As citizens of this brave democracy, we need the
government to allot us one more day without at least asking 4
million of its citizens whether we will further consent to live
under the government based on legislation without
representation.
That is the real issue here, civil rights, and we demand to
vote. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, distinguished
members of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gonzalez-Colon follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jenniffer A. Gonzalez-Colon,
Speaker, Puerto Rico House of Representatives
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members,
I am the Speaker of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, here
on behalf of over four million of your fellow citizens living in Puerto
Rico.
We are American citizens, but we cannot vote for our nation's
President and do not have a voting representation in this Congress. We
have one representative who cannot vote in the full House--not even for
this bill, which determines our future.
In the past days, we have witnessed millions of people marching and
protesting in a distant land, to defend the votes they cast. They are
risking their lives to defend their right to vote.
I am here to support H.R. 2499 because we, four million of your
fellow citizens, also have the right to choose our destiny.
H.R. 2499 would finally authorize our people to have a binding vote
on whether we want to maintain the current political condition, or
choose a different one.
Critics argue that the bill is not fair and that it leans the vote
against the current relationship. Not true.
The basic question before the voters is whether they still agree--
and consent--to live in a territory.
If the voters support the current relationship, then, it is clear
that the majority of Puerto Ricans truly favor the current colonial
arrangement.
However, if the territory is democratically rejected, it means that
the majority of Puerto Ricans no longer give their consent to the
territorial government.
If that is the case, then Puerto Ricans will choose between status
options that end the territorial and colonial condition.
Critics also argue that the process lacks consensus. I do not
agree.
The language of the bill reflects our resident commissioner's
efforts to address objections of opponents--well-grounded or not.
For instance, I believe that the current undemocratic arrangement
is the problem--and it should not even be an option. Yet, note that the
proposal, first of all, allows Puerto Ricans who support the present
relationship a vote to keep it.
Further, note that the bill does not label the current
``Commonwealth'' as territorial nor does it state that under it, Puerto
Rico is subject to congressional authority under the Territories
Clause--allowing some supporters to continue their claims that it is
not.
I also reject the claim of lack of consensus as an objection to the
bill because, ultimately, some simply use it to further delay Puerto
Ricans' right to vote between non-territorial and non-colonial options.
There is consensus that a non-colonial solution is needed. But, if
what critics mean by ``consensus'' is unanimity, about means and ends,
then that's just a way to prevent anything from happening.
Despite the numerous bills that have been discussed in this
Congress, to this day, supporters of some sort of new territory are
still debating exactly what they want to propose.
In multiple occasions, and throughout various processes in 1989,
1991, 1996, and 1998, members of the House and the Senate rejected the
variations presented by those who favor an ``enhanced'' form of the
territorial government because they were simply not viable under the
Constitution. Accordingly, and after a strong lobbying effort, the
processes have been delayed, ironically, because supporters of the
current relationship cannot even reach an internal ``consensus'' on
what they want.
But, while they attempt to reach a consensus in their highly
mutating territorial option, they continue to deny the rest of their
fellow citizens a right to vote.
That should not be the case on this occasion, because, as mentioned
above, the current territory is on the first ballot.
As further evidence that this is a fair proposal, we note that it
does not include--as some requested--as an alternative to the current
Commonwealth the proposal that Puerto Rico be empowered to nullify
federal laws, to enter into international agreements while being in an
association with the U.S. that the U.S. cannot change and, further,
that the U.S. be permanently required to provide always more benefits
than at present--proposals that this Committee and all other federal
authorities have said are impossible.
As you can see, despite arguments to the contrary, the language of
the bill genuinely reflects our resident commissioner's efforts to
address opponents' objections.
I have to add that our resident commissioner has made that effort,
despite the fact that differences as to how we would resolve the
fundamental issue of Puerto Rico's status were clear to voters in the
last election.
Opponents of the process encompassed by the bill ran on a platform
that included the arguments brought forth today. They not only lost,
but they lost overwhelmingly. Advocates of this process and this bill
won most offices in Puerto Rico; including the governorship, the
resident commissioner, as well as the State House and Senate. The will
of the people is clear.
Finally, a lot has been said about the fact that in over 111 years,
Puerto Ricans have never been given a real opportunity by the Congress
to hold a binding vote between viable alternatives to this fundamental
issue. The time has come for this to change. As citizens of the
greatest democracy in history, it is our right.
As the heirs of the Revolution of 1776, this government should not
allow one more day to go by without at least asking four million of its
citizens whether they further consent to live under a government based
on ``legislation without representation.''
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Speaker Jenniffer
Gonzalez, for your testimony, and the Chair now recognizes The
Honorable Eduardo Bhatia, Designee of the House Minority
Leader. You can proceed.
STATEMENT OF EDUARDO BHATIA, DESIGNEE OF THE
HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
Mr. Bhatia. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and dear members
of the Committee. My name is Eduardo Bhatia. I am a member of
the State Senate in Puerto Rico. It is a great honor to be
here. I was here, actually, in this very same room in the 1980s
when Moe Udall was the Chairman and Ron DeLugo was among us at
the time. I was here in the 1990s, and I actually testified
before the Committee, when Don Young was the Chairman. I was
here in 1998 testifying on this very same issue.
I am here almost 20 years later exactly in the same place
discussing the same things we were discussing 20 years ago, and
I am sure some folks like Senator Berrios was here when,
probably say he was here 40 years ago discussing exactly the
same issues. The last four years, I met with so many of you, as
I was a representative of the Governor of Puerto Rico here in
Washington, D.C., and many of you generally asked me the very
same question, which is, what should be the position of the
U.S. Congress as it regards to Puerto Rico?
I think the answer rests on two principles that truly
represent the democratic aspirations of the people of Puerto
Rico. First, whether one likes it or not, whether one thinks
about it or not, Puerto Rico is a nation from a sociological
point of view, and I welcome the Committee, the whole
Committee, to come to Puerto Rico and hold hearings in Puerto
Rico. I think it is important that that recognition be made
before anything moves forward. Puerto Rico is a nation.
It hurts some people's ears and I don't know why. The truth
of the matter is that if Puerto Rico became a state, and I
think it could become a state, it would be a nation becoming a
state, and that is not a decision for Puerto Ricans to make. It
is a decision also for the United States to make when it makes
up its composition of what states should be, but the starting
point should be, Puerto Rico is a nation.
The second point that I think is very important to
understand about Puerto Rico is that in 1917, without Puerto
Ricans even asking for it, Puerto Ricans were given U.S.
citizenship, and it has become, 100 years later, it has become
a token of what Puerto Ricans do want. Puerto Ricans want to
keep their U.S. citizenship. So the question that has
confronted Puerto Ricans throughout the last 100 years is, what
to do with the fact that you are a nation with U.S.
citizenship.
How do you reconcile both concepts? Is there a way of doing
it? If there is no way of doing it, then we should just, you
know, shut the lights and go home and that is it, but is there
a way of reconciling the fact that you are a nation with U.S.
citizenship? How do you balance both issues? And that is
exactly what the people of Puerto Rico are asking us to do,
reconciling both things. Now, the way your predecessors in
Congress did it was they created something called commonwealth,
and I am the first one, and I am from the Commonwealth Party,
to admit that commonwealth has many problems and commonwealth
has to be improved, and throughout the years I can say that
there are so many ways that we can sit down and work on the
defects that we have seen and identified within commonwealth.
Now, your predecessors were bold, creative, smart,
visionary and open-minded, and the idea of creating a new
relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States
obviously did not like those, and it is the case today,
obviously it was not liked by folks who support independence or
statehood. Those who support independence and those who support
statehood do not like the idea that there is a middle ground, a
balanced position, because obviously if you are for
independence or statehood, you do not like that center.
That center is always hated. In every society, the center
is hated by both the left and the right, and that is exactly
what happens in Puerto Rico. So that brings us to today. The
question is, and the challenge before this Committee and before
the people of Puerto Rico is, can Puerto Rican nationhood be
reconciled with U.S. citizenship in Puerto Rico?
And I will just end, Madam Chairwoman, with, I would say,
five lessons, quickly, five lessons that we have learned over
the last maybe 50 years, 40 years, 30 years. First, the
recognition that Puerto Rico is a nation has to be inserted
somewhere in the process. Second, yes, U.S. citizenship is
very, very important for many reasons to all Puerto Ricans,
regardless of what political party you belong to. Third, this
bill does not work. It violates the Speaker's, Speaker Pelosi's
commitments to Puerto Rico about consensus and its consensus
about the process, and it doesn't have the support of a single,
other than the Resident Commissioner, a single Puerto Rican
Member of Congress.
I think the fact that they are not here today says millions
about this bill. Also, the fact that the White House is not
here today speaks volumes of the lack of support to the process
that wants to be established through 2499, and I think,
honestly, that the problem is, and I think it is, you know, and
I love it, and I will finish with this, the problem with 2499
is when you are in the center, when you are in the middle in
any political fight, it is obviously the left and the right who
want to define you.
Some people want you to push one way. Other people want to
push you the other way. We who are representing commonwealth
say, we want to define ourselves. Why don't you define
statehood, those who support statehood, you define independence
and your terms on independence. We on the commonwealth side, we
will define what commonwealth is and we will work it out with a
U.S. Congress, and that is exactly what we mean by a
constitutional convention.
I will finalize by saying, Madam Chairwoman, that something
that has not been articulated enough in this hearing is the
fact that the White House is working on this issue. We have a
new President who has a sensitivity to the issue of nationhood,
someone who comes from an island, Hawaii, an island nation in a
way, someone who can actually put together the idea that we
could all build a consensus, and I would say, to finish, that
let us give room to the White House.
I think before we move forward with 2499, we should give
room to the White House to come up with what proposal they
have. It is a new President, new administration, and I think
the smart thing to do would be to stop the proceedings at some
point in the near future and sort of allow the White House to
come up with a former proposal on what to do with Puerto Rico.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bhatia follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Eduardo Bhatia, Senator,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Good afternoon. My name is Eduardo Bhatia, I am a state Senator in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and I appear before you today on behalf
of the legislative conference of the pro-Commonwealth Popular
Democratic Party.
As all of you, I am a legislator.
A legislator from Puerto Rico totally opposed to H.R. 2499.
A legislator who, as a young man, was in this very room when
Congressmen Ron De Lugo and Mo Udall faced the very same issue in the
1980's. I was here in the 1990's addressing the same issues when
Congressman Don Young was chairman of the Committee. I even testified
before this Committee in 1998. And for the past four years I was the
Representative of the Governor of Puerto Rico in Washington, DC and
personally met with many of you who genuinely asked me a simple yet
elaborate question: What should be the position of the United States
Congress on the political relationship between Puerto Rico and the
United States?
The answer rests on two principles that truly represent the
democratic aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico:
First, Puerto Rico is a nation. From a sociological standpoint, it
is a nation. And the people of Puerto Rico behave as a nation. I
strongly encourage you to come visit us and experience it for
yourselves.
Second, your predecessors in the United States Congress granted
Puerto Ricans United States Citizenship in 1917. That citizenship has
meant abundant and numerous rights and responsibilities for the people
of Puerto Rico, who cherish and value it.
Now, the only--and I mean only--issue before you today is how to
reconcile both concepts within the relationship of Puerto Rico and the
United States.
Your predecessors faced and grappled that issue in the 1950's. And
the answer for both the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Congress was
not statehood. And the answer was not independence. They created
something called ``Commonwealth'' that in essence recognized and
celebrated the very fundamental nature of the Puerto Rican nation and
at the same time formed an everlasting bond through the assurance of
United States citizenship. The United Nations and the United States
Supreme Court validated the relationship that, although imperfect in
many ways, reconciled what seemed as an impossible exercise in
policymaking.
Your predecessors were bold, creative, smart, visionary, and open
minded in the aftermath of the Second World War. And the people liked
it. To be sure, it was that mutual validation in July of 1952 by
Congress and the people of the island, which prompted the International
Olympic Committee during the 1952 Helsinki Olympics to raise for the
first time the flag of Puerto Rico as a nation at that international
sports event. It is still being raised today.
Your challenge, of course, is to answer the same question in the
21st century:
Can Puerto Rican nationhood with United States citizenship be
reconciled? Yes or no? And if the answer is yes, how to do it?
Of course, those who favor statehood for Puerto Rico and the
abundantly rich and resourceful statehood lobby ``many of whom are here
today--will try to convince you that the answer is NO. They base their
conclusions exclusively on political strategy. You see, it is very
simple: as long as ``commonwealth'' is an option, statehood will not
win a plebiscite in Puerto Rico. That was the case in the 1993
plebiscite and again in 1998. The lesson is very clear: people do not
want statehood because there is a sense of Puerto Rican nationhood that
is threatened by that concept. And rightly so!
And if there is a lesson to be learned from Iraq, from the Basque
Country in Spain, from the Quebecois people in Canada, from the Irish
in Northern Ireland, from the Serbians in former Yugoslavia is that
nationhood means so much in the core of a society.
But the people of Puerto Rico do not want independence either. Less
than 5 percent of the population favors independence because the
existence and permanence of United States citizenship would be
threatened.
This state of affairs is the result of over 100 years of federal
policymaking... Please do not blame the Puerto Ricans! For almost 60
years the way to reconcile both aspirations and keep the right balance
was the commonwealth relationship. And even today, when we are faced
with the same dilemma, an enhanced form of commonwealth should not be
perceived as the problem. It is the answer to the dilemma.
And therein lies the problem with H.R. 2499. In a very simplistic,
yet undemocratic and shameful way tries to push statehood without any
recognition of the historical aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico
and the fine, yet carefully crafted, balance that Commonwealth brought
about. This bill violates the commitment of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to
create a consensus process. There is no consensus as you have heard
over and over today.
And you may ask what is wrong with just consulting the people of
Puerto Rico? The devil is in the details.... Consulting them about
what? What are the terms of each option? Should it be left to anyone's
imagination to come up with illusory arrangements? For example, will
Puerto Rico be truly admitted as a state? What are terms of that
``sovereign'' option? Should it not make more sense to define them
fully first in consultation with the people of Puerto Rico and then
proceed to a vote when the process is mature for a vote?
It should come as no surprise then that senior Puerto Rican Members
of Congress, to wit: The Chair of the Hispanic Caucus and Chairwoman of
the Small Business Committee Nydia Velazquez and Congressman Luis
Gutierrez from Chicago do not support this bill.
It is very clear to me as a Puerto Rican, as a legislator and as a
long time observer and participant in this progression that the people
of Puerto Rico want to continue the course of action that allowed the
United States and Puerto Rico to reconcile the two principles of local
nationhood and U.S. citizenship.
And it can be done, but the way to do it is not H.R. 2499. It is
through a process of mutual consent; of mutual negotiation; a process
of creative policymaking and of recognizing and celebrating the most
fundamental democratic principles and bonds that have made the
relationship work for so long.
That is why I favor a more coherent process that many in Puerto
Rico and here in Washington, D.C. call a constitutional convention.
Just like it has been done for so many other genuine political dilemmas
in the history of the United States, I favor a constitutional
convention to carefully craft a future for Puerto Rico. It is the only
way to inject common sense to this debate.
Members of Congress: that is exactly what President Barack Obama is
trying to do. In a letter dated February 12, 2008, he stated:
As President, I will work closely with the Puerto Rican
government, its civil society, and with Congress to create a
genuine and transparent process of self-determination that will
be true to the best traditions of democracy. As President, I
will actively engage Congress and the Puerto Rican people in
promoting this deliberative, open and unbiased process, that
may include a constitutional convention or a plebiscite, and my
administration will adhere to a policy of strict neutrality on
Puerto Rico status matters. My Administration will recognize
all valid options to resolve the question of Puerto Rico's
status, including commonwealth, statehood, and independence.
So, today my first conclusion would be: let the White House take
the lead on this issue. A new President who has the background to fully
understand the depth of the nationhood argument and is sensitive to the
political aspirations of an island-people should be given room to
elaborate a plan for the United States in consultation with Puerto
Rico. H.R. 2499 shuts the door to a new White House and essentially
follows old, tainted and discredited views on what to do about Puerto
Rico.
I am aware that this debate--and H.R. 2499--are polluted with the
existence of two recent reports that were designed to deny any future
development of the Commonwealth. The Bush Reports adopt the legal
conclusion that the U.S. Constitution somehow prohibits a relationship
with Puerto Rico based on mutual consent, which is anchored in the will
of the people of Puerto Rico, along with U.S. citizenship. The real
effect of the reports is nil as the Executive has no authority to
interpret the law and numerous federal appellate and Supreme Court
decisions on the matter. However, the statehood lobby intends to give
this fallacious report great weight and this Congress would in fact be
giving this Bush era relic legal authority were it to move forward on
H.R. 2499.
And to those in this room who favor statehood and for purely
political reasons insist that an enhanced commonwealth is impossible
under the United States Constitution, I challenge you today to go a few
blocks from here to the Georgetown Law School and spend 15 minutes with
Dean Alexander Aleiknikoff who has clearly stated:
If both the 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 effort aside in the name of nineteenth-century
conceptions of sovereignty. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Aleinikoff, Alexander, SEMBLANCE OF SOVEREIGNTY, pages 92-93,
Harvard University Press (2002)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, constitutional Law Professor, Richard Pildes, from the
New York University School of Law, while describing the Bush Reports on
the status of Puerto Rico constitutional analysis as ``unpersuasive and
inadequate,'' concludes that regarding the possible future development
of Commonwealth:
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. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pildes, Richard, TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL
RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVE ON H.R. 900 AND H.R. 1230, page 1, March 22, 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Pildes stated in his testimony before the Subcommittee on
Insular affairs on March 22, 2007, that:
``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.'' 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id., pages 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar conclusions where reached by Charles Cooper, former head of
the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice:
``In short, 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.'' 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Cooper, Charles, THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO VEST JURIDICAL STATUS
IN PUERTO RICO THAT CAN BE ALTERED ONLY BY MUTUAL CONSENT, page 7,
September, 2005 (Memorandum presented to the U.S. Department of Justice
on behalf of the Government of Puerto Rico).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of these outstanding constitutional scholars are available to
clarify these notions before proceeding with this ill-conceived bill.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as my second and last conclusion, I would
urge this Committee to reject H.R. 2499 as it represents a setback for
the aspirations of the people of Puerto Rico. There is a much better
path and the White House is working with the leadership of Puerto Rico
to craft the much needed consensus to move forward this debate. Give
them a chance.
Thank you.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman for his testimony and I
do want to set the record straight to clarify, the White House
is not here today because we called this hearing to hear from
the elected leaders from Puerto Rico. So perhaps in the future
we could, but we just invited the elected leaders from Puerto
Rico to hear from them. At this time, the Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi.
Mr. Pierluisi. Yes, I will try to be brief. I will start in
reverse order first with Mr. Bhatia. Thank you for being here,
Eduardo.
Mr. Bhatia. Thank you.
Mr. Pierluisi. Let me just quickly react and then ask you a
question that I asked before but I didn't get an answer. First
of all, you mentioned that my fellow Puerto Rican members are
not here present. Let me just say for the record that I hold
them in the highest esteem, but you have to understand, I am
the legal representative of Puerto Rico before this Congress,
and this issue has to do with Puerto Rico, so I have taken the
lead, as I should, and the members of this Committee are all
listening, will take into account everything that is said in
here, and when the time comes, the bill will continue its
course and we will see what is the will of this Congress.
Now, another reaction that I have to what you are saying is
this has nothing to do with left and right. This has only to do
with democracy, with hearing directly from the people of Puerto
Rico on the most important question that we are facing as a
people, so it has nothing to do with being on the left, on the
right. Insofar as President Obama is concerned, his position is
already in writing, crystal clear. He supports a fair, neutral,
democratic process for dealing with this issue.
I stand by H.R. 2499 as a fair process for dealing with
this issue. Having said that, I am open to any amendments. Now,
let me go to the question. I asked Mr. Ferrer, and I hear all
this that you mention about nationhood and Puerto Rico being a
nation and whether Puerto Rico can be part of the U.S. or
become a state being a nation. Let us go straight to the bill.
What is wrong with the option that I am giving, not me, the
bill, 2499 says, in the second plebiscite, one of the options
is called sovereignty in association with the United States:
Puerto Rico and the United States should form a political
association between sovereign nations that will not be subject
to the territorial clause of the United States Constitution.
What is wrong with that? How is that inconsistent with
anything you said and anything that your party said in its
platform?
Mr. Bhatia. OK, let me--I think--is that, done the
question?
Mr. Pierluisi. Yes.
Mr. Bhatia. OK. Let me address the first two issues first,
and I will be more than happy to address the last issue. First,
the other Members of Congress represent also 4 million Puerto
Ricans who live in the United States, so you are the
representative of Puerto Rico, and I recognize that and I am
very, I respect you for that, but I think there is another
nation of Puerto Ricans who also live here, and by that, what I
meant was that the Speaker of the House wanted to have a
consensus bill worked out with those Members of Congress for
whom this is very dear to their heart, and I know you are the
representative of Puerto Rico, but there are Members of
Congress who love Puerto Rico as much as you do and who come
from Puerto Rico and who represent Puerto Ricans as well, and
what I am saying is, the fact that this bill is flawed comes
from the fact also that those Members of Congress are not even
supporting that bill, and that is the point I am trying to
make.
I am trying to make the point that there are cracks all
over this bill in terms of the process in which we are moving
forward. Second, what I meant by left or right, in the case of
Puerto Rico, it is not left or right. What I am saying is, it
is always great and it always sort of puzzles me and it is
great how in order for others to define you, it sort of makes
them big or makes them great. The point I am making is, as part
of the Commonwealth Party, and it also happens in other
societies where it is not commonwealth, it is really the
moderates, the centrists, it is always the extremes who want to
define you, and the point I was trying to make, take away the
left or right, is that it is always funny that independence
supporters and statehood supporters come here to give this, you
know, constitutional interpretations as though they were judges
of the Supreme Court to tell us what commonwealth can and
cannot do, and I encourage all of the members of the Committee,
and I wish the Chairman was here today, to go down the street
two blocks from here, Georgetown Law School.
The Dean of the Georgetown Law School has written a book
saying it is absolutely outrageous to think that in the 21st
century, the U.S. Congress doesn't have the power or the
authority to enter into whatever arrangement it wants. It is
absolutely outrageous. I mean, the U.S. Congress, in a way, it
is so powerful that it can really break into new ground and
establish a relationship that works for the people, and I think
that is exactly what this Committee should be looking into, not
whether it fits into Article III or Section II of the--you
know, I think that 19th century reading of the Constitution is
absolutely outrageous.
Finally, in terms of the definition of commonwealth, I
think it is a choice of words, that is all. In your bill, for
political purposes, I think it is not, you know, it is
different if I wrote down, Puerto Ricans, would you like to
vote to eliminate the Olympic Committee of Puerto Rico and pay
taxes? If you feel you want to pay taxes and eliminate the
Olympic Committee, vote here. I am describing statehood. There
is nothing wrong with that, but it is just the language used.
So I do agree that we could have a, you know, nice
intellectual conversation as to whether the language used for
the bill, but it is put there with a specific purpose. The
devil is in the details. For me to go to voters would be
simpler, would be less sophisticated, would be easier, to go
and tell them, look, this is enhanced commonwealth, this is
statehood, and this is independence. Otherwise, I am willing to
allow you to define commonwealth, now you allow me to define
statehood, and I think that would be fair. Otherwise, it would
be totally undemocratic.
Mr. Pierluisi. Madam Chair, I have more questions for the
other members of the panel, if you allow me. If not, I will
cede my----
Ms. Bordallo. You go ahead, if we can----
Mr. Pierluisi. OK, I will move it along. Just for the
record, the bill provides for all those born in Puerto Rico to
be able to vote, regardless where they reside, and for the
record as well, there are close to, probably close to 4 million
people of Puerto Rican descent living in the U.S. mainland, but
by the way, they are not represented or they are not in three
particular congressional districts. They are all over the U.S.,
and we just heard earlier today from Alan Grayson, the
Congressman of Central Florida, who represents quite a few of
them. That is just for clarification purposes.
The Speaker of the House, could you, I noticed that you
mentioned, you addressed the issue of consensus. You are so
experienced in dealing with trying to reach consensus in the
legislative process. Why do you believe consensus should not be
an issue when dealing with Puerto Rico status?
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Because it will be a moral issue. It
will be a moral duty. Do we need consensus to send a soldier to
Iraq? Do we need consensus to grant civil rights? Do we need
consensus to grant a vote? Do we need consensus to enable
democracy? Of course not, and in the past decades, we have been
hearing the same arguments from the Populares and from those
who don't want the people of Puerto Rico to have a real vote
and a real chance to choose among real options to solve this
colonial problem.
There is a quote from Lyndon Johnson that said that voting
is the first duty of democracy, and we preach democracy abroad,
but we must practice its duty at home, and I think that we
resume what we are talking about, consensus. The real consensus
here is that many of those people who don't want the people of
Puerto Rico to have a real vote to decide our future want us
and want this Committee to continue the delay of that purpose,
and that is why we have to move forward, and that is why we
support this bill and that is why we ask the Committee and the
Chair and all of you that can vote for the President, we cannot
vote for the President.
I know you don't have that vote, but we in Puerto Rico, we
can send a lot of people to war. We can recently in the war
memorial at the Capitol Building, we add some names days before
from the people that went to war and never returned. Why we
have to have that? Because of the lack of consensus? I really
think that we don't need that in this bill, and we are only
giving the opportunity to Puerto Rico to decide if we want to
be as a colonial as we are or if we want to move to another
option.
Mr. Pierluisi. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Dalmau, in reviewing your statement and listening to
you, I see that you are a fierce proponent of commonwealth, and
one thing that I guess nobody can deny is that the government
of Puerto Rico is called the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The
name is set in our constitution, which was approved by this
Congress. Having said that, I also think that today, everybody
is in agreement that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United
States. Now, how is this bill unfair when it allows anybody who
supports commonwealth, in other words, the territory, to vote
on the first ballot and say so?
Mr. Dalmau-Santiago. I think that the first part of the
bill is a trap for the commonwealth, and if you represent the
people of Puerto Rico here and we represent the people of
Puerto Rico in the Senate and the House in Puerto Rico, put in
the bill, statehood, yes or no, and it solves the problem,
because the first round to the commonwealth is a trap, because
put two people, two parties in Puerto Rico against
commonwealth. To solve the problem easy in these next four
years, present to the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress,
statehood, yes or no.
Mr. Pierluisi. The ballot results will speak for
themselves. Whatever percentage commonwealth or the territory
gets will be there, and the Congress will have it. The same
happens with the three recognized and viable status options. I
don't believe anybody can deny that either. As a matter of
international law and U.S. domestic law, the three viable,
permanent options for Puerto Rico, status options, are
independence, statehood and sovereignty in association with the
United States. Do you disagree with that?
Mr. Dalmau-Santiago. No, but the United Nations also
permits the covenant between council countries, not the only
definitions that you put in the bill are the correct. The
United Nations has another, the four, in the United Nations
resolution, has four manners.
Mr. Pierluisi. I am not going to belabor it. I believe Mr.
Berrios was eloquent about that and he is so recognized in the
se carea of international law, but I am not going to belabor
it. I don't agree with you. Let me ask a question of the
distinguished President of the Senate of Puerto Rico.
Mr. Rivera-Schatz, I see that you would like to amend the
bill. I, as I see it, I don't have any reason to believe that
once we have these plebiscites, the Congress will take the
results very seriously and will act upon them. Yet, I noticed
that you have reservations. Can you explain the purpose of your
amendment?
Mr. Rivera-Schatz. I am convinced that everybody in this
room wants to get the job done, our Resident Commissioner, the
House of Puerto Rico, but if the language is clear, absolutely
clear, nobody can have any doubts about it, and I believe it
makes a better bill if we have the compromise, the commitment
in clear language in this bill.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico, and I
would like now to recognize the gentleman from American Samoa,
The Honorable Eni Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. If there is one
thing that I admire most of our friends and leaders from Puerto
Rico, it is your absolute passion for this issue now that has
been with us for how many years, as the good Senator Bhatia
shared with us earlier. I had indicated earlier that you did,
Puerto Rico held a plebiscite in 1993 where the results of that
plebiscite was 48 percent were for commonwealth, 46 percent
were for statehood, and the balance with independence and
others, and what I was curious about, why wasn't the second
plebiscite held with the two highest vote getters here to then
make a decision between statehood and commonwealth, since
independence is only, or other options were only less than 6
percent?
Can anybody answer me that question?
Mr. Bhatia. I mean, there are two answers. The first answer
is I don't know, but the second answer would be the fact that
what happened in 1993, historically, and I will try to be very
brief, I know your time----
Mr. Faleomavaega. And it was a fair plebiscite too.
Mr. Bhatia. It was a fair plebiscite, but it was 1992,
Governor Rossello won by a landslide. It was actually the first
time in the history of Puerto Rico that we had to put into
effect a provision of the constitution allowing for the Popular
Democratic Party, the Commonwealth Party, to come in and add
more members in the House because they swept, it was a
landslide victory for Governor Rossello. Now, a year later, the
perception was statehood was going to win.
With so much support built around Governor Rossello,
something happened. Statehood didn't win, and I think the idea
was that there was no need for a second vote. So I think it was
a local vote, it was done by the Puerto Rico legislature, and
it was crafted in such a way--now, I think the lesson from that
result is the fact that a statehood majority, a statehood party
wins an election doesn't mean that statehood has a majority of
the votes, and I think that is a lesson in 1993.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Other members of the panel would care to
comment on that? Is your mic on?
Mr. Rivera-Schatz. That opportunity, we have it right now
with H.R. 2499. We have two chances. The first one, for those
who support commonwealth as it is, they, Mr. Ferrer said here a
few minutes ago, they want to get out the territory clause.
Well, the first plebiscite gives them that opportunity, and
then in the second plebiscite, they can defend the definition
they got in the platform. These guys always oppose, they
opposed in '93, they would oppose in '98, and also in this one,
they don't want to do nothing. And you are right, we are
passionate.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. I want to add something.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Madam Speaker, please.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Congressman, there is an important
issue about what you bring here. In the plebiscite of the 1967,
the plebiscite of the 1993, the plebiscite of the 1998, never
were made by Congress. That is why we need you to speak. That
is why we need this H.R. 2499, because we want something to
happen, and the first step to make that decision will reside in
the people of Puerto Rico to choose if we want to continue in
the status quo, if we want to move forward, and in the second
ballot, we will have those options, real options defined by
you, not by me, not by Bhatia, to let Puerto Rico have real
opportunity to be heard by this Congress.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I might suggest that just beware, you may
not want Congress to do this for you, and might also keep in
mind that, and this is nothing in relation to whatever option
or decision that the people of Puerto Rico will make, there is
nothing in the Constitution that mandates the Congress to say
that it will accept statehood for Puerto Rico, even thought the
people of Puerto Rico say, we want statehood. So, we must keep
that in mind as well.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Neither independence or commonwealth.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, independence, I think Congress
would be more than happy to work out a relationship, if that is
what the people of Puerto Rico want.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. That is why we want to decide that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, OK, I will accept that, but I do
want to say to Senator Bhatia, in terms of your statement, we
do have a very unique, as you said, under the Constitution or
the Congress, we have a very unique political relationship
existing between the Republic of the Marshall Islands,
Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau, with
the United States. They are not U.S. citizens, but they are
entitled to join the military, they can travel on U.S.
passports, and they can also become U.S. citizens if they want
to.
They have complete freedom to immigrate to the United
States just as if they were citizens, and yet they are not. So,
I just wanted to add that uniqueness about a commonwealth, and
by the way, the usage of compact of free association, the term
or the phrase originated from Puerto Rico. The commonwealth, as
I understand the Spanish translation of commonwealth, is estado
something?
Mr. Rivera-Schatz. Estado libre asociado.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK, you got it, but I wanted to share
that with you that there is that in between or gray area where
it is not cut and dry where the Congress uniquely can provide,
like I said, it is not independence, but it is kind of
independence, but yet, very unique political relationship with
the United States.
Mr. Rivera-Schatz. That is a problem with the Popular
Party. That is a problem, but I want to make clear the record.
Any who ask to become a state, it become a state, so you said
that the Congress doesn't have to plan the statehood. That is
true. But it is true also that everyone who asked to become a
state and struggled to become a state has achieved as a state,
and we are going to achieve to become the 51st state of the
United States in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Dalmau-Santiago. But in the last 57 years, we have
maybe three or four plebiscites in Puerto Rico, three
plebiscites, and we have demonstrated a firm rejection to
independence and statehood. It is the people of Puerto Rico
vote to get independence and statehood. I think that a project
that has a process of conscience maybe, I think, that the
commonwealth with modifications win to Puerto Rico. We work
together to make the commonwealth better, is my concern.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I want to say, Madam Chair, to the
Minority Leader, I understood everything that you said in your
testimony. I meant that in humor. I do recommend, Madam Chair,
that we do go to Puerto Rico and hold more hearings on this
very important issue. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Oh, I think we--I am all for that. I thank
the gentleman from American Samoa. I would like to recognize
the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for any questions he
may have.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a critical
hearing, and we have had a number of panels come forward and
clearly, it is a very contentious and emotional issue. Anytime
the conversation is joined on this question, you can see the
well of feeling that people have for their particular point of
view, that it goes back decades and decades, and so, all of
that leads me to be extremely humble about how we should
approach this and the design that makes the most sense, because
I think we need to have a humility when the issue within the
Puerto Rican community is so hotly debated.
I want to thank the panelists that I have had the privilege
to listen to for their testimony. I apologize for running back
and forth, but we are doing a vote-o-Rama today.
Ms. Bordallo. You are very fortunate. You can vote.
Mr. Sarbanes. Fair enough, and I want to particularly
acknowledge Eduardo Bhatia, who is a longtime friend and
colleague and someone who has helped me develop a perspective,
I think a pretty broad perspective on this issue, and I want to
commend him for acknowledging very candidly that the
commonwealth structure as it currently exists is not perfect,
and I wanted to ask Eduardo actually two questions, and others
are free to respond as well.
The first is on the point he made, and what would you
identify as some of the ways that you think the commonwealth
structure could be improved, you know, according to the process
that you recommend going forward?
Mr. Bhatia. Thank you, thank you for the question. I think
the main, the crux of the problem right now is to find a way,
and I think that is why we have suggested, Congressman, to have
a constitutional convention and conversations with the United
States where the White House participates actively. There is
certainly a problem when we are not validating the existence of
Federal laws in Puerto Rico, and I think commonwealth as a
structure, we have to find a way of, even if it is on an annual
basis, even if it is on a--there must be a structure set up so
that Puerto Ricans give their consent to be governed and to be
part of the United States, and I think that consent is at the
crux of this issue.
Otherwise, the label of colony, the label of territory, the
label of continuously receiving the criticisms, you know, will
be forever. So to the extent that we can craft, and I think
there are law professors, constitutional law professors from
throughout the nation, NAU, Georgetown Law School, the Dean of
Georgetown Law School, who have actually stated that there are
ways of doing it. There are ways of constructing a mechanism to
give that consent without Puerto Rico having to be a state or
independent nation.
I think that is sort of the heart of it and I think we
could go specifically into each one of those issues.
Mr. Sarbanes. The other question I had was, the term
``consensus'' is being used a lot, heard it in the testimony,
and I gather the discussion there is over what level of support
one should see before a particular option is chosen. Is that
essentially what the consensus debate is about, or am I getting
that wrong?
Mr. Bhatia. Well, it is really--I mean, I think anyone can
talk about it, but I would say the consensus that we are trying
to achieve is basically a consensus on the process. I mean, how
should we proceed about asking Congress to deal with this? So
it is not really a consensus on the definitions. I think it is
more a consensus on what process should take place.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK. Yes?
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. I want to answer that too. I am glad to
hear that, because in the last processes, there were not
consensus about the definitions they brought. Right now, they
don't even have an internal consensus in their own party
regarding their own definitions. That is why our point of view
of what they mean is consensus is to continue to delay to the
people to vote or to have a real option. So, I think the option
is not a constitutional assembly. To write what constitution?
We can't even decide yet what we want. That is why we
understand that the real process must be, have an easy way, an
easy first ballot, we want to continue the status quo, we want
to continue in the commonwealth, or we want to move to another
option. What those options are, they will be defined by
Congress. They will be independence, statehood, any kind of
free associated state or whatever they want that can be
accordingly with the U.S. Constitution, and that is the real
issue here.
If you want all the people of Puerto Rico to decide which
is going to be the process, we are not going to have that, and
because of that, are we not willing to have the vote? Of course
not.
Mr. Sarbanes. I don't have any more questions. I just want
to observe, Madam Chair, again, at least to my level of
understanding, this is a very complex issue, so my mind remains
open on the approach that ought to be taken, and I welcome the
testimony that was offered today and I yield back my time.
Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his
comments and as Chair of the Committee standing in for The
Honorable Nick Rahall, who is the Chair of the Resources
Committee, I want to thank all of the witnesses, not just from
this panel but the previous panels. You are all so very
passionate, and in my listening here on everybody's views on
this, it reminds me so much of my home, because in Guam we
still have an unsettled status question and we have been
agonizing over this for many, many years just like you folks.
So it seems that as territories, we always have to work a
little bit harder for everything. I have found this ever since
I entered Congress, so I want to thank you all and to remind
you that the hearing record will be open for 10 days, so if
there are any further questions that the Committee members
have, this will remain open and we can wait for your answers to
the questions, and I want to thank all of the witnesses again
and I want to thank members of this Committee for their long
hours that they have spent in this hearing, and there being no
further business, the Committee on Resources now stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A statement submitted for the record by J. Aloysius Hogan,
Esq., Government Relations Director, English First, follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by J. Aloysius Hogan, Esq.,
Government Relations Director, English First
To The Committee on Natural Resources:
With all due respect, today's hearing is not designed to flesh out
the numerous substantive issues associated with the prospect of Puerto
Rican statehood, though that should be the charge for a legislative
hearing.
The panelists are largely cosponsors and supporters of the bill.
The committee did not take the opportunity to invite the groups who
have waved a cautionary flag on this issue before. English First is
such a group.
As the Government Relations Director of English First, it is my
responsibility to raise some of these issues again.
I say ``again'' because the concept of statehood for Puerto Rico is
like a bad penny that keeps turning up. The issue arose during the late
Nineties when I served as Counsel to this House Resources Committee,
then chaired by Congressman Don Young.
The issue also arose about ten years before that and received much
attention in the press and elsewhere around 1989 and 1990. The issues
raised twenty years ago are valid today, and the attached issue brief
from English First pertaining to that era is as fresh and pertinent
today as it was then.
Let me just highlight a few notable points and raise a few
questions that are addressed in more detail in the attachment:
1. Americans by huge margins favour making English the official
language of the UnitedStates. This issue must be addressed when
discussing Puerto Rican statehood.
2. The example of Quebec's bilingualism is not favorable.
3. A mandate of translation is astronomically expensive.
4. The United States Supreme Court has decided on multiple
occasions that conditions on statehood must be determined BEFORE
admittance to the union.
5. Congress could settle this matter in the same way that it
resolved the question of French-speaking Louisiana. The Louisiana
Constitution accepted by Congress when the state was admitted to the
Union clearly stated:
All laws that may be passed by the [state] Legislature,
and the public records of this state, and the judicial and
legislative written proceedings of the same, shall be
promulgated, preserved, and conducted in the language in which
the Constitution of the United States is written.
6. The people of Louisiana, then and now, are free to speak
whatever language they choose, but the government and courts of
Louisiana are required to function in English.
7. Puerto Rico may have numerous Members of Congress were it to
be admitted as a state. Just how many would it have? Might it be twice
as many as represent West Virginia, the Chairman's state? How do the
people of West Virginia feel about that?
8. A large percentage of Puerto Ricans receive the equivalent of
food stamps.
9. The average per capita income of Puerto Ricans has been quite
low, less than half that of our poorest state.
10. How much does Puerto Rico currently cost federal taxpayers
each year?
11. Puerto Rico's former Governor and Resident Commissioner,
Carlos Romero Barcelo, has written, in his book, Statehood is for the
Poor, that ``the island would take billions more out of the federal
treasury than it would put in,'' according to Professor Antonio M.
Stevens-Arroyo, writing in the January 22, 1990 issue of The Nation.
Professor Stevens-Arroyo adds, ``[t]his is the bottom line statehooders
try not to mention when in Washington.
12. How devastating would the loss of U.S. corporate tax exemption
be for Puerto Rico?
13. What percentage of Puerto Rico's revenue derives from industry
versus tourism?
14. What is the unemployment rate of Puerto Rico?
15. What would the total budget affect be of admission of Puerto
Rico as a state? Even U.S. Senator Kent Conrad was dubious of rosy
estimates.
Thank you for the opportunity to raise these important points and
questions. Satisfactorily addressing each and every one of these points
is essential to moving forward with this bill. Frankly this hearing
will not accomplish this task. More attention and perhaps more
hearings, such as in the Committee on Ways & Means, are necessary.
[NOTE: An attachment entitled ``English First Issue Brief'' has
been retained in the Committee's official files.]
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Hon. Steny H.
Hoyer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland,
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Steny Hoyer, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland
Mr. Chairman, all peoples are entitled to a form of government that
provides for equal voting representation in the making and
implementation of their laws. Puerto Rico's current status remains as
unincorporated territory of the United States, subject to the control
of Congress under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. That status
should be revisited for the treatment and opportunities it provides to
the people of Puerto Rico.
As both Chairman Rahall and former Chairman Young have
acknowledged, residents of Puerto Rico, despite having a population
size equal to or greater than almost half the states, have no
representation in the Senate. The Puerto Rican people send only a
single member to the House of Representatives who may only vote in
legislative committees and in the Committee of the Whole, a change we
just made last Congress. Over the past century, Congress has passed
legislation governing Puerto Rico's relationship with the United
States. For example, residents of Puerto Rico hold U.S. citizenship,
serve in the military, and are subject to federal laws. Although they
participate in the presidential nominating process, they do not vote in
the general election.
This legislation, in which the Congress calls for taking the
question of Puerto Rico's status to voters in at least one plebiscite,
is an important step to address fundamental questions of fairness and
democracy. Mr. Pierluisi has taken careful steps in this bill to ensure
that the plebiscite asks questions more representative of the diversity
of views on Puerto Rico's status as it seeks to determine voters'
positions on those questions. Those changes have resulted in additional
cosponsors for the legislation this Congress, and I commend him for his
work.
In my view, the current status between the United States and Puerto
Rico was forged under circumstances that belong to a different time and
a different era. Today, with the direct participation of the Puerto
Rican people, our relationship must mature and the status choice
affirmed. In this effort, Congress has the responsibility and the duty
to offer to the Puerto Rican people an honest process for self-
determination that is true to our democratic principles and our
Constitution. The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 offers that kind of
process by calling for a direct vote of Puerto Ricans and by giving
them sound alternatives. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the
Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 and I look forward to working with
this Committee to move it forward.
______
[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
I appreciate the opportunity to offer my views on this latest
effort to discuss the future of Puerto Rico, H.R. 2499, The Puerto Rico
Democracy Act of 2009, and to clarify what is truly at stake here.
If this was not such an important issue for eight million Puerto
Ricans, I would say that this debate is worthy of a Shakespearean line
such as, ``Once more unto the breach, dear friends.'' One would think
that since Congress has been talking about Puerto Rico since the end of
the 19th century, this body would have found the proper way to finish
this debate in the 21st century. Unfortunately, it seems we have not.
I could have begun my statement by stating my opposition to H.R.
2499 because of previous determinations that this approach is unfair to
the people of Puerto Rico. I could have further told you that as of
today, none of the three members of Puerto Rican descent with
constituencies in New York City and Chicago support this bill. And,
lastly, I could have reminded members that previous legislative efforts
that were deemed biased or un-inclusive have never succeeded.
However, for today's hearing, these arguments may not be enough to
sway well-intentioned people to think calmly about what we are debating
today: Puerto Rico and its people. We are not debating a mere vote.
This debate is about whether the people of Puerto Rico are ready to
join us as a full partner of this Union and what sort of partner we
want. It is about allowing them to decide whether or not to go on their
own and what that would mean to every Puerto Rican. It is also a debate
about what other options may be worthy of consideration. Whatever
decision is made by them, it must be one that is made knowingly and
willingly. This is essential, for any status-changing decision will not
be an easy one. That decision must be taken with a clear understanding
of the consequences and with the determined commitment to carry it
forward.
A bill drafted without consensus will always be under suspicion by
a large segment of the population in Puerto Rico and, therefore, lack
legitimacy. For Congress to push forward such an initiative ignores the
historic words and the lessons from Lincoln's time, ``A house divided
against itself cannot stand.'' How do we expect to find a solution to
this Puerto Rico issue if we give merit to proposals that promote and
foment mistrusts and divisions?
The issue here that makes this legislation unacceptable was present
in its previous incarnations in the 104th, 105th, 109th & 110th
Congresses--the process. The process promoted by those bills has been
perceived to be skewed in one form or another. It is now time to break
this cycle. Thomas Paine once wrote, ``A long habit of not thinking a
thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.'' This
bill is not right and we should begin investing Congress' time in doing
what is right.
We cannot sanction this insistence in keeping a people blinded to
facts, deaf to analysis and muted from expressing their opinions on
what is being bargained, supposedly on their behalf. It is time to try
a new approach to resolve this issue in a manner that does not allow
one side to shut other positions out of the process. Lack of consensus
equals lack of legitimacy.
I have advocated that a Constitutional Convention is an appropriate
option, but it is not the only open process and I believe there can be
other options that have not been discussed. However, any fair and
transparent process must allow for hearings to be conducted in Puerto
Rico and include the Puerto Rican community in the States in the self-
determination process. It is my deepest conviction that a true
democratic path to self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico
must be forged first by Puerto Ricans; and it is up to them to decide
what their options are for the future.
President Obama fully understands the difficulty of this issue and
has indicated his willingness to be engaged. This President deserves to
have the opportunity to take a look at this issue and formulate
proposals on how to move forward. I suggest that this Committee afford
the President the opportunity to act and seek the expertise of this
committee as well as other stakeholders. I look forward to working with
the Obama Administration and the Committee in providing the people of
Puerto Rico with an approach that guarantees a true expression of their
wishes. Thank you.