    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           H.R. 1522, ``PUERTO RICO
                            STATEHOOD ADMISSION ACT'';
                        AND H.R. 2070, ``PUERTO RICO SELF-
                            DETERMINATION ACT OF 2021''
                                   --PART 2

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

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                            Wednesday, June 16, 2021

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 117-5

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    44-978 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2021

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                          RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                    JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
       GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                      BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member

    Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Don Young, AK
    Jim Costa, CA                        Louie Gohmert, TX
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Doug Lamborn, CO
        CNMI                             Robert J. Wittman, VA
    Jared Huffman, CA                    Tom McClintock, CA
    Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Paul A. Gosar, AZ
    Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Garret Graves, LA
    Joe Neguse, CO                       Jody B. Hice, GA
    Mike Levin, CA                       Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
    Katie Porter, CA                     Daniel Webster, FL
    Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM           Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
    Melanie A. Stansbury, NM             Russ Fulcher, ID
    Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Pete Stauber, MN
    Diana DeGette, CO                    Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
    Julia Brownley, CA                   Jerry L. Carl, AL
    Debbie Dingell, MI                   Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
    A. Donald McEachin, VA               Blake D. Moore, UT
    Darren Soto, FL                      Yvette Herrell, NM
    Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU        Lauren Boebert, CO
    Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Jay Obernolte, CA
    Ed Case, HI                          Cliff Bentz, OR
    Betty McCollum, MN
    Steve Cohen, TN
    Paul Tonko, NY
    Rashida Tlaib, MI
    Lori Trahan, MA

                         David Watkins, Staff Director
                            Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
                   Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                   ------

                                   CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Wednesday, June 16, 2021.........................     1

    Statement of Members:

        Gonzalez-Colon, Hon. Jenniffer, a Resident Commissioner in
          Congress from the Territory of Puerto Rico.................     2
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
        Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of New York......................................     4

    Statement of Witnesses:

        Cabrera, Carmen, President, League of United Latin American
          Citizens (LULAC) Faith Council, Hatillo, Puerto Rico.......    25
            Prepared statement of....................................    27
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    28
        Caraballo-Cueto, Jose, Professor of Economics, University of
          Puerto Rico, Cayey, Puerto Rico............................    36
            Prepared statement of....................................    37
        Cordova, Andres L., Professor of Property Law, Inter American
          University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico...........    32
            Prepared statement of....................................    34
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    35
        Cox Alomar, Rafael, Professor of Constitutional Law,
          University of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC.....    13
            Prepared statement of....................................    14
        Gutierrez, Luis, Former Representative, Illinois' 4th
          District, Chicago, Illinois................................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Martinez-Orabona, Annette, Director, Caribbean Institute of
          Human Rights, San Juan, Puerto Rico........................    20
            Prepared statement of....................................    21
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    25
        Ponsa-Kraus, Christina, Professor of Constitutional Law,
          Columbia University, New York, New York....................    28
            Prepared statement of....................................    30
            Revised Testimony........................................    31

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        Submissions for the Record by the U.S. Department of Justice

            Statement on H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico Statehood
              Admission Act..........................................    99
            Statement on H.R. 2070, the Puerto Rico Self-
              Determination Act of 2021..............................   107

        Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gonzalez-Colon

            Puerto Rico Estadidad, Letter to the Committee, April
              2021...................................................    42
            Frente Estadista, Letter to the Committee, June 10, 2021.    45
            Gregorio Igartua, Letter to the Committee, June 11, 2021.    48
            Juan C. Ruiz Pinzon, Letter to the Committee, June 16,
              2021...................................................    54
            Roberto Lefranc Fortuno, Letter to the Committee, June
              16, 2021...............................................    56
            Maria Melendez, Statement for the Record.................    57
            National Puerto Rican Equality Coalition (NAPREC),
              ``Frequently Asked Questions--Statehood for Puerto
              Rico''.................................................    58

            National Puerto Rican Equality Coalition (NAPREC),
              Statement of Support and Cosponsor H.R. 1522/S. 780....    60
            National Puerto Rican Equality Coalition (NAPREC) &
              Puerto Rico Statehood Council (PRSC), Letter to the
              Committee, June 14, 2021...............................    61
            Transcript of Video: ``Statements to the Natural
              Resources Committee on 6/16/21 Status Hearings''.......    65

        Submissions for the Record by Individuals or Organizations

            Jimarie Martinez Baladeio, Letter to the Committee, March
              31, 2021...............................................   111
            Federation of Municipal Legislators of Puerto Rico,
              Letter to the Committee, April 6, 2021.................   113
            League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Letter
              to Congress............................................   114
            Federation of Mayors of Puerto Rico, Letter to the
              Committee, May 14, 2021................................   115
            Resolution in Support of Congressional Action for Puerto
              Rico Statehood, Submission by Council of State
              Governments (CSG) Eastern Region Conference............   117
            Puertorriquenos Unidos En Accion (PUA), Letter to the
              President, June 11, 2021...............................   118
            Jose Luis Dalmau-Santiago, President of the Senate of the
              Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Letter to the Committee,
              June 15, 2021..........................................   119
            Miriam J. Ramirez, Statement for the Record..............   122
            Movimiento Puertorriqueno Reunificacionista con Espana
              (MPRE), Letter to the Committee, June 16, 2021.........   123
            Professor Roland Blasini, Statement for the Record.......   124
            Movimiento Revolucion Estadista Inc., Statement for the
              Record.................................................   129
            Puerto Rico Escogio Estadidad, Letter to the Committee,
              June 17, 2021..........................................   131

     LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1522, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE
    STATE OF PUERTO RICO INTO THE UNION, ``PUERTO RICO STATEHOOD ADMISSION
     ACT''; AND H.R. 2070, TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO
        RICO TO CALL A STATUS CONVENTION THROUGH WHICH THE PEOPLE WOULD
    EXERCISE THEIR NATURAL RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND TO ESTABLISH A
      MECHANISM FOR CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF SUCH DECISION, AND FOR
     OTHER PURPOSES, ``PUERTO RICO SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2021''--PART 2

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, June 16, 2021

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:01 p.m., via
    Webex, Hon. Raul M. Grijalva [Chairman of the Committee]
    presiding.
        Present: Representatives Grijalva, Sablan, Huffman,
    Gallego, Porter, Leger Fernandez, Stansbury, Velazquez,
    McEachin, Soto, San Nicolas, Garcia, Case, Cohen, Tlaib,
    Trahan; Gohmert, McClintock, Gosar, Graves, Hice, Radewagen,
    Webster, Gonzalez-Colon, Fulcher, Stauber, Tiffany, and
    Boebert.
        Also present: Representative Ocasio-Cortez.

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Robles, and the
    Committee will come to order. The Committee is meeting today to
    receive testimony on two bills to resolve Puerto Rico's
    political status.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    the hearing are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
    Member or their designees. This will allow us to hear from our
    witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedules.
        However, for today's hearing, we will allow the bill
    sponsors to make a statement in support of their legislation
    before we turn to the rest of the witnesses.
        I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
    opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
    are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today or the close of the
    hearing, whichever comes first.
        Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        Without objection, the Chair might also declare a recess
    subject to the call of the Chair. As described in the notice,
    statements, documents, or motions must be submitted to the
    electronic repository at HNRCdocs@mail.house.gov. Additionally,
    please note that as with in-person meetings, Members are
    responsible for their own microphones. As with our in-person
    meetings, Members may be muted by staff to avoid inadvertent
    background noise. Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing
    technical problems should inform the Committee staff
    immediately, and that phone number was in your information. We
    are going to begin opening statements.
        The Chair will now recognize the Vice Ranking Minority
    Member for Insular Affairs and Ranking Member designee with
    respect to her opening statement and with respect to H.R. 1522,
    legislation sponsored by herself and Representative Soto. With
    that, Representative Gonzalez-Colon, the time is yours.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, A RESIDENT
       COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO

        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, the
    Committee is holding a second hearing to address Puerto Rico's
    political status following the November 3 referendum in which a
    clear majority of voters on the island chose statehood. Also, I
    think, 2 days ago, the Department of Justice issued a report on
    the constitutional and legal perspective of the bills before
    us.
        H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, which I
    introduced with Congressman Darren Soto from Florida,
    recognizes and respects that Puerto Rico has, through the
    ballot box, exercised its right to self-determination, rejected
    the current territorial status, and voted for statehood.
        H.R. 1522 will constitute Congress' response to my
    constituents on the island. It makes a formal offer of
    statehood to the American citizens living in Puerto Rico, which
    would have to be ratified in a federally sponsored referendum.
    As the DOJ recognizes, H.R. 1522 does not impose or force
    statehood on the people of the island. It empowers, as we would
    have the final say on the matter through our vote, the only
    true and proven self-determination process. The bill follows
    the precedent established for Alaska and Hawaii, setting forth
    a binding, self-executing process to admit Puerto Rico as a
    state should a majority of the voters favor it.
        The other bill, H.R. 2070, blatantly ignores the will of
    the people of Puerto Rico and the voters and has serious
    constitutional flaws according to the Department of Justice.
        During our last hearing, it also became clear that this
    bill attempts to mislead voters in Puerto Rico by establishing
    a complicated status convention process in which just a few
    delegates could come up with fanciful or unconstitutional
    status options. It even goes as far as saying that Congress
    would be required to ratify whatever option comes out of this
    process, something Congress cannot constitutionally bind itself
    to do, as the DOJ report has explicitly pointed out.
        The DOJ also stated that the only two non-territorial
    status options consistent with the U.S. Constitution are
    statehood and independence. We don't need a status convention
    to tell this to Congress or to the people of the island. Any
    other option that this convention may come up with would be
    incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.
        Mr. Chairman, a few days ago, on a separate matter, the
    Department of Justice announced that it would defend before the
    Supreme Court the constitutionality of the law that excludes
    Puerto Rico residents from the Supplemental Security Income, or
    SSI, as we know the program. Some Members of Congress,
    including members of this Committee, rightfully denounced this
    decision, calling for a legislative solution and a permanent
    fix to this unequal treatment.
        It is true that Congress can pass legislation to give
    Puerto Rico access to SSI and to other Federal programs under
    which we are excluded. As the island's sole representative in
    Congress, I have introduced multiple bills to achieve this and
    will continue to advance these efforts. But it is similarly
    true that a future Congress could take away that access, and
    that is because as a territory, we will always be at Congress'
    mercy.
        Mr. Chairman, the so-called parity is not equality, and it
    is not a permanent solution. And that is why we must respect
    Puerto Rico's vote and support H.R. 1522, because statehood
    will guarantee full and permanent equality for the 3.2 million
    citizens living on the island. And only statehood guarantees
    constitutional citizenship.
        Now, as we discuss a path forward in this Committee, we
    must also make a choice. Are we going to ignore the will of the
    voters on the island and pretend that we know better than them,
    or are we going to stand with the fellow citizens living in
    Puerto Rico and respect their vote for full equality and for
    statehood?
        I assume we are going to do the correct thing and assure
    that H.R. 1522 is going to be passed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
    and I yield back.

        [The prepared statement of Miss Gonzalez-Colon follows:]

      Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, a Resident
           Commissioner in Congress from the Territory of Puerto Rico
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today the Committee is holding a second hearing to address Puerto
    Rico's political status, following the November 3rd referendum in which
    a clear majority of voters on the Island chose statehood. Also, 2 days
    ago the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a report on the
    constitutional and legal perspective of the bills before us.
        H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, which I
    introduced with Congressman Darren Soto, recognizes and respects that
    Puerto Rico has--through the ballot box--exercised its right to self-
    determination, rejected the current territorial status, and voted for
    statehood.
        H.R. 1522 would constitute Congress's response to voters on the
    Island. It makes a formal offer of statehood to the American citizens
    of Puerto Rico, which would have to be ratified in a federally
    sponsored referendum. As DOJ recognizes, H.R. 1522 does not impose or
    force statehood on the people of Puerto Rico. It empowers us, as we
    would have the final say on the matter through our vote, the only true
    and proven self-determination process. The bill follows the precedent
    established for Alaska and Hawaii, setting forth a binding, self-
    executing process to admit Puerto Rico as a State should a majority of
    voters favor it.
        The other bill, H.R. 2070, blatantly ignores the will of Puerto
    Rico's voters and has serious constitutional flaws, according to DOJ.
        During our last hearing it also became clear that this bill
    attempts to mislead voters in Puerto Rico by establishing a
    complicated, status convention process in which a few delegates could
    come up with fanciful or unconstitutional status options. It even goes
    as far as saying that Congress would be required to ratify whatever
    option comes out of this process, something Congress cannot
    constitutionally bind itself to do as the DOJ report has explicitly
    pointed out.
        DOJ also stated that the only two non-territorial status options
    consistent with the U.S. Constitution are statehood and independence.
    We don't need a status convention to tell this to Congress or to the
    people of Puerto Rico. Any other option that this convention may come
    up with would be incompatible with the Constitution.
        Mr. Chairman, a few days ago, on a separate matter DOJ announced
    that it would defend before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of
    the law that excludes Puerto Rico residents from the Supplemental
    Security Income (SSI).
        Some Members of Congress, including Members of this Committee,
    rightfully denounced this decision, calling for a legislative solution
    and a permanent fix to this unequal treatment.
        It is true that Congress can pass legislation to give Puerto Rico
    access to SSI and other Federal programs under which we are excluded.
    As the Island's sole representative in Congress, I've introduced
    multiple bills to achieve this and will continue to advance these
    efforts.
        But it is similarly true that a future Congress could take away
    that access. And that's because as a territory, we will always be at
    Congress's mercy. Mr. Chairman, so-called ``parity'' is not equality,
    and it's not a permanent solution.
        That's why we must respect Puerto Rico's vote and support H.R.
    1522. Because only statehood will guarantee full and permanent equality
    for the 3.2 million Americans on the Island, and only statehood
    guarantees constitutional citizenship.
        Now, as we discuss a path forward in this Committee, we must also
    make a choice: are we going to ignore the will of voters in Puerto
    Rico, and pretend that we know better than them? Or are we going to
    stand with our fellow citizens on the Island and respect their vote for
    full equality, for statehood?
        Thank you. I yield back.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields, and thank you, Miss
    Gonzalez-Colon, for your statement.
        The Chair now recognizes the sponsor of H.R. 2070, the
    gentlelady from New York, Representative Velazquez, for 5
    minutes. Ms. Velazquez, you are recognized.

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

        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and the
    Ranking Member for holding this second hearing on the issue of
    statehood for Puerto Rico. There is a popular saying in Spanish
    that goes like this. ``El rio siempre vuelve a su cauce,''
    which translates to, ``The river always makes it to the
    delta.'' And here we are today with newly issued reports from
    the U.S. Department of Justice confirming what we have been
    saying all along.
        The past plebiscites have never produced any permanent
    results, that statehood is not a done deal, and that Puerto
    Ricans need to freely vote on all possible options. And more
    importantly, that the DOJ only explicitly supports my bill and
    not H.R. 1522, the statehood bill. So, here we are at the
    delta. After reading DOJ's reports, it is now more clear than
    ever that the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act is the
    inclusive democratic approach to solving Puerto Rico's status,
    while the Statehood Admission bill is a one-sided, undemocratic
    bill that does not even achieve the aim it supposedly purports.
    I want to thank Chairman Grijalva for requesting these reports,
    which revoke the token points on statehood that had been pushed
    by politicians and lobbyists to the tune of about $12 million
    since 2013. For years, Puerto Rican statehood leaders have used
    the promise of admission as a state for their own political and
    electoral purposes.
        They have lied time and again about how close statehood for
    Puerto Rico really is. They allege massive support it has and
    all the benefits of this option, at times downplaying the
    responsibility it will carry. H.R. 1522 is not different, and
    the DOJ agrees. First and foremost, H.R. 1522 proponents argue
    this bill is self-executing and that statehood is automatic.
    That is false.
        The DOJ report clearly states that the bill itself will not
    admit Puerto Rico as a state and, in fact, recommends a new
    name for this bill and, I quote, ``the Department recommends
    that the title of the bill be the ``Puerto Rico Statehood
    Determination Act'' or simply the ``Puerto Rico Statehood
    Act,'' so as not to imply that admission of Puerto Rico as a
    state is a fait accompli.'' So, even the name of the bill is
    misleading.
        Secondly, H.R. 1522 has been advertised on the full premise
    that Puerto Ricans already decided in favor of statehood.
    Wrong. The DOJ questions the validity of the past plebiscite by
    noting that the ballot propositions in 2012 and 2017 contain
    inaccuracies and were potentially misleading and that the
    premise of the 2020 plebiscite was faulty. Finally, opponents
    of H.R. 2070 argue that my bill is too complex. Wrong again.
    DOJ notes that it is in line with the Constitution to provide
    the voters of Puerto Rico with clear notice of what they will
    be approving. My bill is the only bill that offers a clear,
    transparent, inclusive, and democratic way for Puerto Ricans to
    be informed on the consequences of becoming a state or on any
    other future status.
        In fact, my bill creates an educational campaign and
    allocates money for such purposes. It also requires
    transitional plans accompany options during a vote. A decision
    to become a state of the Union binds Puerto Ricans forever. The
    voters in Puerto Rico have the right to know, understand, and
    vote upon the terms and condition for each of the status
    options. My bill offers Puerto Ricans the opportunity to define
    for themselves the status option that they will vote for.
        Bear in mind that after the statehood option loss in 1993
    plebiscite, the Statehood Party vowed never to allow others to
    present their own status options and instead craft subsequent
    plebiscite and status options on their own accord. That
    explains the one-sided, undemocratic referendum we have had
    today. If we truly want to solve the issue of status for the
    island, we need to give Puerto Ricans the tools to design a
    true self-determination process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields, and I thank the
    gentlelady for her statement.
        Madam Ranking Member, is Mr. Westerman going to be here to
    make a statement, the Ranking Member, or not?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. No, sir.
        The Chairman. OK. Thank you.
        Let me now recognize myself for an opening statement.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        The Chairman. As was stated, we are meeting today for a
    second day of hearings on H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico Statehood
    Admission Act, and H.R. 2070, the Puerto Rico Self-
    Determination Act of 2021, both of which are seeking to
    conclusively address the island's future political status after
    123 years as a territory of the United States.

        When we met for the first hearing in April, we heard from
    elected officials from Puerto Rico, including the Governor and
    the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who urged passage
    of the bill they supported. Today, we will hear from academics,
    residents of Puerto Rico, and mainland leaders, who will also
    address their preferred solution to Puerto Rico's political
    status.

        The journey to address Puerto Rico's political status began
    in 1952, when the United States enacted legislation
    establishing the current relationship between Puerto Rico and
    the United States. Since then, there has been a series of
    plebiscites to find out whether the residents of Puerto Rico
    were satisfied with the current territory status or if they
    wanted to change it. The most recent of these plebiscites
    yielded support in favor of statehood, which led to the
    introduction of the two bills that are before us today.

        At our last hearing, there was debate and discussion of
    whether the residents of Puerto Rico desire a permanent union
    with the United States that guarantees their U.S. citizenship
    and equal rights and responsibilities as Americans residing in
    the 50 states. We also heard arguments insisting that the
    residents of Puerto Rico are still unsure of agreeing to a
    permanent union and should therefore be allowed to debate and
    discuss all the non-territory status options available through
    a status convention.

        As you are all aware, we reached out to the Biden
    administration's Department of Justice for an assessment of the
    two bills. I want to thank the Department for submitting the
    information to the Committee in a timely manner so it could be
    available to all of us for this meeting. And, in summary, the
    official reports indicate that the Department of Justice
    supports providing the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to
    vote on whether to become a State of the Union, as H.R. 1522
    would do. Also, the Department would support H.R. 2070, if it
    facilitates a choice among three constitutionally permissible
    status options: statehood, independence, and territory status.

        We anticipate today's hearing will be similar to our first
    hearing but also a focus on DOJ's opinions on the two pieces of
    legislation before us today. Once again, I want to be
    straightforward with the residents of Puerto Rico and my
    colleagues on this Committee. This issue is a divisive issue in
    Congress for both parties. There is uncertainty around what
    would happen if there were a Committee or Floor vote on either
    of these bills.
        Nevertheless, I recognize this Committee's responsibility
    in playing a leading and constructive role in resolving this
    issue, which is a priority for the people of Puerto Rico. For
    this reason, I am committed to moving this process forward. The
    Committee is approaching a decision-making point, which is what
    the residents of Puerto Rico expect and deserve.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]

     Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on
                               Natural Resources
        We are meeting today for a second day of hearings on H.R. 1522, the
    Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act and H.R. 2070, the Puerto Rico
    Self-Determination Act of 2021; both of which are seeking to
    conclusively address the island's future political status after 123
    years as a territory of the United States.
        When we met for the first hearing in April, we heard from elected
    officials from Puerto Rico--including the Governor and Speaker of the
    House of Representatives--who urged passage of the bill they supported.
    Today, we will hear from academics, residents of Puerto Rico, and
    diaspora leaders, who will also passionately advocate for their
    preferred solution to Puerto Rico's political status.
        The journey to address Puerto Rico's political status began in 1952
    when the U.S. enacted legislation establishing the current relationship
    between Puerto Rico and the United States. Since then, there has been a
    series of plebiscites to find out whether the residents of Puerto Rico
    were satisfied with the current territory status or if they wanted to
    change it. The most recent of those plebiscites yielded support in
    favor of statehood, which led to introduction of the two bills before
    us.
        At our last hearing there was a spirited debate and discussion of
    whether the residents of Puerto Rico desire a permanent union with the
    United States that guarantees their U.S. citizenship, and equal rights
    and responsibilities as Americans residing in the 50 states. We also
    heard arguments insisting that the residents of Puerto Rico are still
    unsure of agreeing to a permanent union and should therefore be allowed
    to debate and discuss all the non-territory status options available to
    them through a status convention.
        As you are all aware, we reached out to the Biden Administration's
    Department of Justice for an assessment of the two bills. I want to
    thank the Department for submitting the information to the Committee.
    In summary, the official reports indicate that the Department of
    Justice supports providing the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to
    vote on whether to become a State of the Union, as H.R. 1522 would do.
    Also, that the Department would support H.R. 2070, if it facilitates a
    choice among three constitutionally permissible status options--
    statehood, independence, and territory status.
        We can anticipate that today's hearing will likely be as lively as
    the first hearing. Once again, I want to be straightforward with the
    residents of Puerto Rico, this is a divisive issue in Congress--for
    both delegations--and there is great uncertainty around what would
    happen if there were a Committee or Floor vote on either of these
    bills.
        Nevertheless, I recognize this Committee's responsibility in
    playing a leading and constructive role in resolving this issue, which
    is a priority for the people of Puerto Rico. For this reason, I am
    committed to moving this process forward. The Committee is approaching
    a decision-making point, which is what the residents of Puerto Rico
    expect and deserve.
        With that in mind, I want to welcome our witnesses. I also want to
    welcome our former colleague, former Representative Luis Gutierrez. I
    look forward to receiving all your testimonies.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. I want to welcome our witnesses. I also want
    to welcome our former colleague, former Representative Luis
    Gutierrez, who is here with us today. I look forward to
    receiving all your testimonies, and I will begin.
        I will now turn to our witnesses. Before introducing them,
    I will remind the witnesses that they are encouraged to
    participate in the witness diversity survey created by the
    Congressional Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Witnesses may
    refer to their hearing invitation materials for how to access
    that information.
        Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules,
    they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but that
    their entire statement will appear in the hearing record. When
    you begin, the timer will begin, and it will turn orange when
    you have 1 minute remaining. I recommend that Members and
    witnesses use ``stage view'' so they can pin the timer on their
    screen.
        After your testimony is complete, please remember to mute
    yourself to avoid any inadvertent background noise. I will also
    allow the entire panel to testify before questioning witnesses.
    And that questioning process will occur based on seniority of
    those Members in that category that are present with us today.
        With that, let me begin by formally inviting our former
    colleague and dear friend of mine, the Hon. Luis Gutierrez,
    Former Representative of Illinois' 4th District from Chicago.
        Congressman, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
        Mr. Gutierrez.

     STATEMENT OF LUIS GUTIERREZ, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE, ILLINOIS'
                    4TH DISTRICT, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

        Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member
    Westerman, and members of the Committee. Puerto Rico is a
    nation, a colonized nation, but a nation nonetheless. As
    colonization began first under the Spanish Empire in 1493 and
    then under the U.S. imperialism in 1898, Puerto Rico's identity
    and nationality was born in resistance to colonialism that
    today continues to manifest itself rightly in the ongoing
    struggle for decolonization and for self-determination.
        Two brilliant and visionary Puerto Rican women have
    proposed a bill to end the over 122 years of U.S. colonization
    of Puerto Rico. Representatives Nydia Velazquez and Alexandria
    Cortez are the embodiment of Lola Rodriguez de Tio and Mariana
    Bracetti. Their bill outlines a careful and inclusive
    mechanism, whereby Puerto Ricans could establish a
    constitutional assembly to openly discuss, debate, and
    ultimately select a non-territorial status option.
        The Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021 represents
    the only genuine democratic legislation about Puerto Rico's
    status before the 117th Congress. I would like to say that it
    seems to me that democracy and the foundation is based on the
    pillars of allowing for dissent, allowing for different
    opinions, of allowing people to debate and discuss and for all
    of those opinions to be respected. The only bill that does that
    is the bill presented by Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez and
    Ocasio-Cortez. The statehood bill, we could not say the same of
    it.
        I just want to quickly go back to 2017. In 2017, there was
    a plebiscite in Puerto Rico. The Statehood Party controlled the
    House, the Senate, and the Governorship. They determined all of
    the definitions of all of the statuses and they defined all of
    the statuses. And guess what happened. They got a whopping 97
    percent. They did so good that they had to do a repeat 4 years
    later because no one thought--because not even Putin gets 97
    percent of the vote.
        But why did they get 97 percent of the vote? Mr. Chairman,
    members of the Committee, because people boycotted the process,
    because the people of Puerto Rico felt that this was an imposed
    process on them. And how did they demonstrate their rejection
    of the plebiscite? Through a boycott.
        Now, let's remember that is what Gandhi did to bring down
    the empire of Britain. That is what the Civil Rights Movement
    did under Martin Luther King to bring about justice and
    fairness and civil rights. It is what the farmworkers did in
    saying we will boycott the lettuce and Cesar Chavez led to
    fairer working conditions.
        It is a political tool that has been used by the resistance
    ad memoriam. And it is one that the Puerto Rican people used in
    2017. So, let's just discard that. Nobody believes they got 97
    percent, not even the proponents of the statehood bill. Why?
    They figured they had to do it all over again. And what did
    they do? They said next time we are going to force people to
    have to vote.
        But guess what they did. This time they said that the only
    thing we are going to allow the people of Puerto Rico to
    consider is statehood, yes or no. We are not going to allow
    them to consider independence. We are not going to allow them
    to consider free association. We are not going to allow them to
    consider any other option, non-territorial. That is what Nydia
    Velazquez's bill does because Nydia Velazquez's bill is based
    on the pillar of what? Respecting other people's opinion and
    bringing about consensus so that we can move forward, not the
    statehood bill.
        Listen. I think I might be only one of very few here that
    was actually in Puerto Rico during the last November election
    that we celebrated last November. Guess what. The people in
    Puerto Rico didn't take that referendum seriously. The
    Department of Justice didn't take the referendum seriously.
    They promised the people of Puerto Rico that if they voted for
    statehood and they won, that Congress would immediately allow
    them to enter as the next state.
        I know that is not what they say here, but there is a
    duality of what they say before the Congress of the United
    States and what they say on the island of Puerto Rico. I have
    lived there for the last 2\1/2\ years, and I have heard it
    plenty. I want everyone to understand that when they got a
    whopping 52 percent--wow, just imagine. You exclude all your
    opposition. You only give the people one alternative, your
    alternative, and you get a whopping 52 percent, not quite the
    mandate I think we would all consider, especially when you get
    to win because you are the only alternative.
        Nydia Velazquez and Ocasio-Cortez allow the people of
    Puerto Rico to define the status issues, non-territorial, in
    conjunction with this Committee and with the Congress of the
    United States so that when it finally happens, it happens for
    real. And Mr. Chairman, I campaigned for Biden. I campaigned
    for Biden all across the country. Biden won the election. Biden
    campaigned for President of the United States saying that he
    would not listen to that plebiscite, that he would ensure that
    the only plebiscite he would listen to is one that heard all
    the different voices. And that is in spite of the fact that he
    supports statehood for Puerto Rico.
        He said, no, I am only going to promote and accept and
    campaign on the basis of people of Puerto Rico being allowed to
    freely accept and promote a status that they determined, always
    and when multiple different versions and the referendum are put
    before the people of Puerto Rico. You know what? That is Nydia
    Velazquez's bill. Maybe we should amend it to the Biden bill
    because it reflects in its entirety what President Biden
    campaigned on for the people of Puerto Rico.
        Listen. The people of the United States of America elected
    that man, Biden. We should respect the will of the people of
    the United States of America and allow the people of Puerto
    Rico to have a free and open discussion. Two other things that
    I think are important. The proponents of statehood demand that
    we respect, according to them, their civil rights. But they do
    not respect the civil rights of the LGBT community in Puerto
    Rico.
        Homophobic slurs are abundant in the rhetoric of the
    Statehood Party in Puerto Rico. They do not respect the rights
    of women and her reproductive rights in the legislation in
    Puerto Rico. They recently had a bill in which they say we will
    protect the unborn. Everybody knows what that means. Women
    don't get to decide about their reproductive rights. They went
    even further, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, in saying
    to the LGBT community, apart from the homophobic slurs that are
    abundant, they went and said, you know what--We are going to
    debilitate the right of a gay couple to have a child when they
    reformed the legislation.
        This is a party that demands and says we come before the
    Congress of the United States demanding equal rights and
    demanding that our civil rights are protected, but they don't
    protect the civil rights and the human rights of the people of
    Puerto Rico. And lastly, let's be clear. The false premise on
    the basis of which the people of Puerto Rico--they said vote
    for statehood, and poverty will vanquish. Well, Mr. Chairman,
    we know since 1971, the 15th Congressional District of the
    State of New York has had a Puerto Rican in the leadership.
    That district is the iconic Puerto Rican district. And guess
    what? Unfortunately and tragically and sadly, it is the poorest
    congressional district of 435. They have lived statehood for
    the last 50 years, and yet they are still the poorest.
    Statehood does not eliminate poverty. What eliminates poverty
    is the fight against income inequality, raising the minimum
    wage, and fighting for social justice.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gutierrez follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Former Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez
                           on H.R. 2070 and H.R. 1522
        Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and members
    of the House Committee on Natural Resources for this invitation.
        Puerto Rico is a nation, a colonized nation. Its colonization
    began, first under the Spanish Empire in 1493, and then under the U.S.
    empire in 1898. Puerto Rican identity and nationality was born in
    resistance to colonialism, and today continues to manifest most
    brightly in the ongoing struggle for decolonization and self-
    determination.
        Two brilliant and visionary Puerto Rican women have proposed a bill
    to end the over 122 years of U.S. colonization of Puerto Rico.
    Representatives Nydia Velazquez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the
    embodiment of Lola Rodriguez de Tio and Mariana Bracetti. Their bill
    outlines a careful and inclusive mechanism whereby Puerto Ricans could
    establish a constitutional assembly to openly discuss, debate, and
    ultimate select a non-territorial status option. The Puerto Rico Self-
    Determination Act of 2021 (H.R. 2070) represents the only genuinely
    democratic legislation about Puerto Rico's status before the 117th U.S.
    Congress.
        The same cannot be said of the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act,
    which has the support of the pro-statehood party, the Partido Nuevo
    Progresista (PNP). The proponents of that bill claim that the Puerto
    Rican people, en masse, support Puerto Rico's admission into the union.
    But this is not true. While they are quick to report that statehood won
    the November 2020 referendum with 52% of the vote, they routinely omit
    that a mere 55% of the Puerto Rican electorate took part, one of the
    lowest turnouts in recent Puerto Rican history. Like the Statehood
    Admission Act, the referendum, excluded other non-territorial options.
    It is now clear that they must exclude to achieve a so-called
    ``majority.'' You cannot lose if you allow no competition. The 2020
    referendum was the second referendum that the PNP steamrolled in the
    past legislative cycle. In 2017, the PNP put before the Puerto Rican
    people another exclusionary referendum on statehood, which received an
    unprecedented 97% for support. Even though they trumpeted this result,
    no one in Washington or Puerto Rico took it seriously because the
    referendum was boycotted by nearly 80% of the Puerto Rican electorate.
    Unable to advance their cause, these zealots for statehood tried a do-
    over in 2020. In both cases, the PNP controlled house, senate, and
    governorship disregarded the principled opposition of the Popular
    Democratic Party, the Puerto Rican Independence Party, and other local
    political parties. Unsurprisingly, these referendums were widely seen
    by Puerto Rican civil society as an illegitimate and undemocratic
    imposition of annexation.
        The Partido Nuevo Progresista translates in English to the New
    Progressive Party. However, there is little progressive about this
    party. Although it paints itself in Washington as a champion of civil
    rights, the PNP has often stood against, and at times systematically
    opposed, civil rights in Puerto Rico. It has long been a bastion of
    religious fundamentalism and has contributed what one prominent LGBT
    rights advocate has rightly labeled, ``institutionalized homophobia.''
    The PNP was responsible for delaying the extension of anti-
    discrimination protections to the LGBT community and reluctant to
    oppose conversion theory. In 2017, as a Member of Congress, I denounced
    on the House floor the homophobic and transphobic slurs and policies of
    Thomas Rivera Schatz, the President of the Puerto Rican Senate and a
    leader of the PNP.
        Successive PNP governorships remained silent on the issue of
    femicide on the island and ignored the demands of women's rights and
    feminist movements. Only in January of this year, thanks to aggressive
    activism, did a PNP governor finally declare a state of emergency on
    femicides against cis- and trans-women. We cannot forget that the
    ousted and disgraced former governor Ricardo Rossello called former
    speaker of the New York City Council Melissa Mark Viverito a ``puta.''
        On matters of race, the PNP has little to celebrate. In 2020, a PNP
    representative used the N-word in the Puerto Rico chamber. After his
    remarks were challenged, one of his colleagues proposed a resolution
    that compared him to the great African American civil rights leader,
    Rosa Parks. It was not that long ago that Heidi Wys Toro, the advisor
    to Jenniffer Gonzalez, then the President of the Puerto Rico House of
    Representatives, unleashed a series of racist tweets against then
    President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama. In one tweet in
    2012, Wys Toro wrote: ``Who cares? Take her to Burger King, buy her a
    sundae with double banana, take her to your homeland, Kenya!''
        The PNP's leadership, they wish us to forget, expressed fealty to
    Donald Trump time and time again. But the people of Puerto Rico have
    not forgotten how Governor Rossello co-signed Trump's minimization of
    the death toll after Hurricane Maria, in which likely over 4,000
    persons lost their lives. The fact that Trump called Mexican immigrants
    rapists and bad hombres, characterized Central American, Caribbean, and
    African countries ``shitholes,'' and embolden white supremacists did
    not stop the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico from becoming the
    Republican Chairwoman for Latinos for Trump.
        The PNP today knows that its electoral influence is waning. It will
    not soon recover from the historic protests that ousted then Governor
    Rossello in 2019, after a series of misogynistic, homophobic, and
    classist messages between him and his advisors were leaked. Perhaps
    without parallel, over one-third of Puerto Rico's population of three
    million at some point took to the streets in protest against Rossello
    and his corrupt administration. What informs the PNP's fanatical and
    fundamentally anti-democratic quest to impose statehood on Puerto Rico
    now is not its electoral strength but its fragility. Isn't ironic that
    Rossello, who was forced to flee the island as governor, was recently
    elected to become a paid lobbyist in Washington for Puerto Rican
    statehood to the tune of over $150,000. How is there plenty of money
    for this disgraced and ousted governor of Puerto Rico while thousands
    of children go without classrooms and thousands of families on the
    island go without roofs?
        Today, I doubt that proponents of statehood will address these
    issues. Instead, they will double down on myths they have grown fond of
    telling. I have already dispelled one of those myths--the claim that
    statehood has majority support on the island. Again, that is simply not
    true and must be openly questioned.
        Another myth the PNP has told is that statehood is a panacea for
    Puerto Rico. But it is not. Matters are much more complicated. If
    Puerto Rico were admitted today into the union, it would become, by
    far, the poorest of the 51 states. I once asked a Democratic
    Congressman from Mississippi on our way to vote, why he supported
    statehood? His response was: ``I'm tired of Mississippi being called
    the poorest state. That honor will now go to Puerto Rico.'' Even so,
    the PNP love to tell the Puerto Rican people that statehood would end
    poverty. As a matter of fact, a leading advocate for statehood and
    former resident commissioner and governor of Puerto Rico, the late
    Romero Barcelo authored a book titled, Statehood is for the Poor. Yet,
    they do not offer an explanation as to why Puerto Ricans in the
    diaspora remain among the poorest and most marginalized populations in
    U.S. society after having lived statehood for several generations. On
    many occasions, statehood supporters have told those of us who live in
    the U.S. that we have enjoyed the benefits of statehood by living in a
    state, benefits we would denied them. It saddens me that after 50 years
    of Puerto Rican congressional representation--Herman Badillo, Robert
    Garcia, Jose Serrano, and today Richie Torres--the 15th Congressional
    District in the Bronx remains the poorest district of all the 50
    states. Unsurprising, the 2020 referendum offered voters no details
    about what statehood would entail, economically or culturally. Unlike
    the Admission Act, the Puerto Rican Self-Determination Act explicitly
    demands that voters receive detailed information about each of the
    status options and their implications for Puerto Rican society.
        The PNP has also expressed a most damaging myth: Puerto Ricans and
    Puerto Rico are just any other group of Americans. They deny that
    Puerto Rico is a nation, that Puerto Ricans are a people. Kenneth
    McClintock, one of the senior statesmen of the PNP, recently made this
    point to me at a debate in Puerto Rico. It should then come as no
    surprise that the PNP is willing to sell off Puerto Rico, its beaches
    and historic buildings, to the highest binder and openly calls for the
    privatization of public utilizes and social services. Contrary to this
    self-hating and colonial position, I affirm that Puerto Ricans have a
    language, a history, a culture, and a proud legacy of resistance
    against both Spanish and U.S. colonization. If Puerto Rico were not a
    nation, what explains the swiftness of the response of Puerto Ricans in
    Chicago, Orlando, and New York after Hurricane Maria? Why do Puerto
    Ricans, wherever they happen to reside, raise their mono-starred flag
    and take pride in the athletic, musical, and intellectual achievements
    of their fellow Puerto Ricans. Throughout Puerto Rico and its diaspora,
    schools and colleges are named after individuals that affirmed Puerto
    Rican identity and self-determination, such as Julia de Burgos, Eugenio
    Maria de Hostos, Jose de Diego, and Albizu Campos. Eighty-four years
    after Rafael Hernandez Marin composed and penned ``Preciosa,'' the song
    still stirs the hearts of Puerto Ricans. I remember my parents singing,
    ``Preciosa te llaman los bardos/Que cantan tu historia/No importa el
    tirano te trate/Con negra maldad.'' The same is true about the lament,
    ``En Mi Viejo San Juan.'' Decades from now, our children may add Bad
    Bunny's ``Estamos Bien'' to this patriotic catalogue.
        We are a nation, and many of us refuse to relinquish or cancel our
    nationality, as the PNP seems to desire. All these myths rest on a
    peculiar and distorted history of Puerto Rico. It is a history that
    downplays the painful reality of U.S. colonization. There is no
    accounting for the history of political persecution, assassinations,
    massacres, imprisonments meted out to those that believe and struggle
    for Puerto Rican independence and self-determination. Look up ``La Ley
    de la Mordaza,'' which made it illegal to advocate and organize for
    Puerto Rican independence. They say nothing about the mass
    sterilization of Puerto Rican women or the bombing in Vieques, which
    has led to high levels of cancer among the population. Are we to forget
    that when the U.S. invaded Puerto Rico, our Caribbean archipelago had
    already secured a Charter of Autonomy between itself and Spain and that
    American conquistadors believed Puerto Ricans were incapable of self-
    rule? Can we forget how the U.S. divided up the island among U.S. sugar
    barons and made English the official language? Can we forget how the
    Jones Act imposed U.S. citizenship on Puerto Rico, against the
    expressed will of the only Puerto Rican representative body on the
    island at the time, and how citizenship gave us the ``right'' to die in
    foreign wars? Should we forget the series of Organic acts and Supreme
    Court decisions that determined that Puerto Rico belonged to but was
    not a part of the United States, a position based racist and eugenicist
    ideas about a ``mongrel'' race?
        In conclusion, we cannot decolonize Puerto Rico without a genuinely
    democratic and inclusive process. That is precisely what Nydia
    Velazquez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Puerto Rico Self-Determination
    Act offers. We have had 500 years--over half of a millennia--of
    colonial oppression. However, today, the PNP opposes this measure and
    seeks to impose annexation and force assimilation. They claim to have a
    mandate but over two-thirds of the Puerto Rican electorate voted
    against their gubernatorial candidate. The PNP refuses to come to the
    table and collaborate, in good faith, with the other parties and
    political orientations to resolve the status of Puerto Rico. Instead,
    they have told many myths and falsehoods in airwaves in Puerto Rico and
    in the halls of Congress. Both Congress and Puerto Rico deserve better.
    Thankfully, we have an alternative path. I urge the U.S. Congress to
    endorse the Puerto Rican Self-Determination bill. It is a bill that can
    help ensure a better, more just, and decolonized future for Puerto
    Rico. And that is the future I will continue to fight for.
        Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and members
    of the House Committee on Natural Resources for your time and
    consideration.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Thank you, and to the
    other folks, I will provide the courtesy of extending time.
        Let me now recognize Dr. Rafael Cox Alomar, Professor of
    Constitutional Law at the University of the District of
    Columbia. Doctor, you are recognized.

      STATEMENT OF RAFAEL COX ALOMAR, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL
      LAW, UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WASHINGTON, DC

        Dr. Cox Alomar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Due to the
    fact that the DOJ only recently published its legal opinions on
    both bills, I find it necessary to devote my opening statement
    to addressing some of the more salient conclusions put forward
    by the Department of Justice in its legal memoranda.
    Observation No. 1, while highly persuasive, DOJ opinions on
    territorial issues are not binding or controlling on Congress.

        Congress alone possesses constitutional authority to make
    all needful rules and regulations respecting the territories.
    When the framers assembled in Philadelphia in the summer of
    1787, they agreed to delegate the exclusive authority over the
    territories to the legislative branch, not to the executive
    branch. This Committee should be mindful of this nuance because
    it goes to the heart of America's separation of powers
    arrangement.

        Observation No. 2, along similar lines, the Supreme Court
    alone and not the DOJ is the final interpreter of the Federal
    Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall hinted that in Marbury v.
    Madison.

        Observation No. 3, international law in the words of
    Justice Gray in the Paquete Habana case is part of our law.
    Under both the United Nations charter and the International
    Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the United States is
    bound to de-colonize Puerto Rico if its people so choose. The
    Department of Justice's opinions leave this aspect of the
    conversation untouched.

        This is highly problematic because, after all, Puerto Rico
    came under U.S. sovereignty pursuant to an international
    treaty, namely the Treaty of Paris of 1899, and the United
    Nations has never fully relinquished its authority to revisit
    the Puerto Rico case per its authority under the charter, which
    is an international agreement which was ratified by the U.S.
    Senate.
        Observation No. 4, while it is true as the Department of
    Justice so addressed, that the territory is a constitutional
    option, nothing in the Constitution requires its inclusion in
    the ballot. The inclusion or rejection of the territorial
    option is a matter of policy. It is not a matter of
    constitutional law.
        Observation No. 5, although free association shares
    important foundational elements with full independence, it must
    be distinguished from independence in significant respects as
    the International Court of Justice has intimated in the Namibia
    and Western Sahara cases. No one could possibly suggest that
    Palau or the Republic of the Marshall Islands are on an equal
    footing with East Timor, now fully independent from Indonesia,
    or that Greenland's legal status is identical to that of
    Denmark or that Curacao or St. Martin enjoy the same political
    arrangement as the independent Republic of Suriname, also a
    former Dutch colony. Under free association, Puerto Rico would
    be sovereign in an international sense but still be bound to
    the United States on the basis of a unique relationship carved
    out by both contracting parties in light of their geostrategic
    needs and realities.
        This Committee should be well-advised to look at the
    various free association arrangements around the world, in
    particular the British, the Dutch, the Danish, and the Finnish.
    There is no one-size-fits-all approach with respect to free
    association as the DOJ appears to suggest.
        Observation No. 6, and finally, the DOJ's contention that
    PROMESA is not incompatible with statehood raises very tough
    questions of first impression under the so-called Equal Footing
    Doctrine. In the final analysis, if history has taught us
    anything, it is that the resolution of the Puerto Rico status
    conundrum is not so much a constitutional issue as it is an
    issue of political will or lack thereof. Thank you so much, Mr.
    Chairman.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Cox Alomar follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Rafael Cox Alomar, Professor of Law,
    David A. Clarke School of Law, University of the District of Columbia,
                                 Washington, DC

                                i. introduction
        Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and distinguished
    members of the Committee on Natural Resources. Thank you for inviting
    me to testify today.
        I am a professor of law at the David A. Clarke School of Law of the
    University of the District of Columbia in Washington, DC, where I teach
    Constitutional Law and Public International Law, among other topics.
    Furthermore, this coming Winter I will teach a course on American
    Constitutionalism and the Insular Cases at Harvard Law School. I am,
    moreover, the author of The Puerto Rico Constitution (Oxford University
    Press, 2022) (forthcoming) and Revisiting the Transatlantic Triangle:
    The Constitutional Decolonization of the Eastern Caribbean (Ian Randle
    Publishers, 2009). I am also the co-author of The Law of the U.S.
    Territories (Carolina Academic Press, 2023). I appear regularly as a
    constitutional law analysist for CNN En Espanol, France 24, and NTN24.
      ii. congress' constitutional power to chart a decolonizing path for
                                  puerto rico
        The time is ripe for Congress to take stock of the seminal lessons
    stemming from the long string of failed attempts at disentangling
    Puerto Rico's political status conundrum. The first lesson that must be
    clearly understood is that the Constitution vests in Congress plenary
    power to chart, along with the people of Puerto Rico, a path for
    achieving the island's decolonization. The language chosen by the
    founders in Philadelphia leaves little room for equivocation: ``The
    Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
    regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the
    United States.'' (U.S. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2). Thus, it is not
    incumbent on the judiciary or the executive branches to articulate a
    decolonizing solution for Puerto Rico. Only Congress bears that
    constitutional responsibility. Decolonizing Puerto Rico is both a moral
    and legal imperative, consistent with the corpus of anti-colonial
    values leading the founders to overthrow (in the words of Jefferson)
    George III's ``absolute tyranny'' \1\ in order to form a ``more perfect
    union.'' \2\ Decolonizing Puerto Rico, moreover, is consistent with the
    treaty obligations of the United States pursuant to the International
    Convention on Civil and Political Rights \3\ and the U.N. Charter.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Refer to the text of the 1776 Declaration of Independence.
        \2\ U.S. Const. Preamble.
        \3\ 99 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966). Note that the U.S. Senate ratified the
    Convention on Civil and Political Rights on June 8, 1992--subject to a
    series of reservations. Refer to 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-01 (1992). Of
    significance is the fact that the U.S. Senate, in exercising its
    constitutional prerogative of advice and consent, explicitly
    established that Articles 1 through 27 of the Convention are not self-
    executing. This notwithstanding, the United States is legally bound to
    the self-determination principles enshrined in the Convention.
        \4\ Refer to Articles 2, 55 and 56 of the U.N. Charter. Note that
    the U.S. Senate ratified the U.N. Charter on July 28, 1945.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           iii. puerto rico presents a unique territorial case-study
        The second lesson that must be clearly understood is that the case
    of Puerto Rico finds no parallel in the territorial architecture of the
    United States.
        Puerto Rico is not the District of Columbia nor is it similarly
    situated to the Native American nations.
        The District is a community culturally and linguistically
    intertwined to the mainland, devoid of a sovereignty movement, which
    came to life upon the founding of the Republic per the strictures of
    Article I, Section 8 of the federal Constitution.
        Puerto Rico is unlike the Virgin Islands. By the time the United
    States signed the treaty of cession with the Danish Kingdom in 1916,\5\
    the Virgin Islands were subject to an excessively centralized colonial
    system devoid of any quantum of self-government under the Danish
    colonial statute of 1863.\6\ Puerto Rico, to the contrary, was a fully
    autonomous overseas province of the Spanish Kingdom \7\ upon the U.S.'s
    invasion in 1898; remaining to this day a more complex political jigsaw
    puzzle than its immediate neighbors--hostage, as it is, to a wide
    universe of ideological movements on constant collision against each
    other.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ For the ratification instruments refer to 39 Stat. 1706 (1917).
    Note that the U.S. Senate ratified the cession treaty with Denmark on
    September 7, 1916. The Danish Kingdom, for its part, followed suit on
    December 22, 1916.
        \6\ For the metes and bounds of the 1863 Danish colonial
    legislation see, for instance, Virgin Islands: Hearing, Committee on
    Insular Affairs, H.R. 7183 and H.R. 8517 (1926), 1 et seq.
        \7\ Carta Autonomica de 1897 (Charter of Autonomy of 1897), issued
    by Spanish Queen Maria Cristina de Habsburgo y Lorena, on the advice of
    her Council of Ministers, on November 25, 1897.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On that same token, Puerto Rico is not Guam. While the Spanish
    Crown transferred its sovereignty over both jurisdictions to the United
    States pursuant to the 1898 Treaty of Paris,\8\ in Guam there was no
    civil government until 1950 \9\ and it has, since then, been governed
    ``not by a formal constitution but by an organic act'' \10\ of
    Congress--free from the ideological balkanization that has torn apart
    Puerto Rico's political milieu since 1898.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ 30 Stat. 1754 (1898).
        \9\ See Arnold Leibowitz, Defining Status (2013), 307.
        \10\ 48 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1421-24.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Puerto Rico, furthermore, is not American Samoa. Since their
    annexation to the United States, following the signing of the 1899
    Tripartite Convention among Great Britain, Germany and the United
    States,\11\ the people of American Samoa have plodded along a different
    territorial path than Puerto Rico--devoid of U.S. citizenship, governed
    by an organic act of Congress and still in the United Nations' List of
    Non-Self-Governing Territories.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ For the text of the Tripartite Convention, concluded on
    November 7, 1899, see Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, International
    Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States and Other
    Powers 1776-1909, Vol. II, 1576 (1910).
        \12\ Puerto Rico was removed from the U.N.'s List of Non-Self-
    Governing Territories in 1953. Refer to G.A. Res. 748 (VIII), U.N.
    GAOR, 8th Sess., Supp. No. 17, at 25, U.N. Doc A/2630 (Nov. 27, 1953).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Puerto Rico, moreover, is unlike the Commonwealth of the Northern
    Mariana Islands and, most noticeably, dissimilar to the Republic of the
    Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the Federated States of
    Micronesia. These jurisdictions, originally placed under the fiduciary
    care of the U.N. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (which came to
    life in 1947 under the aegis of the U.N. Security Council), deserve
    separate analysis. By the time the U.N. Security Council appointed the
    United States as their trustee,\13\ Puerto Rico was at the verge of
    electing its own governor (pursuant to the 1947 Elective Governor Act)
    \14\--soon to convene a Constitutional Convention for drafting an
    internal constitution of its own making.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Refer to the statement made by the U.S. Representative to the
    U.N.'s Security Council on presentation of the Trust Agreement,
    available at 2 U.N. SCOR (113th mtg.) 410 (1947).
        \14\ 61 Stat. 770 (1947).
        \15\ 64 Stat. 319 (1950) (most commonly known as Public Law 600).
    Public Law 600 was enacted ``in the nature of a compact'' between
    Congress and the people of Puerto Rico. Following its ratification in a
    local referendum held on June 4, 1951, the constitution-making process
    began in earnest. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention were
    elected on August 27, 1951. The newly drafted Constitution, while
    ratified by the people of Puerto Rico on March 3, 1952, was
    unilaterally modified by Congress--which finally ratified it on July 3,
    1952. The Commonwealth's Constitution was finally inaugurated on July
    25, 1952. PROMESA has significantly eviscerated the vitality of the
    1952 Constitution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Against this background, it is safe to conclude that history,
    geography, culture, language, politics, demographics, and economics
    have conspired to make Puerto Rico a unique case study within the
    U.S.'s wider territorial tapestry. Thus, Puerto Rico's unique location
    within the U.S.'s territorial topography requires a unique decolonizing
    solution--not inconsistent with the United States' constitutional
    arrangement, but carefully designed to address the unique
    characteristics of the Puerto Rican landscape.
         iv. designing a binding procedural mechanism is of the essence
        All federal initiatives for disentangling Puerto Rico's colonial
    knot have so far foundered, in no small measure, due to flawed
    procedural mechanisms. That is why there can be no serious talk of
    self-determination without first discussing process.
        Therein lie the failed experiences of the 1959 Fernos-Murray
    bill,\16\ the 1963 Aspinall bill \17\ (leading President Johnson to
    appoint the failed status commission of 1966),\18\ the 1973 Ad Hoc
    Advisory Group on Puerto Rico's Status appointed by President
    Nixon,\19\ the 1989-1991 Bennett Johnston-Ron De Lugo bills,\20\ the
    1997 Young bill,\21\ along with the more recent bills authored by the
    island's resident commissioner and various members of the U.S.
    House.\22\ Furthermore, none of the 5 local plebiscites held in the
    island prior to 2020 (namely in 1967,\23\ 1993,\24\ 1998,\25\ 2012 \26\
    and 2017 \27\) have led anywhere. And the 2020 ``statehood yes or no''
    vote will also die a quiet death much like its predecessors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ A bill to provide amendments to the compact between the people
    of Puerto Rico and the United States, H.R. 5926, 86th Cong., 1st sess.
    (1959).
        \17\ To establish a procedure for the prompt settlement, in a
    democratic manner, of the political status of Puerto Rico, H.R. 5945,
    88th Cong., 1st sess., (1963).
        \18\ United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto
    Rico, Report of the United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status
    of Puerto Rico (Washington, DC.: Government Printing Office, 1966).
        \19\ See Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Puerto Rico,
    October 1, 1975. Also consult H.R. 11200, 121 Cong., 1st sess. (1975)
    (To approve the Compact of Permanent Union between Puerto Rico and the
    United States). Memorandum from Jim Cannon to President Gerald Ford
    (Office of the Domestic Policy Advisor, October 28, 1976) (Ford
    Presidential Library).
        \20\ To provide for a referendum on the political status of Puerto
    Rico, S. 712, 101 Cong., 1st sess. (1989); Puerto Rico Status
    Referendum Act, S. 244, 102 Cong., 1st sess. (1991); To enable the
    people of Puerto Rico to exercise self-determination, H.R. 4765, 101
    Cong., 2nd sess. (1990).
        \21\ United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 856,
    105th Congress (1997).
        \22\ H.R. 2070 (along with its sister bill in the U.S. Senate) and
    H.R. 1522.
        \23\ July 23, 1967: ``Enhanced'' Commonwealth 60.41%, Statehood
    38.98%, Independence 0.60%. Note that the Puerto Rico Independence
    Party boycotted the 1967 plebiscite.
        \24\ November 14, 1993: ``Enhanced'' Commonwealth 48.89%, Statehood
    46.64%, Independence 4.47%.
        \25\ December 13, 1998: None of the Above 50.46%, Statehood 46.63%,
    Independence 2.55%, Free Association 0.29%, Territorial Status 0.06%.
        \26\ 54% voted against the territorial status quo. A sizable
    proportion of voters abstained from casting their ballots on the
    plebiscite's second question, following the Popular Democratic Party's
    boycott of that aspect of the local process. Against that background,
    Statehood 61.16%, so-called Estado Libre Asociado Soberano 33.34%,
    Independence 5.49%.
        \27\ June 11, 2017: following the boycott of the Popular Democratic
    Party and the Independence Party, voter turnout plummeted to 23%.
    Against that background, Statehood received 97% of those ballots cast.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Those who forget the lessons of history, in the words of the
    Spanish essayist Jorge Santayana y Borras, are condemned to repeat
    their mistakes. Thus, fresh thinking is of the essence. The path
    leading to local (or criollo) referenda must be irrevocably discarded.
    These are but exercises in the dark, not binding on Congress. Under
    this mechanism, the people of Puerto Rico would cast their ballots
    without knowing what each formula entails. How can the people of Puerto
    Rico seriously exercise their inalienable right to self-determination
    in a referendo criollo if they do not know for what they are voting
    for? It is well settled that defining the substantive scope of the
    status formulas requires Congress' active participation in the process.
    Thus, from a procedural perspective, there are only 2 viable options
    for Puerto Rico. On the one hand, a federal plebiscite (with detailed
    definitions already agreed upon with Congress) and, on the other, a
    status convention (also referred as the constitutional convention). It
    is essential to note that these procedural options are not,
    necessarily, mutually exclusive. The federal plebiscite option would
    require, moreover, voting resolutions in Congress for the expedited
    consideration, and subsequent execution, of the results. Due to the
    tight timetable of biannual congressional elections, putting in place
    the expedited consideration mechanism will infuse the necessary
    continuity to a process that might take several years. The option of
    the federal plebiscite, however, would be patently incomplete without a
    congressional bilateral negotiation commission insulated from the
    vagaries of congressional elections and local politics. Because the
    life of the status convention would be independent from Congress' and
    Puerto Rico's electoral cycles, it achieves the twin goals of stability
    and continuity more effectively than the federal plebiscite option. The
    Committee on Natural Resources would be well advised to seriously
    consider the status convention approach delineated in the Velazquez-
    Ocasio Cortes Bill.
        Far from silencing those voices opposing statehood, the Velazquez-
    Ocasio Cortes Bill opens the door to an inclusive and democratic
    mechanism for all ideological movements. Pursuant to H.R. 2070,
    Congress acknowledges the inherent authority of Puerto Rico's
    Legislature to call a status convention and, moreover, commits itself
    to consider the self-determination option chosen by the people of
    Puerto Rico in a final status referendum. This new procedural approach
    avoids the mistakes of the past, while opening the door to in-depth
    deliberations and negotiations between the people of Puerto Rico and
    the political branches in Washington. Far from un-American, the status
    convention is the most American of all plausible procedural mechanisms.
        v. congress ought not act upon the results of the november 2020
                                   referendum
        The November 2020 referendum was not a legitimate exercise of self-
    determination. Puerto Rico Law No. 51 of May 16, 2020 was an empty
    statute. It did not define a path to statehood. It failed to describe
    the transitional period for the application to Puerto Rico of the Tax
    Uniformity Clause, which requires that ``all Duties, Imposts and
    Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.'' (U.S. Const.
    Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1). Puerto Rico Law No. 51 left the people of
    Puerto Rico (and those legal persons established under the laws of the
    Commonwealth) in the dark, with respect to their tax liabilities under
    statehood. Nowhere did it address the phasing out of the various tax
    preference programs currently in full force and effect in Puerto Rico.
    Equally importantly, Puerto Rico Law No. 51 remained silent as to which
    specific provisions of the Puerto Rico Constitution, and the Federal
    Relations Act, might be preempted by the full application to Puerto
    Rico of the federal Constitution; nor did it enumerate the federal
    statutes currently not applying to Puerto Rico but that would apply to
    the island under the federal Constitution's equal footing requirement.
    Similarly, the cultural, linguistic, and debt-restructuring aspects of
    the equation were left untouched. As Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey
    Rosen correctly concluded, Puerto Rico Law No. 51 is not compatible
    with the Constitution, laws, and policies of the United States.\28\ It
    is a ``decidedly pro-Statehood'' \29\ bill, designed to further the
    governing party's political interests at the 2020 local election.
    Unsurprisingly, the referendum was held on election day--namely
    November 3, 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ Letter authored by Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen,
    dated July 29, 2020.
        \29\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     vi. non-territory status options \30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ Mindful that the Committee on Natural Resources has requested
    an opinion with respect to status options outside the reach of the
    Territory Clause, the author has refrained from discussing in extenso
    whether it is constitutionally viable for Congress and the people of
    Puerto Rico to enhance their current relationship through the
    devolution of further political authority to Puerto Rico within the
    federal framework. Pursuant to this formulation, sovereignty would not
    be transferred to Puerto Rico, but the island would no longer be
    subject to Congress' plenary powers under the Territory Clause. The
    constitutionality (let alone the desirability from a public policy
    perspective) of Congress' partial disposition of its powers under the
    Territory Clause has been the subject of intense debate. The DOJ's
    answer to this legal question has been far from consistent. (Compare
    the legal opinions rendered by the DOJ in 1960, 1963, 1975 with the
    ones issued in 1991 and 1994.) This notwithstanding, the recent
    concurrent opinion of Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Financial Oversight
    and Management Board v. Aurelius, 590 U.S. ____ (2020), bringing to the
    fore the glaring discontinuities and inconsistencies surrounding this
    debate, justifies revisiting this legal issue in light of Justice
    Sotomayor's observations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Non-Territory Status options, by definition, are not susceptible to
    Congress' plenary powers under the Territory Clause (U.S. Const. Art.
    IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2). Clearly, independence is a non-territory status
    option. Needless to say, upon the proclamation of the Republic of
    Puerto Rico all obligations and responsibilities of the U.S.
    Government, arising under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, shall cease.
    Sovereignty, in the international sense, will devolve to the people of
    Puerto Rico. Independence, however, will require a bilateral transition
    commission addressing a host of seminal matters pertaining to the
    public debt, monetary policy, foreign relations, defense and security,
    international commerce, accession to multilateral financial
    institutions, citizenship, the phasing-out of a number of federal
    programs, among others. The precedents of Cuba (1902) \31\ and the
    Philippines (1946) \32\ are inapposite to the Puerto Rican context. The
    uniqueness of the Puerto Rican landscape, bound to the United States
    through common citizenship in the midst of a highly interdependent
    global economy, will require a different transitional approach to the
    one applied in the cases of Cuba and the Philippines.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Note that Cuba never belonged to the United States. Pursuant
    to a Joint Resolution of Congress (commonly referred as the Teller
    Amendment), the United States had made it clear that the people of Cuba
    ``are, of right ought to be, free and independent.'' H.J. Res. 233
    (1898). In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, the United States
    formally occupied Cuba from January 1, 1899 until May 20, 1902. Yet,
    the process leading to the drafting of the 1901 Cuban Constitution,
    including the incorporation of the so-called Platt Amendment to Cuba's
    constitutional text, was heavily influenced by the United States.
        \32\ The 1916 Philippines Organic, different from the 1917 Jones
    Act, did not extend U.S. citizenship to the nationals of the Filipino
    archipelago.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Statehood is yet another non-territory status option. It is well
    settled that states are sovereign entities within the Republic's
    federal design. Each state accedes to the Union on an equal footing
    with its sister states, retaining for itself an inviolable quantum of
    sovereignty, as Madison acknowledged in his drafting of the 10th
    Amendment. State sovereignty, moreover, is not commensurate to
    ``international sovereignty.'' As the Supreme Court has suggested on
    various occasions, states are ``autonomous political entities,
    sovereign over matters not ruled by the Constitution.'' \33\ The path
    to statehood, as suggested above, will also require a well-defined
    transitional period. If Puerto Rico chooses to bear the economic
    burdens of statehood, it must do so on the basis of an informed
    decision.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1, 8 (1982).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Besides independence and statehood, free association is the third
    non-territorial option. Seldomly explored, the concept of free
    association deserves serious analysis. Free association, as a legal
    construct, is not foreign to federal constitutional law or to public
    international law. Yet, neither legal order offers detailed guidance on
    the substantive content of free association. Bearing in mind that the
    decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) constitute
    sources of public international law,\34\ it is worth noting that in its
    advisory opinion in the case of Western Sahara \35\ the ICJ found that
    ``free association with an independent state'' was a legitimate
    decolonizing formula. U.N. Resolution 1541(XV) throws little light on
    the metes and bounds of free association. It only establishes that free
    association must be ``the result of a free and voluntary choice by the
    people of the territory concerned,'' that the associated territory
    retains for itself both ``the freedom to modify its status through the
    expression of its will,'' and ``the right to determine its internal
    constitution without outside interference.'' \36\ Public international
    law does not explicitly establish any further requirements. Thus, it is
    up to the contracting parties to carve out a free association model not
    inconsistent with their respective domestic legal orders and public
    policy imperatives. Under a free association arrangement, Congress
    would relinquish its sovereignty over Puerto Rico--devolving it to the
    people of Puerto Rico. Consequently, the United States' international
    obligations, under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, would come to an end.
    Simultaneously, Puerto Rico (in the exercise of its newly devolved
    sovereignty) and the United States (through the political branches'
    exercise of their constitutional powers under the Treaty Clause (U.S.
    Const. Art. II, Sec. 2)) shall enter into a new constitutional order--
    where Puerto Rico would reserve for itself authority over some matters,
    while delegating to the United States authority over other areas.
    Defining the various fields of legal responsibility (i.e. economic
    relations, foreign affairs, defense, and security) will require in-
    depth study and comprehensive negotiation between the parties. The
    final associational agreement, moreover, would be embodied in an
    international treaty subscribed by both contracting parties. Whether
    the treaty of association ought to be self-executing or non-self-
    executing, requiring Congress to enact enabling domestic legislation,
    should be determined by the parties in the course of their
    negotiations. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) superficial reading of
    free association must be taken to task. Seeking refuge in the compacts
    of free association of the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Federated
    States of Micronesia with the United States, the DOJ has tossed aside
    free association as a ``type of independence.'' \37\ This uncritical
    approach has led to a rather skewed notion of how to superimpose to the
    Puerto Rican landscape a free association arrangement. A close perusal
    of the various free association models available around the globe
    renders the DOJ's analysis patently incomplete. There is no fixed
    approach to free association nor is there a fixed model. Each model is
    autochthonous, thus, adjusted to the specific realities of the
    partners. Construing a viable free association model for Puerto Rico
    requires a thorough exploration of the ways in which other
    jurisdictions have structured similar arrangements. Contrary to
    conventional wisdom, the Micronesian model is inapposite to the Puerto
    Rican scenario. The Micronesian archipelago, unlike Puerto Rico, was
    part of the territories entrusted to the U.N. Trust Territory of the
    Pacific Islands in the early stages of the postwar period.
    Consequently, its politico-constitutional relationship with the United
    States is completely different to Puerto Rico's. As a threshold matter,
    no common citizenship binds the Micronesian archipelago to the United
    States, while issues pertaining to geography, demographics, culture,
    language, and economics further sets it apart from Puerto Rico. Against
    this background, it is essential to explore the associational models
    engineered in other jurisdictions. More specifically, the associational
    models articulated by Denmark,\38\ Finland,\39\ the Netherlands,\40\
    and Britain \41\ in decolonizing their territorial peripheries deserve
    special attention. The process of carving out an associational model
    for Puerto Rico will necessarily entail resolving complex legal and
    policy issues. In so doing, Congress should not limit itself to the
    ``one size fits all'' approach the DOJ proposes with respect to free
    association.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ For the sources of public international law see, for instance,
    Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Also
    refer to Section 102 of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign
    Relations Law of the United States.
        \35\ Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975.
        \36\ Declaration Guiding the Determination of Self-Government, G.A.
    Res. 1541 (XV) (Annex) of December 15, 1960, 15 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No.
    14), U.N. Doc. A/4684.
        \37\ See, for instance, Report by the President's Task Force on
    Puerto Rico's Status (Washington, D.C.: White House, 2011), 25.
        \38\ Act on Greenland Self-Government, Act. No. 473 of June 12,
    2009 (Green.).
        \39\ Act on the Autonomy of Aland, 1991/1144 (1991) (Fin.).
        \40\ Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden [Charter for the
    Kingdom of the Netherlands], Stb. 1954 (Neth.).
        \41\ Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22&23 Geo. 5, c. 4 (Eng.). Also
    consult the West Indies Act of 1967, 11&12 Eliz. 2, c. 4 (Eng.).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                vii. conclusion
        The resolution of Puerto Rico's status is not so much a legal
    issue, as it is a political one. This is not a legal question for the
    U.S. Supreme Court to decide, as the high court itself recently
    intimated in Financial Oversight and Management Board v. Aurelius,\42\
    but rather a political question that will require a political
    compromise between Congress and the people of Puerto Rico. Achieving
    this goal necessarily requires a new procedural approach. The time for
    non-binding local plebiscites is over. Only a status convention, with
    equitable participation from all Puerto Rican stakeholders, will
    command sufficient legitimacy in Washington, San Juan, and around the
    world, to jumpstart Puerto Rico's decolonization. Because H.R. 2070
    offers the appropriate procedural vehicle for achieving that aim within
    the context of an inclusive political mechanism, this Committee ought
    to support it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ Financial Oversight and Management Board v. Aurelius, 590 U.S.
    ____ (2020).

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Thank you very much,
    Doctor.
        The next witness is the Director of the Caribbean Institute
    of Human Rights in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Ms. Annette Martinez-
    Orabona. Five minutes are yours.

      STATEMENT OF ANNETTE MARTINEZ-ORABONA, DIRECTOR, CARIBBEAN
            INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

        Ms. Martinez-Orabona. Good afternoon, Chairman Grijalva,
    and members of the Committee. My name is Annette Martinez-
    Orabona, and I am an international human rights law professor
    at the Inter American University of Puerto Rico School of Law.
    This is not the first time that Congress engages in a
    discussion of the political future of Puerto Rico. But one
    fundamental aspect that is repeatedly missing in this
    discussion is that self-determination is first and foremost a
    fundamental human right, which is well-defined by specific
    international norms.
        This set of norms has been accepted by the United States
    when it signed and ratified one of the most important
    international human rights treaties, the International Covenant
    on Civil and Political Rights, which very clearly establishes,
    under Article 1, the right to self-determination. This means
    that self-determination is not a matter of purely internal or
    domestic jurisdiction.
        It is actually a matter of international relations, and it
    is important to emphasize this particular difference. This is
    not a matter of minority rights, but a matter of a distinct
    people with a distinct identity, a distinct territory under
    colonial rule for over 123 years.
        H.R. 2070 actually does include this recognition of the
    international law as a matter of importance for this
    discussion. What this also means is that administrative states
    are not free to decide when and how self-determination is to be
    exercised. Under international law, self-determination is a
    legal entitlement recognized to peoples in colonized
    territories. And its valid exercise entails obligations of
    conduct and obligations of outcome.
        In terms of the duty of conduct, we are talking about
    conditions present in the territory at the time of the exercise
    of self-determination, as well as the process itself, which
    needs to be transparent, participatory, and it needs to reflect
    the clear understanding of what the options are and the level
    of participation that leaves no doubt as to the will of the
    people.
        And it is important to recognize as well that the
    conditions present in a territory may affect the legitimacy of
    a process. A process of decolonization should not be presented
    as a desperate possibility of survival. Administrative states
    have a responsibility of a fiduciary character, which requires
    the adoption of measures designed to advance the economic,
    social, and cultural freedoms of the peoples in these
    territories.
        Conditions of economic freedom and stability are necessary
    so that political self-determination does not become a futile,
    invalid exercise. In other words, economic dependency, poverty,
    and starvation may inhabilitate the free exercise of this
    right. In this sense, I may say the imposition of the Financial
    Oversight Board was a step in the wrong direction and runs
    contrary to the international obligations of the state which
    require more independent, democratic means of governance, not
    less.
        Secondly, decolonization is a matter that requires an
    environment of mutual trust where both parties interact as
    equals, each exercising their full autonomy and sovereign
    powers. In that sense, the United States needs first to rectify
    the record of what happened in 1952, providing accurate and up-
    to-date information on the current status of Puerto Rico to the
    United Nations and secondly, recognizing that the people of
    Puerto Rico are a distinct nation with a sovereign right to
    self-determination.
        In terms of the options identified under international law
    as acceptable decolonization outcomes, there are three very
    straightforward, clear alternatives which are independence,
    free association, and integration with another state. It should
    be clear, though, that the right to self-determination does not
    allow for a colonial relationship to remain intact. This means
    that in the case of Puerto Rico, any inclusion of an option of
    a territorial character that will maintain the status quo is
    not a valid option of decolonization. International law
    explicitly prohibits colonialism by consent.
        In the case of integration, the international community has
    always been suspicious of a non-self-governing territory's
    integration into its former colonial power for very obvious
    reasons. In fact, of the approximately 100 non-self-governing
    territories that have been placed on the U.N. list since 1945,
    around 70 have gained independence and integration with the
    former colonial power.
        To finalize, I would like to add that any process of
    decolonization must be accompanied by a transitional plan that
    expels out the international responsibility of the United
    States and guarantees measures of redress with concrete
    reparations for the multiple human rights violations committed
    during its colonial rule.
        Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Martinez-Orabona follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Annette M. Martinez-Orabona, Adjunct Professor
    of International Public Law, Inter-American University of Puerto Rico,
                                 School of Law
        Good afternoon, Chairman Grijalva and members of the House
    Committee on Natural Resources, my name is Annette Martinez-Orabona,
    and I am an International Human Rights lawyer and Professor at the
    Inter-American University of Puerto Rico, School of Law. I hereby
    submit my written statement on the international public law aspects of
    decolonization and the United States' responsibility to respect and
    guarantee Puerto Rico's right of self-determination, as a fundamental
    aspect of human rights law.
    I. Introduction
        For decades, there have been numerous discussions and debates on
    the political future of Puerto Rico, some of which have led to local
    referendums, legislative efforts, a presidential task force, many
    congressional hearings, among others, and none of them have provided
    any meaningful result.
        It is my view that these efforts have been flawed from the start.
    All of them repeatedly ignored a basic and fundamental aspect of
    political determination in international law. That is, that the
    exercise of self-determination is first and foremost an exercise of
    sovereignty, and should be guided by the international normative
    framework on decolonization.
        Additionally, in the case of Puerto Rico, as well as has happened
    with many former colonies, the exercise of colonial rule has been
    accompanied with the erosion of the rule of law, allowing for the
    unilateral exploitation of natural resources, the imposition of
    inadequate economic standards, commercial impediments, land
    appropriation, and environmental degradation, which often results in
    internal displacement, contamination, discriminatory practices,
    inequality, poverty and overall conditions of vulnerability for present
    and future generations.
        The reason why I am including these two areas in my exposition is
    because they are inextricably interrelated. The fact that the United
    States has limited Puerto Rico's exercise of its own economic and
    sovereign powers has led to a distinct result with regard to the
    practice of self-determination, but it has also had an effect on the
    human rights and the dignity of all Puerto Ricans. Colonial rule, only
    operates for the benefit of the colonial power, and that is why the
    practice of colonialism has been strongly rejected by international
    law.
    II. The Right to Self-Determination, Decolonization and Acceptable
            Options for a Non-Territory Status
        The right to self-determination has many manifestations, but its
    most robust legal content is found in the decolonization context. Under
    international law, self-determination is a legal entitlement recognized
    to all colonized peoples. This right is considered a general principle
    of international law, as well as a customary norm that has been
    expressly incorporated into multiple human rights treaties.
    Furthermore, the International Court of Justice has reiterated its erga
    omnes character.\1\ Today it is widely considered a norm of ius
    cogens.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago
    from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019, p. 139,
    para. 180; Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia),
    Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 102, para. 29.
        \2\ M. Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. CCPR
    Commentary (Engel, Kehl, 2005) p. 9; A. Cassese, Self-Determination of
    Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
    1995), p. 319-320; H. Gros Espiell, The Right to Self-determination:
    Implementation of United Nations Resolutions, E/CN.4/Sub.2/405/Rev.1
    (United Nations, New York, 1980) par. 70.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Art. 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
    Rights,\3\ which is binding on the United States, expressly recognizes
    this right and imposes specific duties for its realization.
    Specifically, Article 1(3) expresses that all States that assumed
    ``responsibility for the administration of Non-Self Governing and Trust
    Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-
    determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the
    provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.'' \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ ``All peoples have a right to self-determination. By virtue of
    that right they freely determine their political status and freely
    pursue their economic, social and cultural development.''
        \4\ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999
    U.N.T.S. 171 (1966).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This obligation is two-fold: first, it imposes the responsibility
    to guarantee the realization of the right of self-determination, and
    second, it incorporates as a legal obligation the provisions of the
    United Nations Charter regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories.\5\
    Under article 73 of the U.N. Charter, administrative States have a non-
    delegable duty to: administer the dependent territory in the best
    interest of its inhabitants, ensuring the practical achievement of
    their political, economic and social advancement, adopting measures to
    promote their development, and assisting them in the development of
    self-government, the full realization of their political aspirations
    and the achievement of their free political institutions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ There are two Chapters of the U.N. Charter that regulate the
    responsibility of administrative States toward dependent territories
    (Chapters XI and XII). For a detailed analysis, see: Steven P. Lausell
    Recurt, The Song Remains the Same, The United States' Fiduciary Duty to
    Puerto Rico as a Basis for Legal Responsibility. Master Thesis. Spring
    2016.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In summary, colonial powers have a responsibility to support these
    territories in varying ways with the purpose of achieving self-
    government and independence. Professor Steven Lausell refers to this
    obligation as one with a ``clear fiduciary character'', reminiscent of
    general institutions of trusteeship whereby one party has a duty to
    forego its own personal interests and act solely in the interests of
    another.'' \6\ By definition, the obligations identified under the U.N.
    Charter, must be temporary. The late honorable, international expert
    Antonio Cassese, defined it as ``a temporary legal regime that must of
    necessity lead to the eventual extinction of legal title.'' \7\ In
    other words, under International Law, colonial rule has to have an
    expiration date, and the ultimate obligation of administrative States
    is to take all necessary steps to guarantee the required conditions for
    a decolonization process. This process can only be achieved if the
    rights to economic, social and cultural freedom are protected, as
    intrinsic to the achievement of political freedom.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Steven P. Lausell Recurt, The Song Remains the Same, The United
    States' Fiduciary Duty to Puerto Rico as a Basis for Legal
    Responsibility. Master Thesis. Spring 2016.
        \7\ A. Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal
    (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995) pp. 186-187.
        \8\ Id. at footnote 52, citing: H. Gros Espiell, The Right to Self
    Determination: Implementation of United Nations Resolutions, E/CN.4/
    Sub.2/405/Rev.1 (United Nations, New York, 1980), par. 113.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is important to emphasize that under international law, all
    people living under colonial rule must achieve a ``full measure of
    self-government'' in order to extinguish their status as non-self
    governing territories.\9\ This also means that a valid decolonization
    process requires an environment of mutual trust, where both parties
    interact as equals, each exercising their full autonomy and sovereign
    powers. We should bear in mind, that any decolonization process is a
    matter of international relations. In that sense, the responsibility
    falls on the United States to rectify the record of what happened in
    1952, providing accurate and up to date information on the real current
    status of Puerto Rico to the United Nations, which will set into motion
    a valid process of status determination under international law.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Steven P. Lausell Recurt, supra note 5, p. 17.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Now, having discussed the general obligations of the colonial
    State. Let me turn now to the discussion of the options identified
    under international law as acceptable decolonization outcomes. The
    normative content of the right to self-determination and its outcomes
    is defined mainly in three U.N. General Assembly Resolutions, these
    are, Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,\10\ Resolution 1541 (XV)
    of 15 December 1960,\11\ and Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October
    1970.\12\ Resolution 1541 identifies three alternatives for achieving a
    full measure of self-government, which are: independence, free
    association, and integration with another State.\13\ In regard to the
    option of free association, Resolution 1541 offers some clarity,
    indicating that it should be the result of the free, voluntary and
    informed decision of the people, that it entails the recognition of the
    associated territory's right to internal self-government without
    outside interference, and that a free associated state should retain
    the right to re-negotiate or modify the terms of the association at any
    time.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), Declaration on the
    granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples (14 December
    1960).
        \11\ General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), Principles which should
    guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to
    transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the Charter
    (15 December 1960).
        \12\ General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), Declaration on
    principles of International Law concerning friendly relations and
    cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United
    Nations (24 October 1970).
        \13\ Principle VI, UNGA Resolution 1541 (XV).
        \14\ Principle VII, UNGA Resolution 1541 (XV).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Apart from the three established options for decolonization, U.N.
    Resolution 2625 also makes reference to ``any other political status
    freely determined by a people.'' The Resolution however, offers no
    clarity as to what that could mean in practice. What is undoubtedly
    clear, however, is that the meaningful exercise of the right to self-
    determination does not allow for a political relationship of a colonial
    nature to remain intact. Therefore, U.N. Resolution 2625 cannot be used
    to justify `colonialism by consent'. In sum, all valid options for
    decolonization have three main pre-conditions: (a) recognition of the
    free and independent sovereignty of both parties, (b) elimination of
    colonial rule; and (c) the free and informed participation of the
    people.
    III. Self-Determination and the Right to Reparations under
            International Human Rights Law
        In 1953, the United States falsely claimed in front of the United
    Nations that it had entered into a ``mutually agreed association'' with
    Puerto Rico, which effectively ended its colonial status. Today, it is
    unambiguously clear that contrary to that assertion, Puerto Rico has
    never been allowed to meaningfully exercise its right to self-
    determination.
        Furthermore, it is evident that the United States government has
    historically acted in favor of its own interests in Puerto Rico and not
    in favor of Puerto Rico's development as mandated by Article 73 of the
    U.N. Charter. Decolonization requires that conditions of economic
    freedom and stability are met so that political self-determination does
    not become a futile exercise. If a colonial power conducts itself in a
    way that undermines the possibility of greater development and economic
    independence, then those actions are compounded violations of the human
    right to self-determination.
        As explained earlier, the right to self-determination is a
    fundamental principle of human rights law, one that, as any other human
    right generates obligations, including the duty to redress and repair
    the effects of its violations. In this sense, the process of
    decolonization in Puerto Rico must be accompanied by the United States'
    formal recognition of international responsibility, and the
    identification of necessary steps to redress and repair the compounded
    effects of multiple human rights violations perpetrated during its
    colonial rule in Puerto Rico. The United States has breached its
    international human rights obligations to the people of Puerto Rico
    through direct and indirect action, for 123 years of colonial rule in
    the territory.
        To give an example, the outstanding debt that Puerto Ricans are
    being forced to pay is in itself a violation of the human right to
    their survival as peoples, and runs contrary to the fiduciary
    obligations that the U.S. has over the territory.\15\ As long as Puerto
    Rico remains a colonial territory and its economy, and even its
    Constitution, is by design made to work for the benefit of the
    administrative power, the accumulated debt is the sole responsibility
    of the colonial authority in control. Sovereignty and responsibility go
    hand in hand. In this sense, the imposition of the Oversight Control
    Board is a step in the wrong direction, and runs contrary to the
    international obligations of the State, which requires more
    independent, democratic means of governance, not less.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ On the relationship between debt and human rights in Puerto
    Rico, see: U.N. Independent Expert on Foreign Debt and Human Rights,
    Press release: ``Puerto Rico debt crisis: ``Human rights cannot be
    sidelined''--UN Expert Warns'', Geneva, 9 January 2017.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The reality is that Puerto Rico's colonial status has led to its
    economic, social and environmental regression. This relationship
    between the colonial status and the territory's poor living conditions,
    was most recently recognized by the Special Rapporteur on Extreme
    Poverty and Human Rights, Mr. Phillip Alston. During his official visit
    to the United States in December 2017, which included visits to Puerto
    Rico, he concluded that poverty and the absence of political rights are
    inextricably linked in Puerto Rico.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human
    Rights on his mission to the United States of America. A/HRC/38/33/
    Add.1, 4 May 2018, pars. 22-24.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It should also be mentioned that poverty, inequality and
    environmental degradation have also been the result of inadequate
    policies applied in Puerto Rico by federal rule, which were exacerbated
    by the impact of hurricanes Irma and Maria, and the inadequate and
    discriminatory response by agencies in charge. All of these conditions,
    as well as a the imposition of PROMESA and the Oversight Control Board,
    are examples of the United States' violations of its basic
    responsibilities toward the people of Puerto Rico and shows a lack of
    willingness to advance a project of true self-determination.
    IV. Conclusion
        In conclusion, the issue of self-determination is ultimately a
    question of human dignity, a question of freedom in its most basic
    form, and a fundamental element of the notion of human rights. This is
    why self-determination is included at the very beginning of the two
    main international human rights treaties, and is considered a
    fundamental aspect of international relations. Today, the right to
    self-determination is considered not just an issue of political
    determination, but a condition that affects all aspects of human
    dignity and the possibility for achieving its full development.
        All previous ``decolonization'' efforts have failed to recognize:
    (1) that self-determination is a fundamental human right and an issue
    of international relations; (2) that the United States has forsaken and
    limited the exercise of this right for 122 years; and, (3) that under
    human rights law, these limitations have resulted in multiple
    violations of substantive human rights norms.
        After Puerto Rico was removed from the United Nations' list of non-
    self governing territories in 1953, the United States has maintained
    that the islands of Puerto Rico have no sovereign powers of their own
    and that its internal autonomy could be revoked by the U.S. Congress at
    any moment. This position--albeit wrong, racist and discriminatory--was
    endorsed and regarded as correct, by the U.S. Supreme Court in
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863 (2016).
    See also: Financial Oversight and Management Board v. Aurelius
    Investment, 590 U.S. (2020). According to the Court, the 1952 exercise
    of constitutional drafting and approval was merely an authority
    ``conferred'' by Congress, which makes ``Congress the original source
    of power for'' Puerto Rico (at pp. 1875-1876). This historical and
    juridical conclusion will need to be re-addressed and corrected in
    order for any process of true self-determination to take place. No
    legitimate exercise of self-determination can take place, without an
    express recognition of the U.S. government that the people of Puerto
    Rico are entitled to exercise their sovereign power and to decide on
    their own terms, and without interference, their political, economical,
    social and cultural future.
        As a final remark, I would also like to mention that, the
    legitimacy of any decolonization process depends heavily on its honesty
    and transparency. All discussions on this subject, including this
    hearing and any other in the future, as well as all legislative
    actions, executive orders, policies, drafts and laws concerning Puerto
    Rico's future will never be really transparent and open for meaningful
    public debate, if they continue to be held in English, without
    simultaneous translation to Spanish. This very simple change, is one of
    utmost importance, when the discussion deals with the future of people
    that cannot effectively participate in any of the debates since it is
    designed, discussed, amended and debated in a language they do not
    understand. All these procedures are incomplete and violate the
    fundamental right of meaningful participation when they continue to be
    held and written in English, leaving those who are the rightful
    protagonists of this discussion out of the conversation. This is in
    itself another example of a colonial decision that affects the
    legitimacy of these efforts.
        Thank you.

                                     ______

        Questions Submitted for the Record to Annette Martinez-Orabona,
      Director, Caribbean Institute of Human Rights and Professor of Law,
                    Inter American University of Puerto Rico

    Ms. Martinez-Orabona did not submit responses to the Committee by the
    appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

                  Questions Submitted by Representative Sablan
        Question 1. As a State, Puerto Rico would be on equal footing with
    states to receive key federal resources like Supplemental Security
    Income, which is currently not available for residents of the island.
    An estimated 436,000 residents of Puerto Rico--who are aged, blind, and
    disabled, and with very low incomes--would benefit every year. Funding
    would also increase for federal programs including Medicaid, Medicare,
    and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. Why shouldn't
    Congress move to support statehood for Puerto Rico?

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlelady yields.
        Let me now turn to Rev. Carmen Cabrera, President of the
    League of United Latin American Citizens Faith Council.
    Reverend, 5 minutes are yours.

    STATEMENT OF CARMEN CABRERA, PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN
     AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC) FAITH COUNCIL, HATILLO, PUERTO RICO

        Rev. Cabrera. Good afternoon, distinguished members of the
    Committee on Natural Resources. I am honored today to join you
    in this hearing of H.R. 2070 and H.R. 1522. I appear before you
    today in representation of the Puerto Rico Chapter of the
    League of United Latin American Citizens, also known as LULAC,
    the oldest and most widely respected Hispanic civil right
    organization in the United States of America.
        I also appear before you in representation of the majority
    of voters in Puerto Rico like, as me, voted last November to
    choose statehood as the permanent political status for the
    island. I was born, raised, and have lived in Puerto Rico all
    of my life. I know firsthand the geography, culture, politics,
    and the faith in God of the Puerto Rican people. I also know
    firsthand that the people of Puerto Rico's hope is to soon wake
    up in a place where justice and equality shine upon all more
    than the sun at noon, in a place where the limbo of territorial
    second-class citizenship has been abolished, and where full
    democracy and voting rights at the Federal level prove our
    equality as American citizens.
        Puerto Ricans have incredible talents and skills, and make
    countless contributions to America in fields like music, art,
    sports, and science. We even have a proud Puerto Rican
    astronaut in NASA, Joseph Acaba, a true patriot hero, yet these
    contributions pale in comparison to the sacrifice and bloodshed
    by our Puerto Rican soldiers who had fought and died defending
    America's liberty and democracy. The value of their lives and
    the sacrifices of the families who have seen their loved ones
    come back in flag-draped coffins can never be fully repaid by
    America, yet the least that Congress can do is to respect the
    will of the majority of voters of Puerto Rico that have
    demanded equality and extend a formal offer of statehood so
    that island residents can make a final choice.
        As a leading national civil rights organization, LULAC
    advocates for all American citizens, including those in Puerto
    Rico, to have equal rights and equal opportunities. But the
    simple truth is that as long as the island remains a territory,
    Congress will continue to treat Puerto Rico unequally and deny
    them full rights and representation at the Federal level.
        For these reasons, here in Puerto Rico, we endorse H.R.
    1522 by Representative Darren Soto and Resident Commissioner
    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, which respects the will of the
    majority of voters in Puerto Rico and we oppose H.R. 2070. Why?
    Because H.R. 2070 seeks to present the perspective on the
    historic feelings and suffering of the people of Puerto Rico if
    we were a separate nation. And in doing so, it pays to give a
    definite solution to the vast majority who treasured our
    American citizenship. Instead, H.R. 1522 offers proven medicine
    that will put an end to citizen disenfranchisement and
    inequality to Puerto Rico.
        If Puerto Rico had already been a state and not just a
    territory when the island was ravaged by Hurricane Maria,
    shaken by the earthquake, and enveloped by the COVID-19
    pandemic, the Federal Government's response would have been
    very different when dealing with these life-and-death events
    that have greatly affected our island and its people.
        If we had already been a state and not just a territory,
    the disaster relief would have come more quickly, saved more
    lives, and the ongoing post-disaster reconstruction would have
    made much more progress than it has in the last 4 years. We
    already voted to choose statehood. Congress needs to act now.
    Thank you for the privilege of speaking here today.
        I truly believe that God has placed in your hands the
    opportunity to do justice by the people of Puerto Rico, and I
    humbly ask that in considering this issue, not only use your
    minds and your reason but that you look into your hearts for
    the right things to do.
        May God bless you all and enlighten you to understand and
    pass H.R. 1522. Thanks.

        [The prepared statement of Rev. Cabrera follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Rev. Carmen G. Cabrera, League of United Latin
                 American Citizens (LULAC), Puerto Rico Chapter
        Good afternoon distinguished members of the Committee on Natural
    Resources. I am honored to join you in this hearing on H.R. 2070 and
    H.R. 1522.
        I appear before you today in representation of the Puerto Rico
    Chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens also known as
    LULAC, the oldest and most widely respected Hispanic civil rights
    organization in the United States of America. I also appear before you
    in representation of the majority of voters in Puerto Rico, which last
    November chose statehood as the permanent political status for the
    Island.
        I was born, raised and have lived in Puerto Rico all of my life. I
    know first-hand the geography, culture, arts, politics, and the faith
    in God of the Puerto Rican people. I also know first-hand that the
    People of Puerto Rico's hope is to soon wake up in a place where
    Justice and Equality shine upon all more than the sun at noon. In a
    place where the limbo of territorial second-class citizenship has been
    abolished, and where full democracy and voting rights at the federal
    level prove our equality as American Citizens.
        Puerto Ricans have incredible talents, skills and make countless
    contributions to America in fields like music, art, sports, and
    science. We even have a proud Puerto Rican Astronaut in NASA, Joseph
    Acaba, a true patriot hero. Yet, these contributions pale in comparison
    to the sacrifice and bloodshed by our Puerto Rican soldiers who have
    fought and died defending America's liberty and democracy. The value of
    their lives, and the sacrifices of the families who have seen their
    loved ones come back in flag draped coffins, can never be fully repaid
    by America. Yet the least that Congress can do is to respect the will
    of the majority of voters in Puerto Rico that have demanded equality
    and extend a formal offer of statehood so that island residents can
    make a final choice.
        We are in a moment of reckoning in Puerto Rico. For the first time
    in my life, people are not afraid to be honest and call Puerto Rico's
    relationship with the U.S. what it is. Puerto Rico is a colony. A
    possession. We are done with the ``Commonwealth'' label. It is time to
    fix it. The Constitution is clear: Congress makes the final decision on
    how to resolve the current undemocratic arrangement. Both proposals
    pending before Congress involve a vote by the people of Puerto Rico.
    However, H.R. 2070 imposes on the people of Puerto Rico a
    Constitutional convention before we hold a referendum vote. The people
    of Puerto Rico have not asked for this Constitutional convention. The
    convention would be imposed on us. This is not democracy. As a Puerto
    Rican voter, I urge Congress to be direct. If Congress cannot guarantee
    my continued U.S. citizenship, I need to know that now. The answer is
    available now. We don't need a convention to find out. Congress and the
    White House have considered this issue for decades. As voters, Puerto
    Ricans have made their choice. We want statehood now.
        As a leading national civil rights organization, LULAC advocates
    for all American citizens, including those in Puerto Rico to have equal
    rights and equal opportunities, but the simple truth is that as long as
    the island remains a territory Congress will continue to treat Puerto
    Ricans unequally and deny them full rights and representation at the
    federal level.
        For these reasons we endorse H.R. 1522 by Rep. Darren Soto and
    Resident Commissioner Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon, which respects the will
    of the majority of voters in Puerto Rico, and oppose H.R. 2070. H.R.
    1522 would put an end to citizen disenfranchisement and the racialized
    oppression of unincorporated territory status. The solution for this
    citizen inequality is for Puerto Rico to finally become a state of the
    Union.
        If Puerto Rico had already been a state, and not just a territory,
    when the island was ravished by Hurricane Maria, shaken by earthquakes
    and enveloped by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Government's
    response would have been very different when dealing with these life
    and death events that have greatly affected our island and its people.
    If we had already been a state, and not just a territory, the disaster
    relief would have come more quickly, saved more lives, and the ongoing
    post disaster reconstruction would have made much more progress than it
    has in the last four years.
        Thank you for the privilege of speaking here today. I truly believe
    that God has placed in your hands the opportunity to do justice by the
    People of Puerto Rico, and I humbly ask that in considering this issue
    you not only use your minds, and your reason, but that you look into
    your hearts for the right thing to do. May God bless you all, and
    enlighten you to understand and pass H.R. 1522.

                                     ______

    Questions Submitted for the Record to Carmen Cabrera, President, League
            of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Faith Council
                  Questions Submitted by Representative Sablan
        Question 1. Like my district, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto
    Rico was recently devastated by powerful storms resulting in loss of
    life and billions of dollars in damages. How do you think the federal
    response would have been different had Puerto Rico been a state in
    2017?

        Answer:

         First, Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States
                under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution.

         Puerto Rico belongs to but is not part of the United
                States.

         Being that the case, the U.S. Congress can discriminate
                against American Citizens on the island because they are
                not subject to the same rights and laws as in the mainland.

         This is a problem because Puerto Ricans cannot decide
                their fate and can't oblige the President nor Congress to
                act respecting public policy and quick responses, like is
                the case of the federal response soon after hurricane
                Maria.

         States like Texas and Louisiana didn't have these issues.

         They are states with full rights and are subject to all
                the guarantees of the Constitution, differently from the
                case of Puerto Rico.

         Today the Government of Puerto Rico is battling in the
                court equality with Medicaid and Social Security.

         We have the same problem with those issues as with the
                federal funds of hurricane Maria.

         The President can block funds without any consequence
                because he can do it.

         There's now law to prohibit it but on contrary, he can
                discriminate because we are not a state.

         In overall, if Puerto Rico were a state in 2017, the
                situation could have been totally different.

         Immediately we would have received the approval of funds
                and would be illegal for the President to block them.

         Also, the people of Puerto Rico could have expressed
                themselves in the ballots in 2020 for their best interest
                and benefits.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you, Reverend.
        Let me now invite Dr. Christina Ponsa-Kraus--welcome back.
    She was at the last hearing--Professor of Constitutional Law at
    the Columbia University from New York, New York.
        Doctor, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA PONSA-KRAUS, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL
              LAW, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Thank you and good afternoon. I am
    Christina Ponsa-Kraus. I am a Law Professor at Columbia
    University and a scholar of Puerto Rico's constitutional
    status, and I am Puerto Rican. I testified at the hearing in
    April, and I appreciate the invitation to appear again today.
        At the April hearing, I explained why I support H.R. 1522
    and oppose H.R. 2070. Today, I will comment on the DOJ's legal
    analysis, with which I agree. I will take issue with one policy
    conclusion in the DOJ report, and I will respond to several
    criticisms of H.R. 1522 that have been made by its opponents.
        In April, I identified two flaws in H.R. 2070: that it
    opens the door to unconstitutional status options and that it
    purports to bind Congress to ratify whatever option the people
    of Puerto Rico choose. The DOJ report confirms the existence of
    both of these flaws. On the first flaw, the DOJ report confirms
    that by failing to specify the available options, H.R. 2070
    implicitly includes non-territorial commonwealth, which is not
    a constitutional option.
        On the second flaw, the DOJ confirms that H.R. 2070 makes
    an illusory promise by stating that Congress ``shall approve''
    a joint resolution ratifying whatever option Puerto Ricans
    choose following a convention. The DOJ explains that, instead,
    Congress may offer one or more constitutionally valid options
    to Puerto Rico and give Puerto Ricans the option to accept or
    reject such an offer.
        That, of course, is exactly what H.R. 1522 does. As this
    last point suggests, the DOJ approves of two basic approaches
    to Puerto Rican self-determination, a referendum, which is a
    yes/no vote on one option, or a plebiscite, which is a vote
    among all the options. I agree. However, I disagree with the
    DOJ's policy conclusion that a plebiscite must also include the
    current territorial status, and clearly I am not alone.
        The DOJ defends this conclusion on the ground that it is
    simply adhering to the long-standing executive branch policy of
    neutrality among the legally permissible options. But the fact
    that an option is legally permissible does not mean that it is
    legally required. The sole purpose of both bills is to end
    Puerto Rico's perpetual territorial status. With all due
    respect to the executive branch, it is nothing short of
    incoherent to insist that a territorial status be included
    among the options for ending it.
        The executive branch should remain faithful to the
    principle of democratic equality for all U.S. citizens and
    abandon its neutrality toward continued colonialism. The United
    States should enthusiastically support the ending of Puerto
    Rico's territorial status while remaining neutral among Puerto
    Rico's constitutional non-territorial options: statehood and
    independence with or without free association.
        Finally, I will respond to three criticisms of H.R. 1522.
    First, critics of H.R. 1522 argue that Congress should not
    respond to the November referendum with an offer of statehood
    because voter turnout was too low and the margin of victory was
    too slim. These objections are factually baseless. Neither
    turnout nor margin, nor the margin of victory, was abnormally
    low.
        But even if they had been, the objections are a red
    herring. Neither international law nor U.S. domestic law
    predicates the legitimacy of a democratic vote, including a
    self-determination vote, on turnout or supermajority
    requirements. It is not a coincidence that H.R. 2070 includes
    neither.
        Second, critics of H.R. 1522 argue that it is not
    inclusive, whereas H.R. 2070 is. But criticism fails to
    recognize that H.R. 1522 is merely one step in a longer, larger
    process, including a fully inclusive debate in Puerto Rico that
    led to the election of a government that ran on a platform of
    holding a vote on statehood. It also fails to recognize that a
    yes/no referendum is a valid self-determination process under
    both domestic and international law.
        Third, some statehood opponents object to H.R. 1522 on the
    ground that Puerto Rico is a nation and that self-determination
    for a nation cannot include statehood. But international law
    itself recognizes the right of even a nation to choose
    integration into another nation. In sum, these criticisms of
    H.R. 1522 are without merit. H.R. 1522 provides a clear,
    careful, and constitutionally sound approach to self-
    determination, and Congress should enact it. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Ponsa-Kraus follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus, Law Professor, Columbia
                                   University
        Good afternoon. My name is Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus. I am a law
    professor at Columbia University and an expert on Puerto Rico's
    constitutional status, and I am Puerto Rican. I testified at the
    hearing in April and I appreciate the invitation to appear again today.
    At the April hearing, I explained why I support H.R. 1522 and oppose
    H.R. 2070. Rather than repeat those arguments today, I will respond to
    several criticisms of H.R. 1522.
        First: Critics of H.R. 1522 argue that Congress should not respond
    to the November referendum with an offer of statehood because voter
    turnout was too low and the margin of victory was too slim. These
    objections are specious. As a preliminary matter, the claim of
    unusually low voter turnout is factually baseless. The rate of
    participation was about the same as for any territorial office,
    including that of the governor. Moreover, eligibility to vote was based
    on voter rolls from 2012, and it is well known that Puerto Rico lost
    nearly a half a million people between 2012 and 2020, which means the
    official turnout figures substantially understate the actual percentage
    of voters who reside on the island and turned out to vote. But more
    fundamentally, the question of voter turnout is a red-herring. Neither
    international law nor U.S. domestic law predicates the legitimacy of a
    democratic vote--including a self-determination vote--on voter turnout
    or supermajority requirements. In a democracy, the voters who cast
    ballots decide the outcome. And under the well-settled rules of
    democracy, a simple majority prevails absent a fairly adopted rule
    requiring a supermajority. Under no circumstance do those who lose get
    to impose a supermajority requirement after the fact. Tacitly
    acknowledging these elementary truths, even H.R. 2070 does not include
    a voter turnout or a supermajority requirement. Nor have its supporters
    insisted on either.
        Second: Critics of H.R. 1522 argue that it is not inclusive whereas
    H.R. 2070 is. If they mean that every option should receive a fair
    hearing, the criticism fails to recognize that H.R. 1522 is merely one
    step in a larger process. A fully inclusive debate in Puerto Rico led
    to the election of a government that ran on a platform of holding a
    vote on statehood, which it did last November. The ``No'' option
    represented all who opposed statehood and was promoted by a vigorous
    campaign against statehood. Litigation against the referendum failed.
    The vote resulted in a majority for statehood, which H.R. 1522 would
    respect by responding to it with a vote on statehood under federal law,
    in accordance with precedents in other territories. If enough voters
    choose ``No'' this time around, they will remain free to pursue their
    preferred options. No option, no party, and no voter has been excluded
    from this process.
        If critics mean instead that a self-determination process cannot be
    democratically legitimate unless the ballot includes all legally
    permissible status options, they are simply incorrect, as ``Yes/No''
    votes on independence all over the globe and throughout history
    demonstrate. In fact, even the president of the anti-statehood
    commonwealth party called for a yes-no vote on statehood as recently as
    2017, describing it as a ``true and unimpeachable'' method for
    determining the will of the people.
        That said, I should add that it is not my view that a ``Yes-No''
    vote is the only legitimate self-determination mechanism for Puerto
    Rico. A ballot including all of the constitutionally valid status
    options would be another--as long as it met additional criteria of
    legitimacy. These include, first and foremost, clear, accurate, and
    federally sanctioned definitions of the options, without which Puerto
    Ricans would simply be consigned to an inconclusive debate over what
    each option entails. For example, were such a process to include
    independence with a free association treaty, it would have to inform
    voters that such a treaty could not, under international and domestic
    law, provide the same guarantee of perpetual birthright U.S.
    citizenship that statehood would provide.
        Third and finally: Some statehood opponents object to H.R. 1522 on
    the ground that Puerto Rico is a nation and that self-determination for
    a nation, by definition, cannot include the option to become a state of
    another nation.
        Understood as a procedural argument against H.R. 1522, this
    ``nationalism'' objection fails. International law recognizes the right
    of a nation to choose full integration into another nation in a self-
    determination decision, as for example U.N. General Assembly Resolution
    1541(XV) states explicitly. H.R. 1522 simply offers Puerto Ricans that
    choice. Understood as a substantive argument against statehood itself,
    it offers no ground for denying Puerto Ricans who disagree the
    opportunity to vote for statehood. For what it's worth, the November
    2020 referendum is only the most recent evidence that a majority of
    Puerto Ricans see no inconsistency between their identity and the
    choice of statehood, which would bring them equality as citizens of the
    United States.
        In sum, these criticisms of H.R. 1522 are without merit. H.R. 1522
    provides a clear, careful, and constitutionally sound self-
    determination process, and Congress should enact it without further
    delay.

                                     ______

                     Testimony of Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus
                                   [REVISED]

        [On June 14, I submitted my testimony. The same day, the Department
    of Justice released its analysis of the two bills. What follows is my
    testimony as revised in light of that analysis.]

        Good afternoon. My name is Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus. I am a law
    professor at Columbia University and a scholar of Puerto Rico's
    constitutional status, and I am Puerto Rican. I testified at the
    hearing in April and I appreciate the invitation to appear again today.
        At the April hearing, I explained why I support H.R. 1522 and
    oppose H.R. 2070. Today, I will comment the DOJ's legal analysis, with
    which I agree; I will take issue with one policy conclusion in the DOJ
    report; and I will respond to several criticisms of H.R. 1522 that have
    been made by its opponents.
        First: In April, I identified two flaws in H.R. 2070: that it opens
    the door to unconstitutional status options and that it purports to
    bind Congress to ratify whatever option the people of Puerto Rico
    choose. The DOJ report confirms the existence of both of these flaws.
        On the first flaw, the DOJ report confirms that by failing to
    specify the available options, H.R. 2070 implicitly includes non-
    territorial commonwealth, which is not a constitutional option.
        On the second flaw, the DOJ confirms that H.R. 2070 makes an
    illusory promise by stating that Congress ``shall approve'' a joint
    resolution ratifying whatever option Puerto Ricans choose following a
    convention. The DOJ explains that, instead, Congress may offer one or
    more constitutionally valid options to Puerto Rico and give Puerto
    Ricans the option to accept or reject the offer. That, of course, is
    exactly what H.R. 1522 does.
        As this last point suggests, the DOJ approves of two basic
    approaches to Puerto Rican self-determination: a referendum (which is a
    Yes/No vote on one option) or a plebiscite (which is a vote among all
    the options). I agree. However, I disagree with the DOJ's policy
    conclusion that a plebiscite must also include the current territorial
    status.
        The DOJ defends this conclusion on the ground that it is simply
    adhering to the long-standing executive branch policy of neutrality
    among the legally permissible options. But the fact that an option is
    legally permissible does not mean it is legally required. The sole
    purpose of both bills is to end Puerto Rico's perpetual territorial
    status. With all due respect to the Executive Branch, it is nothing
    short of incoherent to insist that territorial status be included among
    the options for ending it. The Executive Branch should remain faithful
    to the principle of democratic equality for all U.S. citizens and
    abandon its neutrality toward continued colonialism. The United States
    should enthusiastically support the ending of Puerto Rico's territorial
    status, while remaining neutral among Puerto Rico's constitutional,
    non-territorial options: statehood and independence, with or without
    free association.

        Finally, I will respond to three criticisms of H.R. 1522:

        First: Critics of H.R. 1522 argue that Congress should not respond
    to the November referendum with an offer of statehood because voter
    turnout was too low and the margin of victory was too slim. These
    objections are factually baseless: Neither the turnout nor margin of
    victory was abnormally low. But even if they had been, the objections
    are a red-herring: Neither international law nor U.S. domestic law
    predicates the legitimacy of a democratic vote--including a self-
    determination vote--on turnout or supermajority requirements.

        Second: Critics of H.R. 1522 argue that it is not inclusive whereas
    H.R. 2070 is. The criticism fails to recognize that H.R. 1522 is merely
    one step in a larger process, including a fully inclusive debate in
    Puerto Rico that led to the election of a government that ran on a
    platform of holding a vote on statehood. It also fails to recognize
    that a Yes/No referendum is a valid self-determination process--under
    both domestic and international law.

        Third: Some statehood opponents object to H.R. 1522 on the ground
    that Puerto Rico is a nation and that self-determination for a nation
    cannot include statehood. But international law itself recognizes the
    right of a nation to choose full integration into another nation.

        In sum, these criticisms of H.R. 1522 are without merit. H.R. 1522
    provides a clear, careful, and constitutionally sound self-
    determination process, and Congress should enact it without further
    delay.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you very much. The doctor yields.
        Let me now turn to Professor Andres Cordova, Professor of
    Property Law at the Inter American University of Puerto Rico.
        Professor, 5 minutes are yours.

      STATEMENT OF ANDRES L. CORDOVA, PROFESSOR OF PROPERTY LAW,
    INTER AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Cordova. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin
    by thanking the Committee for holding these hearings on the two
    bills addressing Puerto Rico's political status question. Any
    public discussion which draws attention to the political
    disenfranchisement of Puerto Rico's American citizens is, in
    itself, already a step in the right direction.
        Instead of repeating what has already been so eloquently
    stated by others in the previous hearings, on the urgency of
    moving forward with H.R. 1522, I would like to focus my
    attention on certain fundamental aspects of H.R. 2070 which I
    believe require closer scrutiny. H.R. 2070 calls on the rights
    of the people of Puerto Rico to invoke a status convention to
    which they would exercise what is referred to as their natural
    right to self-determination.
        The unexpressed assumption of the bill is that Puerto
    Ricans are not Americans, notwithstanding their American
    citizenship. From a legal perspective, this justification
    implicitly relies on international legal principle. At the time
    of its creation in 1945, the United Nations included Puerto
    Rico under the list of non-autonomous territories. In 1952, the
    U.S. Congress authorized Puerto Rico to draft its own
    constitution and create its own local self-governing
    institutions. Upon ratification, the United States informed the
    United Nations that Puerto Rico had acquired a level of self-
    government that justified its exclusion of the list of non-
    autonomous territories.
        In 1953, the United Nations exempted the United States from
    presenting further reports on Puerto Rico, exemption which
    continues to this day. In 1960, the United Nations approved
    Resolution 1514, which declared the rights of national self-
    determination and decolonization. Those factions which favor
    independence have long tried to have Puerto Rico re-listed as a
    colonial possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United
    Nations, notwithstanding the consistent recommendation by the
    United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization led by Cuba
    and Venezuela. The General Assembly has rejected the
    committee's recommendations on 38 separate occasions.
        The long-held political strategy of the pro-independence
    factions, for evident reasons, has been to place the status
    question within the context of international law to underscore
    the political and legal differences between the people of
    Puerto Rico and the people of the United States. Contrary to
    these efforts, the United States has historically argued,
    correctly in my estimation, that the issue regarding Puerto
    Rico's political future is a domestic matter under the
    jurisdiction of the Constitution and the laws of the United
    States.
        Surely, international law is relevant but always within the
    constitutional context, not the other way around. It should be
    noted how the Department of Justice's recent comments on H.R.
    2070 exclude international law from its analysis. By virtue of
    1898, the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the
    United States under which terms the United States acquired the
    right to dispose of the civil rights of its inhabitants as
    accorded by Congress.
        In 1990, the Foraker Act created the civil government of
    Puerto Rico, among other provisions. We should highlight that
    the people of Puerto Rico, as a legal category, is a creation
    of statute and not of any philosophical claim of political
    identity.
        Although it is true that international treaties signed by
    the United States are part of its statutory law, as Supreme Law
    of the land, they are still under the Constitution. Contrary to
    what some would have us believe, international treaties and
    obligations are not above constitutional authority. When
    Congress exercises its plenary powers under the Territorial
    Clause, international provisions do not govern these actions,
    which in any case are not self-executing according to long-held
    judicial precedent.
        In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle in
    2016, the Supreme Court left no doubt that Puerto Rico's
    sovereignty lies in the United States, in Congress, and that
    any sovereign claim to the contrary must pass through the
    Territorial Clause. The Department of Justice's comments on
    H.R. 2070 questioning the bill's claims of--and I quote--``the
    Puerto Rico legislature's inherent authority to call a status
    convention,'' is an elegant critique drawn from this same
    principle.
        The fundamental purpose of the promoters of the status
    convention is to lay the legal groundwork for Puerto Rico to
    claim sovereignty over and against the United States and the
    will of the same people they claim to represent. As a matter of
    political reality, Puerto Ricans have been exercising their
    right to self-determination in every electoral process since
    1952 and subsequent general elections and local plebiscites
    since then, albeit incompletely and inconclusively. As a matter
    of democratic vocation, the next step in this long-overdue
    process is a federally mandated referendum. I endorse H.R. 1522
    with amendments, if required, and I oppose H.R. 2070. Thank
    you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cordova follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Andres L. Cordova, Professor at Inter American
        University of Puerto Rico, School of Law, San Juan, Puerto Rico
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the Chair and the
    House Committee on Natural Resources for holding these hearings on the
    two bills addressing Puerto Rico's political status question. Any
    public discussion which draws attention to the political
    disenfranchisement of Puerto Rico's American citizens is in itself,
    already, a step in the right direction.
        In the previous hearing the Committee heard from various witnesses,
    among them Prof. Christina Ponsa-Krauss, whose statements succinctly
    presented the constitutional constraints and difficulties of H.R. 2070,
    Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act and--in contrast--of the legal and
    political solvency of H.R. 1522, Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act. I
    fully subscribe to her views on the matter, together with my earlier
    remarks submitted for the written record for the April 14, 2021
    hearing, which I herein include by reference.
        Instead of repeating what has already been so eloquently stated by
    others on the urgency of moving forward with the PR Statehood Admission
    Act, I would like to focus my attention on certain aspects of PR Self-
    Determination Act which I believe require closer scrutiny.
        The PR Self-Determination Act calls on the right of the people of
    Puerto Rico to convoke a Status Convention through which they would
    exercise what is referred to as their natural right to self-
    determination. The unexpressed assumption of this bill is that Puerto
    Ricans are not Americans, notwithstanding their American citizenship,
    and the cry for ``self-determination'' in this context aims to impede
    the electoral majority call for statehood.
        From a legal perspective, its justification implicitly relies on
    international legal principles. At the time of its creation in 1945 the
    United Nations included Puerto Rico under the list of non-autonomous
    territories. In 1952 the U.S. Congress authorized Puerto Rico to draft
    its own Constitution and create its own local self-governing
    institutions. Upon ratification, the United States informed the United
    Nations that Puerto Rico had acquired a level of self-government that
    justified its exclusion of the list of non-autonomous territories. In
    1953 the United Nations exempted the United States from presenting
    further reports on Puerto Rico, exemption which continues to this day.
        In 1960 the United Nations approved Resolution 1514 (XV) which
    declared the rights of national self-determination and decolonization.
    Those factions which favor independence have long tried to have Puerto
    Rico relisted as a colonial possession subject to the jurisdiction of
    the United Nations. Notwithstanding the consistent recommendation by
    the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization--led by Cuba and
    Venezuela--the General Assembly has rejected the Committee's
    recommendation on 38 occasions.
        The long held political strategy of the pro-independence factions
    has been to place the status question within the context of
    international law, to underscore the political and legal difference
    between the people of Puerto Rico and the people of the United States.
    The PR Self-Determination Act implicitly endorses this view.
        Contrary to these efforts, the United States has historically
    argued--correctly in my estimation--that the issue regarding Puerto
    Rico's political future is a domestic matter, under the jurisdiction of
    the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Surely
    International Law is relevant, but always within the constitutional
    context, not the other way around
        By virtue of the 1898 Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded Puerto Rico to
    the United States, which under the terms of the Treaty acquired the
    rights to dispose of the civil rights of its inhabitants by Congress.
    In 1900 the Foraker Act created a civil government, among other
    provisions. We should highlight that the people of Puerto Rico, as
    legal category, is a creation of this statute and not of any
    philosophical claims of political identity.
        Although it is true that international treaties signed by the
    United States are part of its statutory law, as Supreme Law of the
    land, they are still under the Constitution. Contrary to what some
    would have us believe, international treaties and obligations are not
    above constitutional authority. When Congress exercises its plenary
    powers under the Territorial Clause, international provisions do not
    govern its actions, which in any case are not self-executing according
    to long held judicial precedent. The 2016 PROMESA, which created a
    Financial and Oversight Management Board to supervise the bankrupt
    government of Puerto Rico and the treatment of Puerto Rico as a foreign
    jurisdiction for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code are two on-going
    example of the exercise of this authority.
        In the recent Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle (2016)
    the Supreme Court left no doubt that Puerto Rico's sovereignty lies in
    the United States, in Congress, and that any sovereign claim to the
    contrary must pass through the Territorial Clause of the Constitution.
    More timely, the constitutional challenge currently before the Supreme
    Court in the case of United States v. Vaello-Madero, regarding the
    exclusion of SSI benefits to American citizens in Puerto Rico, assumes
    congressional authority to dispose of the territory without the direct
    participation of the people of Puerto Rico.
        Any pretense of placing Puerto Rico outside of the Territorial
    Clause must necessarily do so either as a State or as an independent
    nation, in any of its guises. The continuous efforts by certain
    factions of trying to carve out a mythical constitutional space where
    Puerto Rico is not subject to the ultimate authority of Congress under
    the Territorial Clause has been consistently and decisively rejected by
    all branches of the United States government. Ironically, the PR Self-
    Determination Act itself is a belated recognition that Puerto Rico is
    under the authority of Congress and does not have the constitutional or
    legal right to exercise any natural law claim.
        Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, and the use of
    loaded terms such as ``colonial'' and ``self-determination'' are
    underhanded attempts to place the status question within the context of
    International Law instead of the United States Constitution, where it
    belongs. Although perfectly understandable as part of the give and take
    of political discourse, it is disconcerting that Congress would even
    consider a piece of legislation which implicitly undermines its own
    constitutional authority.
        A Status Convention which purports to be the depositary of the will
    of the people of Puerto Rico would necessarily need to include all
    sectors of the island's political spectrum, including those that favor
    statehood. What exactly would a Status Convention propose that has not
    already been proposed in the last 122 years by the different political
    parties and analyzed by the political branches of the Federal
    Government? Invariably a Status Convention would reproduce the same
    positions that everybody is familiar with. Are we to believe that the
    delegates to such a convention are to discover any new constitutionally
    viable formula that has not been part of the political debate for the
    last century? From a practical point of view, a Status Convention would
    not offer any other alternative that we haven't already had before us
    and that can be settled by means of a plebiscite or referendum.
        The fundamental purpose of the Status Convention is to lay the
    legal groundwork for Puerto Rico to claim sovereignty over and against
    the United States and the will of the same people they claim to
    represent. As a matter of political reality, the Puerto Ricans have
    been exercising their right to self-determination in every electoral
    event since the approval of the 1952 Constitution and subsequent
    general elections and local plebiscites, albeit incompletely and
    inconclusively. The next step in this long overdue process is a
    federally mandated referendum.

        I endorse PR Statehood Admission Act and oppose PR Self
    Determination Act.

                                     ______

      Questions Submitted for the Record to Professor Andres L. Cordova,
      Professor of Property Law, Inter American University of Puerto Rico
                  Questions Submitted by Representative Sablan
        Question 1. The people of Puerto Rico have, as recently as last
    November, voted in favor of statehood. The results of that vote,
    however, were 52.5% in favor and turnout was 54.7% of eligible voters.
    How do you respond to people who say that those election results may
    indicate that Puerto Rican voters are not supportive enough for
    something as irreversible as statehood?

        Answer. The central characteristic of a representative democracy is
    the electoral participation of its citizens in the decision-making
    process. There will always be differences of opinion in a society. The
    electoral process is precisely the manner in which we solve our
    differences without recurring to the use of force. There has never been
    a legal requirement in the history of the United States that in order
    for a territory be admitted as a state there has to be a given
    percentage of electoral approval. That is not the way democracy works.
    The votes that count are the ones that are cast, and the majority
    prevails. This is precisely what occurred in the November, 2020
    election.
        If in Congress has concerns as to the validity of previous
    plebiscites, all it needs to do is to exercise its constitutional
    authority and legislate a federal mandated referendum or plebiscite.
    H.R. 1522 does this. What should not happen is for Congress to argue
    that the previous plebiscites were not valid and therefore no do
    anything about it, using the pretext that Congress will act when Puerto
    Ricans come to an agreement.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. The gentlemen yields.
        Our final witness is Dr. Jose Caraballo-Cueto, Professor of
    Economics at the University of Puerto Rico.
        Doctor, 5 minutes are yours and you are recognized.

      STATEMENT OF JOSE CARABALLO-CUETO, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS,
             UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, CAYEY, PUERTO RICO

        Dr. Caraballo-Cueto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Forty-four
    years ago arguably was the last time that Congress took a
    strong action to boost Puerto Rico's economy. Section 936 of
    the Federal tax code was enacted. After that policy, we have
    observed many congressional hearings but few to no positive
    economic policies. Some observers are betting on the new
    geopolitics in the Caribbean, such as the China's Belt and Road
    influence on Latin America, as a way for pushing Congress to
    favor Puerto Rico again, but that is just a theoretical
    scenario.
        The bottom line is that no matter how much Federal funds
    are sent to Puerto Rico for long-term economic development,
    Puerto Rico needs a fundamental change in its political
    relationship with the United States. Fiscal, monetary, and
    industrial policies are key to economic development. But Puerto
    Rico has barely any control over this.
        The monitory policy, for instance, exchange rates and
    interest rates imposed on Puerto Rico by the Federal Reserve,
    also known as the Fed, is not designed for the island, and
    sometimes the Fed exacerbates economic conditions of this
    territory. Puerto Rico has almost no representation in effect.
    The local fiscal policy is now handled by the Fiscal Control
    Board imposed by Congress, reducing the elected official
    authority.
        Industrial policy, such as preferential taxes to
    manufacturing industries, have been recently managed by
    Congress without major considerations of Puerto Rico. For
    instance, the GILTI, the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, is
    also harming the remnant of the industrial sector in Puerto
    Rico. And if the global taxation of 15 percent is extended to
    the island, it will have a similar or even greater negative
    effect.
        For some unexplained reason, Congress provides better
    economic tools to other territories: the U.S. Virgin Islands is
    exempt from the Jones Act, and the Northern Mariana Islands and
    Guam have a visa waiver program that boosts their tourism. The
    Jones Act does not just increase import costs according to most
    studies, moreover, it excludes Puerto Rico from international
    logistics.
        In 2015, Puerto Rico paid in Federal taxes almost five
    times more than the taxes paid by other U.S. territories
    combined. Both sovereignty and statehood provide better
    economic prospect than the current status. Sovereignty will let
    Puerto Rico implement tailor-made fiscal, monetary, and
    industrial policies, for instance, protection for local
    businesses without being subject to the interstate commerce
    clause.
        In addition, it will also liberate the island from the
    Jones Act and other regulation. But independence also has its
    cost. Most Federal funds received in Puerto Rico are
    contractual benefits, such as Social Security, Medicare, and
    veteran benefits. Part of the difference could be substituted
    from abroad. However, without the remaining Federal transfer,
    local government must be very efficient.
        All in all, if economic actors take full advantage of the
    benefits of sovereignty, the disadvantages can be outweighed.
    In the case of statehood, fiscal, industrial, and monetary
    policies will not depend on the sympathy of Congress and the
    Fed but on the negotiation that takes place when
    Representatives from Puerto Rico have voting power.
        Just by receiving supplemental security income and parity
    and nutritional assistance, the poverty rate would decrease by
    14 percentage points in Puerto Rico. In addition, by being
    fully annexed, Puerto Rico would take advantage of its
    comparative edge over states in terms of wages, and would
    receive more investment from the United States. In the case of
    Hawaii, its economy or gross state product did not decline
    after annexation, although structural changes were felt by the
    population.
        Statehood also carries disadvantages. First, Federal
    taxation will impact the middle class and small- and middle-
    sized enterprise of the island. Second, many multi-national
    manufacturers that operate as control foreign corporations in
    Puerto Rico will move to a third country, shrinking the
    industrial base even further. However, the disadvantages of
    statehood are probably not worse than the disadvantages of the
    colony.
        That is why my first recommendation is to strongly oppose a
    recommendation of the U.S. Department of Justice to include the
    territorial status and to avoid specific mandates to the
    Federal Government. Excluding the territorial status is a
    consensus that I identify here. After all, this is the same
    Department of Justice that would oppose parity and SSI to
    Puerto Rico.
        No. 2, both bills should specify that if statehood is not
    supported by either a majority of Puerto Ricans or by the
    Federal Government itself, the U.S. Government will end the
    territorial status on a specific date.
        No. 3, change the PROMESA Act so that the Fiscal Control
    Board disappears once the debt restructuring ends.
        No. 4, exclude Puerto Rico from the global tax of 15
    percent and the GILTI taxation, and from any other measure that
    entails a greater erosion of the industrial policies of Puerto
    Rico.
        No. 5, exclude Puerto Rico from the Jones Act and from any
    colonial decision.
        Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Caraballo-Cueto follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Dr. Jose Caraballo-Cueto, University of Puerto
                                      Rico
                                  introduction
        Thank you all for the invitation to testify before the Natural
    Resources Committee hearing on H.R. 2070, ``Puerto Rico Self-
    Determination Act of 2021'' and H.R. 1522, ``Puerto Rico Statehood
    Admission Act.'' These projects are commendable efforts; my
    congratulations to the individuals that wrote them. Below I provide a
    short analysis on Puerto Rico's political status and economic
    development. At the end, I provide my recommendations.
            political status and economic prospects for puerto rico
        According to the world data gathered by Angus Madisson from 1955 to
    1980, the economy of Puerto Rico was among the top growing economies in
    the world. The Gross Domestic Product per capita was 210% higher in
    1980 than in 1955. Such growth doubled the world rate (83%) and would
    have placed the Island among the top 14 countries in the world in terms
    of income per capita growth.
        The economic model at the time was rather simple: attract
    manufacturing corporations from abroad with federal and local tax
    incentives. In the words of Baumol and Wolff (1996): ``Puerto Rico
    serves as an example of an extreme form of what Prebisch and his
    colleagues called `dependence,' both in terms of import openness and
    its reliance on foreign direct investment--both almost exclusively from
    the U.S. mainland. Yet, because of its high investment rate and
    educational gains, Puerto Rico grew very rapidly, at least from the
    mid-1940s through the early 1970s.'' (Baumol and Wolff, p. 883). This
    was in part due to Section 936 of the federal tax code enacted 45 years
    ago; arguably the last time that Congress took a strong action to boost
    Puerto Rico's economy. After that policy, we have observed many
    congressional hearings but few to none positive economic policies.
        The problem with such a model was its fragility: after trade
    liberalization and the removal of Section 936 of the federal tax code
    the economy of Puerto Rico collapsed (for more details, see Caraballo &
    Lara, 2018). This finding leads to the crucial questions: Is there a
    new economic model for Puerto Rico?
        Policymakers attempt to implement one by increasing federal
    funding, providing tax incentives to attract high-income individuals
    (local Act 22 of 2012 and inclusion in federal designation of
    opportunity zones), and to promote the export of services (local Act 20
    of 2012). However, such a model is insufficient in its ability to grow
    an economy that has not grown sustainably since 2006. Some observers
    are betting on the new geopolitics in the Caribbean (e.g. China's Belt
    & Road influence on Latin America) as a way for pushing Congress to
    favor Puerto Rico again, but that is just a theoretical scenario.
        The bottom line is that, no matter how much federal funds are sent
    to Puerto Rico, for long-term economic development Puerto Rico needs a
    fundamental change in its political relationship with the United
    States. Federal funds can provide economic growth only in the short
    term, but they will not put Puerto Rico in its past growth path.
    Ilzetzki et al. (2010) found that fiscal stimulus has a low impact on
    economies with a ratio of external trade to Gross Domestic Product that
    exceeds 60%. In the case of Puerto Rico, that ratio was 156% in 2020.
        Fiscal, monetary, and industrial policies are key to economic
    development, especially in this new century, but Puerto Rico has barely
    any control over these. The monetary policy (e.g. exchange rate and
    interest rate, among others) imposed on Puerto Rico by the Federal
    Reserve (Fed) is not designed for the particular business cycle of the
    island and sometimes the decisions taken by the Fed exacerbate the
    economic conditions of this territory. Puerto Rico has almost no
    representation in this important institution. The local fiscal policy
    (taxes and government spending) is now handled by the fiscal control
    board imposed by Congress, reducing the elected officials' authority
    from low to no influence on these issues: in fact, the last couple of
    budgets have been imposed by this board.
        Industrial policies, such as preferential taxes to manufacturing
    industries, have been managed by Congress without major consideration
    of the economic situation of Puerto Rico. For instance, the current
    debt crisis was caused by (in addition to the exclusion of Puerto Rico
    from the federal bankruptcy code in 1984) the economic clash created by
    the removal of federal tax incentives without any alternative economic
    strategy: this deindustrialization reduced government revenues,
    increasing Puerto Rico's dependency on external funding (Caraballo and
    Lara, 2018). The GILTI (Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income) enacted in
    2017 is also harming the remnant of the industrial sector in Puerto
    Rico and if the global taxation of 15% is extended to the island, it
    will have a similar or even greater negative effect.
        For some unexplained reasons, Congress provides better economic
    tools to other territories: the U.S. Virgin Islands is exempt from the
    1920 Jones Act and the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam have a visa
    waiver program that boosted their tourism.\1\ The Jones Act does not
    just increase import costs according to most studies,\2\ moreover, it
    excludes Puerto Rico from international logistics. For instance, a
    vessel departs from, say, Colombia to Puerto Rico, it cannot continue
    to the largest market in the region (the U.S.): either the vessel
    returns to Colombia or goes to another small economy. It should be
    pointed out that in 2015 Puerto Rico paid altogether $3.5 billion in
    federal taxes; almost five times more than the combined taxes paid by
    the U.S. Armed Service members overseas and other U.S. territories (IRS
    2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.guamvisitorsbureau.com/news/news-releases/
    philippine-arrivals-soar-in-march-2016.
        \2\  https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/
    5b4228_4e79040fd1b043a59df921358825334a.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Both sovereignty and statehood provide better economic prospects
    than the current status. Let me start with the case of sovereignty. In
    the 20th century, some economies (such as Singapore (1963), Ireland
    (1921), Finland (1917), S. Korea (1945), and Iceland (1944) have
    benefited from independence while others did not (e.g. almost all
    African former colonies (except for S. Africa (1910), many colonies in
    the Middle East, and many countries in South Asia). However, the
    initial conditions for Puerto Rico, in terms of infrastructure and
    level of income, are more favorable than many former colonies of the
    last century. Sovereignty would let Puerto Rico implement tailor-made
    fiscal, monetary, and industrial policies (e.g. protection for local
    businesses without being subject to the interstate commerce clause). In
    addition, it would also liberate the island from institutional
    constraints such as the Jones Act and regulations associated with
    product quality. Research by Caraballo-Cueto and Gautier (2020) shows
    that Puerto Rico export potential is limited by about $20 billion (in
    2011 PPP dollars, after adjusting for transfer pricing effect) in 2016.
    This would represent about 17% of the Puerto Rico's GDP. This number
    does not consider export of services.
        However, independence also has its costs to Puerto Rico. Firstly,
    if residents do not save more, without access to broker deposits and
    other instruments, interest rates would be very high, limiting
    households and businesses investments. Secondly, currency devaluation
    would be good for exporters but hurtful for consumers. Thirdly,
    reconstruction after disasters would be similar to other countries in
    Latin America, where there is a net negative effect. Most federal funds
    received in Puerto Rico are contractual rights such as Social Security,
    Medicare, and veteran benefits. In 2020, $14 billion out of $25 billion
    were this type of transfer. Part of the difference ($11 billion) could
    be substituted with remittances from abroad (Dominican Republic
    receives more than $3 billion in remittances). However, without the
    remaining federal transfers, local government must be very efficient.
    Otherwise, essential services would be worse than now. All in all, if
    economic actors take full advantage of the benefits of sovereignty, the
    disadvantages can be outweighed.
        In the case of statehood, fiscal, industrial, and monetary policies
    would not depend on the sympathy of Congress and the Fed but on the
    negotiation that takes place when representatives from Puerto Rico have
    voting power. In the case of Puerto Rico, there are no current studies
    but in the past Jenkins and Islam (1998) found that sectors unrelated
    to Section 936 (both households and residents) won with statehood while
    local government lost funds. In 2013, if Puerto Rico were a state,
    small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) as well as its middle and
    upper classes would have paid an additional $2.9 billion in federal
    taxes but low-income individuals would have received an additional $3
    billion in federal funds. Just by receiving parity in Supplemental
    Security Income and nutritional assistance, the poverty rate would
    decrease by 14 percentage points (Caraballo-Cueto 2019). In addition,
    by being fully annexed, Puerto Rico would take advantage of its
    comparative edge over other states in terms of wages and would receive
    more investments from the United States. In the case of Hawaii, its
    gross state product did not decline after annexation in 1959 (Schmitt
    1977), though structural changes were felt by the population (Bell
    2019).
        Statehood also carries disadvantages. Firstly, federal taxation
    would impact the middle class and SMEs of the Island. Secondly, if
    local taxes are decreased to compensate SMEs, more painful austerity
    would be needed to balance the budget. Thirdly, statehood also changes
    the tax status of Puerto Rico and many multinational manufacturers that
    are now in Puerto Rico operating as a Controlled Foreign Corporation
    would move to a third country, shrinking the industrial base even
    further. However, these disadvantages of statehood are probably not
    worse than the disadvantages of the colony.
        Both a ``PRexit'' or statehood will carry painful structural
    adjustments in the short term, but in the long term will probably be
    better for economic growth. There are no recent empirical studies but
    my colleagues and I will soon use a mathematical model to construct
    diverse scenarios to better inform this discussion.
                                recommendations

     1.  Streamline the H.R. 2070 by reducing steps and establishing
                specific dates. I strongly oppose the recommendations of
                the U.S. Department of Justice to include the territorial
                status and to avoid specific mandates to the Federal
                Government.

     2.  In the case of H.R. 1522, it should specify that if statehood is
                not supported by either a majority of Puerto Ricans or by
                the Federal Government, the U.S. Government will end the
                territorial status on a specific date.

     3.  Change the PROMESA act so that the fiscal control board disappears
                once the debt restructuring ends. This would return fiscal
                policy to duly elected officials.

     4.  Exclude Puerto Rico from the global tax of 15%, the GILTI
                taxation, and from any other measure that entails a greater
                intervention from the Federal Government in the Puerto Rico
                economy.

     5.  Exclude Puerto Rico from the 1920 Jones Act.

                                   references

    1.  Baumol, W.J. & Wolff, E.N. (1996). Catching up in the postwar
    period: Puerto Rico as the fifth ``Tiger''? World Development, 24(5),
    869-885.

    2.  Bell, R. (2019). Last among equals: Hawaiian statehood and American
    politics. University of Hawaii Press.

    3.  Caraballo-Cueto, J. & Lara, J. (2018). Deindustrialization and
    unsustainable debt in middle-income countries: The case of Puerto Rico.
    Journal of Globalization and Development, 8(2).

    4.  Caraballo-Cueto, J. (2019). The impact of disparities in SNAP and
    SSI on Puerto Rico's poverty and economic growth. Retrieved from:
    https://www.researchgate. net/publication/
    340610699_The_impact_of_disparities_in_SNAP_and_SSI_on_
    Puerto_Rico's_poverty_and_economic_growth.

    5.  Caraballo-Cueto, J. & Gautier, L. (2020). Are Satellite Economies
    Losing Trade? Manuscript under revision.

    6.  IRS (2015). Internal Revenue Service Data Book. Retrieved from:
    https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15databk.pdf.

    7.  Ilzetzki, E., Mendoza, E.G., & Vegh, C.A. (2010). How big (small?)
    are fiscal multipliers? (No. w16479). National Bureau of Economic
    Research.

    8.  Jenkins, G.P. & Islam, N. (1998). Economic Consequences of
    Statehood for Puerto Rico: A General Equilibrium Analysis (No. 1998-
    06). JDI Executive Programs.

    9.  Schmitt, R.C. (1977). Historical Statistics of Hawaii. Retrieved
    from: https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/data_reports/Historical-
    Statistics-of-Hawaii.pdf.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. I want to thank the panelists for their
    testimony. Next we will go to questions. Committee Rule 3(d)
    imposes a 5-minute limit on questions and responses. The Chair
    reminds Members that under the Chair's right of recognition
    described in Rule 3(d), the Chair can provide some reasonable
    additional time whenever any Member has a question for Rev.
    Carmen Cabrera to account for an interpreter. Members are
    encouraged to ask all questions in English to avoid
    complications with the interpretation.
        The Chair will now recognize Members for any questions they
    may wish to ask. As I indicated earlier, we will try to do this
    based on seniority. Let me now turn to our colleague, Mr.
    Sablan.
        Mr. Sablan, you are recognized for any questions or
    comments you might have.
        Mr. Sablan. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
    much for holding this hearing. I am going to yield most of my
    time, but just two general questions I would like to ask. Has
    anyone looked into how much Puerto Rico would gain or lose from
    its taxation if they are subjected to the Internal Revenue
    Code?
        And then a question that I need to ask is, there was a
    recent referendum in which statehood was supposed to be
    approved. What was wrong with that, and could somebody
    eventually provide that to me in writing because I need to
    yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velazquez,
    please.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Sablan, for yielding. I would
    like to address my first question to Professor Cox. Is there
    anything in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits Congress from
    entertaining a free association agreement with Puerto Rico
    different from the current agreement and different from
    independence?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. There is no obstacle in the Constitution
    for that. As a matter of fact, under Congress' foreign
    relations powers, Congress has even more authority than when it
    acts domestically because it is not bound by the enumerated
    powers under Article I, Section 8. So, the answer, in short, is
    no.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. And can Puerto Ricans still
    retain their U.S. citizenship under other status options that
    are not statehood?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. The answer is yes, but it needs a bit of
    explanation. There is a wide consensus that unilateral
    revocation of U.S. citizenship to those folks who already have
    U.S. citizenship would run afoul basic constitutional
    principles. The question remains--what happens with the unborn,
    right? And that is a question of first impression that
    obviously the political branches, more specifically Congress,
    must actually answer.
        Ms. Velazquez. OK. Thank you. And this question is
    important.
        Mr. Sablan. Thirty seconds.
        Ms. Velazquez. OK. I yield back.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Ms. Velazquez.
        Ms. Velazquez. And thank you for yielding.
        Mr. Sablan. I would like to yield the remainder of my time,
    which is just about 2 minutes, to the Resident Commissioner of
    Puerto Rico, Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Jenniffer.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you to the Vice Chair of the
    Committee, Mr. Sablan, for yielding time. And I just want to
    thank the witnesses for joining us, particularly the witnesses
    Dr. Ponsa-Kraus from Columbia University and Professor Cordova,
    who teaches on the island at the Inter American University of
    Puerto Rico School of Law.
        Given the Department of Justice has provided the Committee
    its analysis on the constitutionality and legality of both
    bills, I believe their testimony will be particularly valuable.
    Before going through my questions, I would like to introduce
    for the record letters and statements in support of H.R. 1522
    from Representative Maria Mayita Melendez, Roberto Lefranc
    Fortuno, and Elizabeth Torres. Same thing with the National
    Puerto Rican Equality Coalition, Dr. Zayira Jordan, and Mr.
    Juan Camilla.

        [The information follows:]
                     PR ESTADIDAD

            Hon. Raul Grijalva            Hon. Bruce Westerman
            Chairman                      Ranking Member
            House Committee on Natural
            Resources                     House Committee on Natural
                                          Resources

            Hon. Joe Manchin              Hon. John Barrasso
            Chairman                      Ranking Member
            Senate Committee on Energy
            & Natural Resources           Senate Committee on Energy &
                                          Natural Resources

        Dear Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, Chairman Manchin,
    Ranking Member Barrasso:

        As U.S. citizens from Puerto Rico, we are coming together to
    express our support for the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, H.R.
    1522 and S. 780, and to call on Congress to pass this legislation as
    quickly as possible.
        Puerto Ricans have been part of the U.S. for over one hundred and
    twenty years and we have made countless contributions to the betterment
    of American society. During that time the population of Puerto Ricans
    stateside has grown to close to six million. Yet for the three million
    U.S. citizens that remain on the island, we remain disenfranchised in
    federal elections and subjected to unequal treatment in federal laws
    and programs. This reduces economic development, has robbed our poor
    and elderly of lifesaving healthcare, and every day breaks up our
    families and communities as people feel forced to move stateside to
    seek out better opportunities and quality of life for themselves and
    their children.
        Congress must immediately end its inherently colonial territorial
    rule over Puerto Rico, because it violates America's values of
    democracy, equal justice under the law, and government by the consent
    of the governed. Beyond that, it doesn't serve either America or Puerto
    Rico to prolong an outdated, dysfunctional and morally corrupt form of
    government which its own citizens have now rejected on multiple
    occasions.
        On November 3, 2020, an undisputable majority of 53% of Puerto
    Rico's voters demanded change in a locally sponsored referendum calling
    for full democracy and equality through statehood. While some bills in
    Congress, like H.R. 2070 & S. 865, seek to delay, confuse and distract
    from this electoral majority mandate in the name of ``self-
    determination,'' only the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act
    acknowledges and responds to the freely expressed will of the people.
        A majority of voters in Puerto Rico have requested statehood, now
    Congress must respond by officially offering it and allowing voters on
    the island to ratify their choice in a binding vote. To turn around and
    tell voters to go back to the drawing board and re-define multiple
    other options which the majority has rejected three times in the last
    eight years in favor of statehood, would not only be insulting to us,
    but effectively serve as a form of voter suppression. That is simply
    unacceptable and un-American.
        We are natural born U.S. citizens and want an equal seat at the
    table in the federal government that writes and implements the laws
    that we live under. We want our full voting rights as American
    citizens, and would challenge any voting Member of Congress that would
    deny that to us to answer if their constituents would accept the
    second-class citizenship that we are subjected to under territory
    status.
        We are proud to be Puerto Ricans, and also proud to be U.S.
    citizens, and know that there is no law that limits us from being both.
    So, don't let anyone tell you that statehood will somehow diminish our
    cultural pride and heritage. If anything, the economic progress that
    statehood would unleash will allow Puerto Rico to flourish in ways that
    will mutually benefit the Island and the States.
        If you really believe in democracy, justice, government by the
    consent of the governed, you must not hesitate any further or give any
    more excuses. Congress must grant us the equal rights and equal
    responsibilities that we have earned with the blood of our veterans and
    the tears of their mothers, wives, children and families. Pass the
    Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act as soon as possible and together we
    can help make America a more perfect Union.

                Sincerely,
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    There were an additional 250 pages of signatures received for this
    petition. A full listing of all signatures received are part of the
    hearing record and are being retained in the Committee's official
    files.
                                     ______

                               FRENTE ESTADISTA

                                                          June 10, 2021

    Hon. Raul Grijalva, Chairman,
    Natural Resources Committee,
    United States House of Representatives,
    Washington, DC 20510

    Hon. Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member,
    Natural Resources Committee,
    United States House of Representatives,
    Washington, DC 20510

        Dear Chairman and Ranking Member:

        We hereby list, and later debunk, all the arguments put forth on
    the letter dated June 10, 2021 from the ``Frente Puertorriquenista''
    (FP) with the intention to discredit and disavow Puerto Rico's mandate
    for statehood and to promote the bill introduced by Representative
    Nydia Velazquez and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, H.R. 2070,
    under consideration by the Committee of Natural Resources:

      1.  FP's members claim that Puerto Rico's Congressional Delegation
                Special Election deriving from the Commonwealth of Puerto
                Rico's Law 167 of 2020, calling for the election of two (2)
                delegates to the United States Senate and four (4)
                delegates to the United States House of Representatives,
                had low voter turnout with only 3.9% of registered voters.

      2.  FP's members claim that former Governor Ricardo Rossello, of the
                New Progressive Party (NPP), the only pro-statehood party
                in the island, was rejected by the majority of the
                population during the Summer 2019 manifestations in which
                protesters stationed themselves in front of La Fortaleza
                asking for his resignation due to the fact that details of
                a chain of private text messages were revealed to the
                public.

      3.  Finally, FP's members also claim that former Governor Ricardo
                Rossello is under investigation by Puerto Rico's Department
                of Justice regarding a statement submitted to the State
                Elections Commission about his domicile. Their claim is
                that the pending case against the former governor should
                immediately and permanently disqualify him from becoming a
                delegate in the Special Delegation under the terms of Law
                167 of 2020.

        Here, we present our counterarguments in response to the claims in
    the letter submitted by the FP:

        1) Law 167 of 2020 was rejected right from the onset by the parties
    opposing statehood for Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the anti-statehood
    parties hindered the ability of the State Elections Commission at every
    step, most importantly, rejecting agreements for an educational
    campaign as demonstrated by Certification CEE-AC-21-066.\1\ This, along
    with many other actions reflected in the State Elections Commissions'
    records, demonstrate the partisan approach to the enacting of Law 167
    seeking to undermine the special election at every step. Invariably,
    the only party left to make Puerto Rico's mandate for statehood
    effective through this election was the NPP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https : / / ww2.ceepur.org / sites / ComisionEE / es_pr /
    Secretaria /Acuerdos/Campa%C3%B1a%20
    educativa%20elecci%C3%B3n%20especial%20Ley%20para%20crear%201a%20Delegac
    i%C3%B3n %20Congresional%20de%20Puerto%20Rico.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is important to note that anti-statehood parties, namely the
    Popular Democratic Party (PDP), the Citizen's Victory Movement (CVM),
    and the Puertorrican Independentist Party (PIP), all actively promoted
    a No vote in the plebiscite resulting in their defeat and, therefore,
    do not in any way represent the Will of the People as expressed in the
    November 3, 2020 vote for statehood.
        Despite opposition from these minority political factions, Law 167
    of 2020 was enacted, by the will of the people, and by the will of
    democracy evidenced through our voting power. While the anti-statehood
    parties attempted to make a media farce of Law 167 of 2020, their
    attempted media hijacking and repeated attempts at blocking its
    implementation, proved unsuccessful. Voters, once again, honored our
    democracy and elected our delegates. Five of the six elected delegates:
    Elizabeth Torres, Maria (Mayita) Melendez, Roberto Lefranc, Zoraida
    Buxo, and Melinda Romero, completed a lengthy and rigorous process to
    achieve certification for their candidacy to be able to appear in the
    ballot. The requirements included: submitting endorsements signed by
    3,000 citizens, providing tax records for the last ten (10) years,
    submit a sworn and notarized statement about their interest in the
    position, a negative drug test, a certification to attest absence of
    criminal records, certifications various about absence of debts in
    various governmental agencies, and certifications to attest completing
    trainings on ethics and government budget management. Candidates in
    this election completed all these requirements, which go way beyond the
    requirements the House or Senate have, in a matter of six (6) weeks.
    Dr. Rossello's path to candidacy followed a different path because his
    nomination came up as a matter of popular acclaim. He accepted the
    offer to be part of the delegation three days before the electoral
    event and agreed that if elected via ``direct nomination'' he would
    comply with requirements to that effect.
        Claiming a low voter turnout in the Congressional Delegation's
    Special Election is a weak, if not altogether invalid, argument since
    already, and even with the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, the majority
    of our people voted, unequivocally, not only for two representatives of
    the NPP, the only party seeking our admission into the Union, but voted
    in even higher numbers in the plebiscite to express their approval for
    an immediate admission of Puerto Rico as a state of the Union.
        1,289,135 American Citizens in Puerto Rico voted yes or no to
    statehood in the 2020 Plebiscite. 52.52% unequivocally said yes to the
    question about the immediate admission of Puerto Rico into the Union as
    the 51st state of the United States.
        If we were to address the inadmissible claim that low voter turnout
    constitutes in any way an argument for questioning election results, we
    must put this into fair perspective. The Center for American Progress
    states, in an article calling on ways to increase voter participation
    in the United States, that ``[a]lmost 92 million eligible Americans did
    not vote in the 2016 presidential elections. In the 2014 midterm
    elections, an estimated 143 million eligible Americans failed to vote,
    marking the lowest voter participation in 72 years.\2\ ''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/
    07/11/453319/increasing-voter-participation_america/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Furthermore, despite the low voter turnouts in previous elections
    within the United States, the same democratic institutions which we
    resemble in our own model of democracy, the will of the majority of
    those who exercise their right to vote is not disregarded, or their
    votes made void. Democracy owes its stability to the continuation of
    government based on the votes that are cast, not those that are not.

        2) As to the argument that former Governor Ricardo Rossello should
    be placed in controversy sequestering the Will of the People, we only
    wish to present the facts. Roughly 70,000 Puerto Rican voters wrote-in
    Dr. Ricardo Rossello's name on the ballot to elect him as a delegate to
    the House, so that he, along with the other delegates, lobbies in
    Congress for our status to change from that of a territory to that of a
    State. Must those, or any of the votes for the delegates or any other
    elected official, be rendered void and null using any sort of
    questionable reasoning. But, what type of government shall we become if
    we were to ignore and deny the expressed Will of the People?
        As to the events that transpired in the summer of 2019, these are
    easy to misjudge. A supposed ``majority of people'' in our Island rose
    to take down what they deemed untenable leadership. We must then bring
    to bear as evidence the necessary parallels between these and the
    events occurred in Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021. The entire world
    watched on their screens the scenes in which a group of American
    Citizens protested violently to undermine the nature of elections and,
    with it, the nature of democracy. Protesters revolted in loud
    proclamations and violent acts against the decision of the majority of
    American Citizens who voted to, as statutorily set forth by the Federal
    Government, complete the mandate by which the very foundation of the
    United States of America is sustained.
        The majority of American Voters were nowhere near a representation
    of the insurrectionists who attempted to manifest through sheer brute
    force their claims over justice and democracy at the doorsteps of
    Capitol Hill. No matter how loud they screamed, no matter what force of
    violence they utilized, those American Citizens who participated in the
    January 6th insurrection, disregarding the democratic voices of the
    rest of the American people, stand as a seditious mob akin to that on
    Calle Fortaleza in the Summer of 2019. A loud minority of individuals,
    incited by seditious groups benefiting from the unrest, used the
    discontent ripped from many struggles at once to not only protest, but
    to vandalize businesses, homes, and churches, and instigate and commit
    acts of violence against the police. Former Governor Ricardo Rossello
    resigned in good part due to the amount of violence these minorities
    used. He decided to step aside to avoid a tumultuous and violent rising
    of these groups who were keen to overtake La Fortaleza, the Governor's
    residence, which stands as an emblem of our Constitution, and
    Democracy, and Freedom.
        The questionable origins of the events immediately preceding Dr.
    Rossello's resignation seem to have been forgotten by voters who have
    actively sought out his return to office as one of the delegates who
    are to further statehood in the House of the United States Congress.

        3) The investigation of the claims against Dr. Ricardo Rossello is
    currently underway at the Department of Justice headed by General
    Attorney Domingo Emmanuelli. Should the investigation find that Dr.
    Rossello committed a negligible act or acts in pursuit of a position in
    the Delegation under the terms of Law 167 of 2020 or any other law, the
    appropriate authority will advise and enact the due course of action.
    Only fate will decide. As we stand, the matter is in the hands of the
    Puerto Rico Department of Justice and the two attorneys spearheading
    the case. In any case, there are five (5) more delegates that will
    ensure the continuation of efforts to bring about statehood for Puerto
    Rico. They were all elected. They will go on to do their job. Their
    jobs and their role, our mandate and our future, must not be hijacked
    by unsubstantiated accusations nor will it be.

        In conclusion, while the written statements submitted to Congress
    by the FP and co-signed by Carmen Yulin Cruz, Anibal Acevedo Vila and
    Luis Gutierrez among others, seem reasonable, not everything is as it
    appears. At least two of the proponents of FP's arguments, Cruz and
    Acevedo-Vila, belong to the PDP party. The PDP seeks to maintain our
    territorial status adding more benefits brought about by the United
    States. A fallacy. Furthermore, both ran for office in the 2020
    elections and both lost. As you may gather, Cruz and Acevedo-Vila in no
    way represent the will of the majority that rules democracy. Cruz ran
    for Mayor of our Capital city of San Juan, only to lose to Miguel
    Romero from the NPP, again, the candidate from the only pro-statehood
    party. We must further bring forth the evidence that points to Cruz's
    mismanagements during her eight years as Mayor of San Juan which is
    starting to come out as Romero audits the city's vaults. Acevedo-Vila,
    on the other hand, a former governor from the PDP from 2005-2009 who
    also held the office of Resident Commissioner from 2001-2005 had to
    deal with 13 corruption charges brought against him by the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation. The charges were cleared through scapegoating
    as many under his purvue took the fall. All accused but Acevedo were
    found guilty. Additionally, the People of Puerto Rico have not
    forgotten the impeding weight of the taxation he imposed upon us, in
    the form of ``el IVU,'' otherwise referred as to the Sales and Use Tax,
    the amount of 11% of any purchase that a person in Puerto Rico must pay
    when buying an item as well as the irresponsible and outrageous debt
    issued during his incumbency, amongst many other failures. Acevedo
    carries the stigma of being the ultimate statehood blocker. In 1998,
    Acevedo sabotaged a plebiscite to solve the status question by
    promoting a vote for ``None of the above.'' In 2016, he called a
    boycott of another plebiscite to decide on the status question. In
    2020, he asked to burn the statehood yes/no plebiscite ballots. Acevedo
    has wreaked havoc to effectively sabotage efforts that would forever do
    away with his own political agenda and stance for Puerto Rico,
    independence. Knowing well that support for statehood has grown with
    the passage of time and will continue to grow, Acevedo insists on
    turning a blind eye to the People's mandate.
        Both, Cruz and Acevedo, oppose statehood and have sought to
    overturn their own political party's historical stance on status to
    have it embrace the ideology of independence. Both lack objectivity in
    their claims and have claimed in FP's own mission statement that they
    are against Statehood and they will fight to deter it.
        As to former U.S. Representative of Illinois' 4th District Luis
    Gutierrez, in an article written in the Chicago Sun on April 7th of
    this year by columnist Mark Brown, Gutierrez openly stated, ``What got
    me into politics was the fight for the independence of Puerto Rico.''
    Further, the Committee should also be reminded that, during his time in
    the House, Gutierrez was investigated in 2017 after having been
    arrested during a protest outside of the White House. After paying a
    fine for his misconduct, the House Committee on Ethics recommended no
    further action. In 2013, Gutierrez was investigated for using funds
    from his Member's Representational Allowance from 2003-2013 for an
    unauthorized purpose--to retain an individual to provide services to
    his congressional office that more closely resembled those provided by
    an employee or consultant, rather than a contractor. In March 2018, the
    House Committee on Ethics reproved Gutierrez for using his Member
    Representational Allowance inappropriately, albeit possibly
    unwittingly, and ordered him to reimburse the US Treasury for that use.
    On November 28, 2017, Representative Gutierrez announced he would not
    seek reelection. He moved to Puerto Rico to campaign for the No in the
    plebiscite and push to pro-independence propaganda for a year. This
    year he moved back to Chicago.
        ``Do not cast a stone if you yourself are not free of sin,'' warned
    Jesus to the mob. These FP members have casted big stones they
    themselves should not, in good faith, even hold in their hands.
        We must finalize by addressing the matter of HR2070's alleged
    benevolence in seeking Puerto Rico's self-determination while, in fact,
    doing the complete opposite: standing as pure election denialism. The
    arguments in defense of HR2070, the legislation introduced by
    Representatives Velazquez and Ocasio-Cortez, are corrupted in their
    efforts to sound democratic. While the arguments claim to pursue
    inclusion of all the political factions now represented throughout our
    Island, it denies the fact that all political factions participated and
    even campaigned during the time prior to the statehood plebiscite. The
    result is clear. The No was defeated. And HR2070 is none other than an
    attempt at ignoring the People's Will and blocking the passage of
    HR1522 and the process of democracy. No doubt, HR2070s authors have
    devised a form of procedural filibuster, in the sense that they seek to
    prolong a never-ending rhetoric of manipulative political inclusion in
    order to obstruct progress and justice for the People of Puerto Rico.
        Democracy is clear, when the majority votes, such is the rule of
    law that it requires that the minority of any political faction or any
    minority political opinions, no matter how desirous they are for power,
    should concede and abide by the Will of the People, and even assist
    that majority in drawing the plans for a shared future. All, in good
    faith, for the well-being, freedom, safety, and security of the People.
        We voted. We decided. More than 600,000 US citizens in Puerto Rico
    expressed their unequivocal will by answering Yes to the question of
    statehood. Our mandate must not only be heard, it must be respected and
    it must be swiftly acted on. Such is the rule of the law. Such is the
    basis of our democracy. Where the majority elects and sits leaders and
    determines the direction of our future. Our democracy protects our
    votes. Our votes protect our democracy. We rest our case.

                Respectfully,

                                           Zayira Jordan-Conde,
                                                                Founder

                                     ______

         Domestic and International Legal Advice, LLC
                                   c/o Gregorio Igartua
                                                  Aguadilla, PR

                                                          June 11, 2021

    Hon. Raul Grijalva
    House Committee on Natural Resources
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR COMMITTEE ON PUERTO RICO'S TERRITORIAL
            STATUS--P.R. SELF DETERMINATION ACT, STATEHOOD ADMISSION ACT

        Dear Chairman Grijalva:

        I was born in Puerto Rico, U.S.A., and, I am an American citizen
    resident of Puerto Rico. I am sending this written testimony in
    opposition to the proposed ``Self Determination Act'', which is not
    constitutionally viable, and to support the Puerto Rico Statehood
    Admission Act. It is the only political alternative that fits in the
    U.S. Constitutional Framework, and it is 122 years overdue.
        As you know, Puerto Rico has been a part of the United States since
    1898. For 122 years we have been under the U.S. Government
    discriminatory practice of being denied the right to vote in Federal
    Elections, and of government without the consent of the governed (3.4
    million American Citizens by birth). We are also subject to unequal
    treatment in economic policies implemented by Congress for the states,
    which have moved Puerto Rico into bankruptcy. Moreover, for some cases
    the Federal Courts apply the U.S. Constitution, and not for others.
    (Consider, for example: the stance of the US DOJ in US v. Vaello, USSC
    #20-303, now before the Court, opposing equal protection treatment for
    Puerto Rico in the SSSI benefits; versus, President's Biden support for
    applicability of the SSSI; versus, the USDOJ stance in the case of US v
    PR Police Dept., 922-FS 2nd 185 (2013), requiring Puerto Rico, under a
    penalty payment of 100 million dollars, to train police to secure U.S.
    equal protection and due process rights. Such are the constitutional
    contradictions the Congress is allowing for legal and economic
    treatment for 3.3 million American Citizens. (See San Juan Star Article
    enclosed). Ironically, we pay more than $3 billion dollars a year in
    federal taxes, more than some states and many state regions. (IRS
    Highlights 2020). Moreover, Congress grants annually billions of
    dollars to foreign countries, and can also implement federal taxes in
    Puerto Rico as to the states, at will.
        The Committee of Natural Resources you preside, has expressed
    interest in pursuing Congressional action in the issue of the political
    status of Puerto Rico. I suggest that you consider as the most viable
    alternative that Puerto Rico be certified as an incorporated territory
    first, which de facto it is. Notwithstanding incorporation is not
    permanent, therefore Congress should simultaneously resolved to move
    Puerto Rico in transit to statehood at a definite date. Certification
    of Incorporation would make the U.S. Constitution fully applicable, and
    would give us parity with federal funds as if Puerto Rico were a state.
    We qualify for incorporation by having been assimilated more than any
    other U.S. Territory before becoming a state. Although there may be
    conflicting views of what is the political relation of Puerto Rico to
    the United States, due to the reality that we are still not a state,
    Congress has assimilated us gradually since 1898 into a federalist
    relation to be like a de facto incorporated territory. (See: G.
    Igartua, The ``de facto'' Incorporated Territory U.S. of Puerto Rico. A
    copy of the Book was mailed to you a few months ago, and one was mailed
    to the Committee).
        I respectfully suggest that you consider proposing to Congress to
    declare Puerto Rico officially an Incorporated Territory of the United
    States in transit to statehood. (See Petition enclosed--Annex A). It is
    the only political alternative that fits into the U.S. Constitutional
    framework, it is 122 years overdue. Rather than holding more hearings
    on what we could hypothetically be, which is discriminatory, our
    political and civil rights must be recognized by Congress based on what
    we are, 3.4 American citizens by birth residents of a de facto
    incorporated territory. Incorporation was recently supported
    unanimously by the National Association of U.S. Mayors. (Annex B). (See
    also, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Rullan, 586 FS 2nd 22 (2008)).
        No one in Puerto Rico wants independence, nor continue to be
    confused with political status alternatives which do not fit within the
    U.S. constitutional framework. No one in Puerto Rico wants to renounce
    their American Citizenship. A Republic of American citizens would be a
    matter of national security concern. (3.3 million residing in Puerto
    Rico, 5 million residing in states). Many are confused by the daily
    practice of uncertainty brought by the questioning about what our
    rights are as American citizens, or could be. Consider within this
    context the ``Puerto Rico Self Determination Act'' proposed for
    American citizens after 122 years under our American flag. Were
    African-Americans subjected, or should be subjected, to hearings on
    whether they would like to be slaves again, or be moved to a Country in
    Africa? Should Mexican-Americans be asked whether they would like to
    renounce their American Citizenship to Mexican and be moved back to
    Mexico, or should their American citizenship status be questioned, as
    your Committee is doing with us in Puerto Rico in 2021? Insulting to
    the American citizens of Puerto Rico to be forced to participate in a
    plebiscite on whether these vote for independence, not for equality as
    American citizens.
        Consider as constitutionally viable only to start holding hearings
    on how the American Citizens residents of Puerto Rico can have equal
    rights and government by the consent of the governed. (U.S.
    Constitution Amendments XIV and XV). Congressman Grijalva, statehood
    for you, for Congresswomen Velazquez and Ocasio, for all the members of
    your Committee, for all Congressmen, and statehood for us the American
    citizens residents of Puerto Rico. Time is of the essence.
        I respectfully request to be allowed to participate in the June 16,
    2021, hearing your Committee has scheduled on this subject, and in
    support of our American Citizenship rights.

                Sincerely yours,

                                               Gregorio Igartua

                                     *****
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     *****

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                                          June 16, 2021

    Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chairman,
    House Committee on Natural Resources,
    1324 Longworth House Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515

    Hon. Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member,
    House Committee on Natural Resources,
    1324 Longworth House Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: COMMITTEE HEARING ON PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS BILLS H.R. 1522
            AND H.R. 2070

        Dear Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee:

        I write to you in support of H.R. 1522: the Puerto Rico Statehood
    Admission Act, and to speak against H.R. 2070, the Puerto Rico Self-
    Determination Act of 2021.
        My reasons to support H.R. 1522 are simple: respecting the will of
    American citizens, enfranchising 3.3 million Americans not adequately
    represented in their government, and provide them with full
    constitutional protections and equal protection of laws.
        In pursuance to solving the century-old ``political status''
    question, Puerto Rico has held six plebiscites. The November 2020
    plebiscite was different from previous ones. Together with the general
    elections, the ballot asked a straightforward question modeling the
    same proposition Alaska and Hawaii used in their plebiscites before
    being admitted as states: Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately
    into the Union as a State? Yes or No. With 53% of the votes, YES to
    Statehood won. It received substantially more votes than any political
    party or candidate, including the pro-statehood party and for the
    offices of Governor and Resident Commissioner. Statehood won in every
    senatorial district on the island and in 33 of 40 representative
    districts. Notwithstanding, in the seven districts where the No option
    won, Yes to statehood obtained more votes than the candidate who was
    elected. It was also the first time when every political faction,
    party, or group assumed a clear position on the options.

        The last plebiscite showed three things:

      1.  Support for statehood supersedes partisan politics. It is a
                multipartisan, multi-ideological movement composed of
                people from all around the island and backgrounds.

      2.  Puerto Ricans can differentiate between partisan politics and
                political status. Although the pro-status quo party won the
                majority in the local legislature, it does not erase and
                must not ignore that in the same elections statehood won.

      3.  Confirmed a trend that previous plebiscites had shown. Support
                for the Commonwealth option was declining and ultimately
                rejected, and support for statehood increased until it
                finally won as the preferred alternative.

        To uphold the will of Americans in the last plebiscite,
    Congresswoman Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon (R-PR), alongside Rep. Darren
    Soto (D-FL), file H.R. 1522 to provide for the admission of the State
    of Puerto Rico. It currently has 68 co-sponsors: 17 Republicans and 51
    Democrats.

        The filing and cosponsorship of the bill right away tell three
    facts that speak for themselves:

      1.  It was introduced by Puerto Rico's elected representative in
                Congress, not by other members representing other districts
                that Americans on the island did not vote for.

      2.  It shows that admitting Puerto Rico as a state is a bipartisan
                effort representing a movement that, just as in the island,
                is diverse and encompasses people from all sides of the
                political spectrum.

      3.  The bill is cosponsored by two members who hold leadership
                positions in the House: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and
                Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik.

        By contrast, H.R. 2070 has only Democratic support with no House
    leadership involved, and the representative elected by Puerto Rico
    strongly opposes the bill. The Self-Determination Act is a flawed and
    contradictory bill.

      1.  Sec. 3(a) of the bill establishes that the legislature of Puerto
                Rico has the ``inherent authority to call a status
                convention.'' However, it ignores that by that same
                authority Puerto Rico's duly elected politicians have
                called for referendums, and they must be given deference in
                their actions. H.R. 1522 recognizes the Puerto Rico
                legislature's inherent authority to call for referendums
                and acts on the people's choice.

      2.  The bill says it recognizes Puerto Rico's ``natural right to
                self-determination.'' It is interesting that while it
                acknowledges that we have that right, H.R. 2070 completely
                ignores the times when Puerto Ricans themselves have
                exercised it. H.R. 1522 takes the self-determination option
                Puerto Rico voted for and provides a ratifying vote.

      3.  Sec. 3(a)(2)(1) states that delegates to the convention shall
                draft options for Puerto Rico ``outside the Territorial
                Clause'' of the U.S. Constitution. That language creates
                the fantasy of multiple options when there are only two:
                statehood and independence. A compact of free association,
                which is not guaranteed, would be after achieving
                independence.

      4.  H.R. 2070 is not time bounded. It does not specify the length of
                the convention, terms on when and how Congress or the
                Puerto Rico legislature may act, and no limits at all. The
                bill is time-open until who knows when the delegates would
                draft the options, hold a referendum, and sent it to
                Congress. H.R. 1522 is time-specific, sets due dates the
                President and the Government of Puerto Rico must act.

      5.  The bill complicates the political status issue with unfamiliar
                voting formats with the intention to delude the will of the
                people. In addition, the voting options are prone to
                confusion. Sec. 5(a)(C) establishes that there could be
                ``more than one choice with the same self-determination
                definition'' but with different transition plans. H.R. 2070
                proposed referendum suffers from the same inconsistencies
                some people have complained about in local plebiscites. On
                the other hand, H.R. 1522 is clear and will ask the people
                if they agree with the terms prescribed by Congress and it
                also details the transition from territory to state.

      6.  Finally, this bill tries to bind Congress to the results of the
                self-determination referendum. The legislative branch has
                absolute sovereignty in its legislative power; it cannot
                force itself to legislate one way or the other except by
                the limitations outlined in the Constitution because its
                sovereign power over legislative matters is complete. Much
                less could bind futures Congresses. By contrast, H.R. 1522
                binds the Executive, a legitimate exercise of congressional
                authority via a statutory requirement to the President to
                formally proclaim, once the bill is passed and the
                admission act is ratified, Puerto Rico as a State of the
                Union.

        In summary, H.R. 1522 is the bill that respects the will of
    Americans who voted for statehood. It has specific provisions regarding
    the admission of Puerto Rico into the Union, has support that is both
    bipartisan and reaching all sides of the political spectrum, and lets
    the people vote again to ratify the Admission Act. Anti-statehood
    opponents and skeptics say that the results of the 2020 plebiscite are
    not enough. I would like to remind them that 53% is the absolute
    majority of the electorate; that with lesser margins laws are passed,
    judicial and executive appointments are confirmed, and politicians,
    including presidents, are elected, shaping forever the future of the
    country. That is called living in a democracy.

        Justice John Marshall Harlan said:

            ``The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere
            upon the earth . . . the people inhabiting them to enjoy only
            such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them is wholly
            inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well as with the
            words, of the Constitution . . . I cannot grasp the thought
            that Congress, which lives and moves and has its being in the
            Constitution, and is consequently the mere creature of that
            instrument, can at its pleasure legislate or exclude its
            creator from territories which were acquired only by authority
            of the Constitution'' Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
            (Harlan, dissenting).

        Justice Harlan was known as the Great Dissenter for his dissenting
    opinions in cases that restricted civil rights. Dissenting in Plessy v.
    Ferguson, he stated that the Constitution is colorblind and that all
    citizens should have equal access to civil rights. In 1954, he was
    vindicated in Brown v. Board of Education. It is up to you, members of
    the Committee, to vindicate once again a Justice who stood in the right
    side of history.
        Statehood means complete protection of the U.S. Constitution to
    more than 3 million Americans in Puerto Rico who somehow, only for
    living on the island, lose equal protection in many laws. Statehood is
    self-governance and upholding the ideals and values the United States
    was founded, and for which thousands of Puerto Ricans have fought and
    died defending freedom and democracy. It is equal justice under the
    law; it is ``securing the blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our
    posterity.''

                Respectfully,

                                            Juan C. Ruiz Pinzon

                                     ______

                                                          June 16, 2021

    Hon. Raul Grijalva, Chairman,
    House Committee on Natural Resources

    Hon. Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member,
    House Committee on Natural Resources

        Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member:

        The purpose of this letter is to urge you to act upon Puerto Rico's
    current colonial and/or territorial status. It is mind boggling to me
    and many of my Puerto Rican brothers and sisters that the land of the
    free, has held a colony hostage for 113 years.
        Over a quarter million Puerto Rican soldiers have defended our
    great nation: 18,000 in WWI, 65,000 in WWII, 61,000 in the Korean War,
    48,000 in the Vietnam War, 48,000 in the Gulf War and Iraqi Freedom,
    and 39,000 active, reserve and National Guard members; yet the home of
    the brave, regrettably, is not home to my Puerto Rican brothers and
    sisters who have bravely defended our great nation, but cannot vote to
    elect their Commander in Chief, nor have full representation in
    Congress. We have earned statehood with the blood of the Puerto Rican
    brothers and sisters who have proudly defended our nation.
        It is unacceptable that Congress has historically chosen to ignore
    the express will of the American citizens living in Puerto Rico. I do
    not need to state Puerto Rico's history, as you are well aware of our
    colonial status, and how that status has kept us from fully enjoying
    the privileges of American citizenship. The question before you today
    is whether you choose to act to change that. Puerto Rico and its people
    certainly are.
        Puerto Rico already acts like a state; we have US currency, we
    already pay federal taxes like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,
    we speak both English and Spanish and our government has the same
    structure as other state governments. That notwithstanding, we are not
    recognized the same the same rights as citizens who live in the other
    50 states.
        By supporting HR 2070 by Congresswomen Velazquez and Ocasio Cortez
    you will be doing the complete opposite. You would impose a course of
    action by Congress that ignores the will of Puerto Ricans who already
    voted in favor of statehood. That would be the utmost expression of
    Colonialism and contrary to what the United States of America stands
    for. Therefore, I strongly urge the Members of Congress to support HR
    1522 introduced by Congressman Darren Soto and Puerto Rico's lawfully
    elected official Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez. This is the
    only bill that respects the will of the 655,505 American citizens
    living in Puerto Rico, 53% whom voted yes to statehood.
        You have the privilege and opportunity today to take a step in the
    right direction. I strongly urge you to be in the right side of
    history. Support statehood for Puerto Rico. As American citizens, we
    deserve no less than our mainland brothers and sisters.

                Cordially,

                                       Roberto Lefranc Fortuno,
                                US Representative (Shadow), Puerto Rico

                                     ______

                            Statement for the Record
                                 Maria Melendez

        Good afternoon (morning). Thank you to the Committee leadership for
    convening this hearing and for the opportunity to speak in support of
    H.R. 1522. This hearing is an essential step in the desegregation of
    the American citizens of Puerto Rico and the full recognition of our
    rights as American citizens.
        As a former three-term mayor of the city of Ponce, current shadow
    representative, and a lifelong resident of the Island, I can attest to
    the dire effects the current territorial status has had on our economy,
    our institutions, and our people. For the past two decades we have
    experienced an unprecedented demographic crisis. Almost twenty-five
    percent (25%) of our fellow citizens have had to move from the Island
    to the States fragmenting our families and distressing our
    socioeconomic fabric. Unequal treatment and lack of political
    participation at the federal level have placed us in a subordinate
    position, a state of structural disadvantage with dire implications. We
    are not talking about purely theoretical or philosophical concepts but
    about realities that we face daily.
        Effective political participation, and thus fundamental civil
    rights, requires the right to participate in all these public affairs
    that impact us. The interrelation between effective political
    participation and social and economic development does not arise
    exclusively from our experience. Instead, it constitutes a principle
    recognized in multiple international instruments, including the Inter-
    American Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States,
    which provides in its preamble that: ``. . . economic growth and social
    development based on justice and equity and democracy are
    interdependent and mutually reinforcing.'' This is why we cannot
    isolate Puerto Rico's problems from the status discussion; they are
    intricately connected.
        The perils of our political condition have become more visible and
    critical at a time when even the exercise of the most elementary rights
    and political prerogatives at the state level are subject to review by
    a federally appointed financial oversight board. The coexistence of
    what in essence, constitute two parallel governments has weakened
    public confidence in their institutions. There is an urgent need for
    fundamental changes! This demand is not mine, but of the American
    citizens of the Island that have acknowledged the harmful effects of
    this deprivation and have rejected the current status in free and
    democratic elections.
        During my frequent visits after the devastation caused by Hurricane
    Maria, most members of this honorable Congress privately confessed that
    one of the biggest problems facing the Island was the lack of complete
    and permanent presence at the federal level. However, some of these
    same distinguished representatives are the first to disparage our
    claims publicly and distort our reality.
        Let us be clear! On election day, November 3, 2020, the American
    citizens of Puerto Rico reiterated the public expression on multiple
    previous electoral events: We demand change, and we demand statehood!
        Procedural arguments cannot be used as a subterfuge to impose the
    individual will over the collective will or extend this discussion
    indefinitely in the hope that the public's decision would be different
    in the future. If these same arguments were deemed valid and applied to
    the elections of most federal elected officials, their legitimacy would
    be questionable.
        It is because of this legitimate demand by the American citizens on
    the Island that I urge all members of this Committee to recommend the
    approval of H.R. 1522.
        This bill is the only one that takes into consideration the
    expression of the people of Puerto Rico. The form, structure, and
    forcefulness of that vote can hardly be questioned. Voting for
    statehood on a simple and direct question is a mandate for all public
    officials. Precisely, the bill presented makes the execution of said
    mandate feasible through a process similar to that followed by other
    territories that were admitted as states, including the holding of a
    ratifying vote and other transitory processes. Furthermore, this
    project brings with it the legitimacy of the direct vote of the people
    and the support of the public official who obtained the most votes on
    the Island.
        The obligation to solve this century-old issue is reciprocal. We
    must close the gap between the American citizens who live in Puerto
    Rico and those who live on the continent. We are not requesting special
    considerations or exceptions; we are only asking for fair, equitable,
    and dignified treatment. We should not be required to abandon our
    families and our communities to reap the benefits of citizenship. There
    are no persuasive or logical arguments to support our continued
    treatment as second-class citizens. It is impossible to talk about
    effective governance without access to the rights that serve as a
    precondition to its exercise. It is impossible to address the issue of
    individual rights without simultaneously addressing the collective
    structural problem. Governance and legitimacy require that citizens
    feel that their claims are being heard, that their aspirations are part
    of the conversation, that democracy is not a mirage.

                                     ______

                NAPREC--National Puerto Rican Equality Coalition
             Frequently Asked Questions--Statehood for Puerto Rico

    1.  Was November 3, 2020, the first time that voters in Puerto Rico
    were asked about their political status?

            No. The U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico have been asked the
            question regarding the island's status three times in the last
            decade, with different language, and each time ``statehood''
            has gained the majority of support.

    2.  What was the voter turnout and results of November 3, 2020 general
    election plebiscite in Puerto Rico?

            With a 54.72% participation rate, the final certified results
            of the plebiscite were 655,505 votes (52.52%) ``Yes'' and
            592,671 votes (47.48%) ``No,'' on whether Puerto Rico should
            join the Union as a state.

    3. What was the question presented to voters?

            The plebiscite question derived by the elected representatives
            of Puerto Rico to voters was ``[s]hould Puerto Rico be admitted
            immediately into the Union as a State? Yes or No.''

    4.  Didn't the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) deny Puerto Rico the
    disbursement of $2.5 million to resolve the island's future political
    status?

            While the DOJ denied the disbursements of the $2.5 million, the
            DOJ's own disregard of congressional guidelines as to
            acceptable ballot materials and failure to meet congressional
            deadlines led to the inability to disburse funds prior to the
            plebiscite.

              a.   House Report 116-101 (H. Rprt. 116-101) was enacted with
            the signing of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L.
            116-93), on December 20, 2019.

              b.   DOJ was required within 45 days of enactment of P.L.
            116-93 ``to provide the Committee, as well as the Puerto Rico
            State Elections Commission, with a report regarding the
            acceptable versions of voter education materials, plebiscite
            ballot formats, and related materials that would allow the
            Department to obligate this funding for a future plebiscite''
            and to ``expeditiously act upon any request for this funding.''
            \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ House Report 116-101, Commerce Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2020, https://www.congress.gov/
    congressional-report/116th-congress/house-report/101/1?q=%7B%
    22search%22%3A%5B%22House+Report+116-101%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1.

              c.   DOJ disregarded directives to provide acceptable
            plebiscite materials by the congressional deadlines to the
            required parties, which caused the delayed and limited
            timeframe for review. In April 2020, DOJ did publish the
            delayed report but with very limited guidance.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ U.S. Department of Justice, Report Submitted to the House and
    Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Puerto Rico State Elections
    Commission as requested by House Report 116-101 accompanying the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020.

              d.   Additionally, DOJ demanded that all the status options
            be included on the ballot, in violation of the directives in H.
            Rprt. 116-101 which directed that ``[t]he current territorial/
            Commonwealth status should be excluded from any future
            plebiscite, since it fails to address key inequities.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ House Report 116-101, Commerce Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2020, https://www.congress.gov/
    congressional-report/116th-congress/house-report/101/1?q=%7B%
    22search%22%3A%5B%22House+Report+116-101%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1.

    5.  Since the DOJ did not disburse the funds does that mean the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    plebiscite was illegitimate?

            NO, any controversy about the language of the question was
            resolved prior to the plebiscite by the Supreme Court of Puerto
            Rico (``PRSC'').

              a.   On October 5, 2020, the PRSC upheld the
            constitutionality of the November 3, 2020 plebiscite,
            determining that it was a constitutionally valid exercise of
            self-determination and that those who contend the plebiscite is
            not neutral or is discriminatory fail to notice the legal
            effects of the 2012 and 2017 plebiscites.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Aponte-Rosario, et al., v. President EEC, et al., 2020 PRSC 119
    (P.R. 2020).

              b.   Additionally, the PRSC held that there has never been a
            single or standard process for admission as a state, and the
            denial by the DOJ was inconsequential since holding the
            plebiscite only depends on the will of the territory, not on
            congressional authorization.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Id.

    6.  What are the federal legislative proposals to resolve Puerto Rico's
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    political status?

            In the 117th Congress the legislative proposals introduced to
            address Puerto Rico's status are as follows:

              a.   H.R. 1522 and S. 780, Puerto Rico Statehood Admission
            Act, introduced by Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL-09), Resident
            Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon (R-PR At Large), and
            Senator Martin Heinrich (D-AZ).

              b.   H.R. 2070 and S. 865, Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act
            of 2021, by Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY-07) and Senator Robert
            Menendez (D-NJ).

    7. What are the main differences between the legislative proposals?

              a.   H.R. 1522 and S. 780 respect the will of voters in
            Puerto Rico, by mandating a binding ratification vote on the
            statehood ``Yes'' or ``No'' question previously presented to
            Puerto Rican voters and establishes the terms of admission as a
            state into the Union within 12 months if ``statehood'' is
            ratified.

              b.   H.R. 2070 and S. 865 reject and silence the will of
            voters in Puerto Rico, by disregarding the electoral results
            and forcing the Legislature of Puerto Rico to establish a non-
            binding status convention composed of newly elected local
            delegates, supervised by a federal negotiating commission, to
            present a potential multitude of status options to voters with
            no certainty or guarantee that its proposed status option will
            be accepted by Congress.

    8.  Why are H.R. 1522 and S. 780 binding, while H.R. 2070 and S. 865
    are non-binding?

              a.   H.R. 1522 and S. 780 are binding because the legislation
            is self-executing following the direct ratification vote of
            Puerto Ricans on the island. If statehood is chosen again by
            the people of Puerto Rico, the President of the United States
            merely needs to execute the law and proclaim Puerto Rico as a
            state after 12 months.

              b.   H.R. 2070 and S. 865 are non-binding because the
            legislation fails to establish clear timelines for choosing the
            self-determination option and when a referendum will take
            place. Also, they are non-binding since no convention can
            impose a status option upon Congress or mandate the automatic
            adoption of an unknown future resolution.

    9.  Puerto Rico just held a special election to choose a ``Shadow
    Puerto Rico Congressional Delegation.'' What is the purpose, make-up,
    and term of this delegation?

              a.   On May 16, 2021, Puerto Rico held a special election to
            choose the Puerto Rico Congressional Delegation
            (``Delegation''), entrusted with the duty to demand Congress
            honor the results of the November 3, 2020 plebiscite and admit
            Puerto Rico as a state.

              b.   The Delegation includes two special delegates to the
            United States Senate and four special delegates to the United
            States House of Representatives.

              c.   The term of the Delegation from is July 1, 2021 to
            December 31, 2024.

    10.  Opponents of statehood claim that the low voter turnout for the
    special election of the Delegation invalidates the vote in November. Is
    this correct?

              a.   No. In the United States we have general elections and
            special elections with varying levels of voter turnout, and yet
            we do not disregard those results.

              b.   Elections are decided by ballots and votes cast, not by
            those who fail to vote on an issue.

              c.   In a time when we are protecting the right to vote and
            the integrity of our elections, we must not reverse or
            disregard the definitive will of U.S. citizens legally voting
            to choose their future political status.

                                     ______

                NAPREC--National Puerto Rican Equality Coalition
    Support and Cosponsor H.R. 1522/S. 780: Puerto Rico Statehood Admission
                                      Act

    Historical Background
        Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States by Spain at the end of
    the Spanish-American War in 1898. On April 12, 1900, the Foraker Act
    (P.L. 56-191) established the first form of civil administration of
    local government affairs in Puerto Rico. The Foraker Act also
    established the position of Resident Commissioner to represent the
    island in Congress. In 1917, through the Jones-Shafroth Act (P.L. 64-
    368), Congress extended U.S. citizenship by statute to the residents of
    Puerto Rico and granted further local self-government. In 1952, the
    Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act (P.L. 81-600) granted Puerto Rico
    authority over matters of internal governance when Congress approved
    the island's Constitution. Puerto Rico has since been known formally as
    the ``Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,'' but the island is still a
    possession of the United States under the Territorial Clause, Article
    4, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
        Since the first World War, Puerto Ricans have fought in every
    military conflict of the United States. From the honorable service of
    the Army's 65th Infantry regiment to present day, Puerto Rican service
    members continue to defend and protect our country honorably. However,
    these veterans and the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico have no voting
    representation in Congress and cannot vote for their Commander in
    Chief. To end this inequality, we urge you to cosponsor and support
    H.R. 1522/S. 780, Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act.
    Facts:

         In the last decade, the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico have
                held three separate plebiscites to resolve their political
                status, and each time the majority of voters chose
                statehood.

         On November 3, 2020, Puerto Rico held the general election
                plebiscite on ``[s]hould Puerto Rico be admitted
                immediately into the Union as a State? Yes or No.''

                 --  Prior to the plebiscite the Supreme Court of Puerto
            Rico held that the question and the plebiscite to be a
            legitimate and constitutionally valid exercise of self-
            determination.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Aponte-Rosario, et al., v. President EEC, et al., 2020 PRSC 119
    (P.R. 2020).

         With a 54.72% participation rate, the final certified
                results of the plebiscite were 655,505 votes (52.52%)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                ``Yes'' and 592,671 votes (47.48%) ``No.''

         In the 117th Congress the legislative proposals to address
                Puerto Rico's status are as follows:

                 --  H.R. 1522 and S. 780, Puerto Rico Statehood Admission
            Act, introduced by Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL-09), Resident
            Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon (R-PR At Large), and
            Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM)

                 --  H.R. 2070 and S. 865, Puerto Rico Self-Determination
            Act of 2021, by Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY-07) and Senator
            Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

         H.R. 1522 and S. 780 respect the will of voters and would
                mandate a binding ratification vote on the statehood
                ``Yes'' or ``No'' question previously presented to Puerto
                Rican voters and establishes the terms of admission as a
                state into the Union within 12 months if ``statehood'' is
                ratified.

         H.R. 2070 and S. 865 reject voters by calling for a non-
                binding status convention composed of newly elected local
                delegates, supervised by a federal negotiating commission,
                to present a potential multitude of status options to
                voters with no certainty or guarantee that its proposed
                status option will be accepted by Congress.

                                     ______

                        NAPREC                        PRSC
            National Puerto Rican
            Equality Coalition            Puerto Rico Statehood Council

                                                      June 14, 2021

            Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
            Chairman                      Hon. Bruce Westerman, Ranking
                                          Member
            Committee on Natural
            Resources                     Committee on Natural Resources
            1324 Longworth Office
            Building                      1324 Longworth Office Building
            Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman:

        We write to express our support for the bipartisan proposal H.R.
    1522, Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, introduced by Congressman
    Darren Soto (D-FL-09) and Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez-
    Colon (R-PR At Large), which respects the will of U.S. citizens
    residing in Puerto Rico about their future political status. On
    November 3, 2020, a majority of Puerto Ricans residing on the island
    determined their future status and voted for equality through
    statehood. Now that a majority of Puerto Ricans have definitively
    spoken, the most appropriate response for Congress is to act on their
    will and extend a formal offer of admission through the enactment of
    H.R. 1522.
        With a participation rate of 54.72 percent, the results of the
    November plebiscite were 52.52 percent (655,505 votes) ``Yes'' and
    47.48 percent (592,671 votes) ``No,'' on whether the island should be
    admitted as a state.\1\ The plebiscite question presented by the local
    elected representatives of Puerto Rico to voters was ``[s]hould Puerto
    Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State? Yes or No.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Puerto Rico State Elections Commission, Plebiscite Results,
    https://elecciones2020.ceepur.org/Escrutinio_General_93/index.html#es/
    default/PLEBISCITO_Resumen.xml (Last visited June 9, 2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Not surprisingly, many of the same opponents of statehood that
    actively campaigned for the ``No'' option and lost at the ballot box,
    now try to argue that Congress should ignore the plebiscite results.
    Yet, the various reasons they provide are all easily refutable.
    Plebiscite Valid Despite Failure of DOJ to Approve $2.5 million
            Appropriation
        One common argument is that the U.S. Department of Justice
    (``DOJ'') decided not to disburse $2.5 million in federal funds
    previously allocated by Congress for Puerto Rico to carry out a
    plebiscite to resolve its future political status when the Government
    of Puerto Rico requested such funds before the November 2020 vote. This
    argument ignores that DOJ itself disregarded congressional guidelines
    to provide the Government of Puerto Rico examples of acceptable ballot
    formats and materials. The DOJ also failed to meet congressional
    deadlines and then used the excuse of insufficient time as
    justification for their failure to disburse funds prior to the
    plebiscite.
        Congressional guidance was provided to the DOJ in House Report 116-
    101 (H. Rprt. 116-101) with the enactment of the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-93), on December 20, 2019. DOJ was
    required within 45 days of enactment ``to provide the Committee, as
    well as the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission, with a report
    regarding the acceptable versions of voter education materials,
    plebiscite ballot formats, and related materials that would allow the
    Department to obligate this funding for a future plebiscite'' and to
    ``expeditiously act upon any request for this funding.'' \2\ However,
    DOJ delayed the publication of the report until April 2020, and the
    report itself provided very limited guidance.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ House Report 116-101, Commerce Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2020, https://www.congress.gov/
    congressional-report/116th-congress/house-report/101/1?q=%7B%
    22search%22%3A%5B%22House+Report+116-101%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1.
        \3\ U.S. Department of Justice, Report Submitted to the House and
    Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Puerto Rico State Elections
    Commission as requested by House Report 116-101 accompanying the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DOJ also demanded that all the status options be included on the
    ballot, in violation of the directives in H. Rprt. 116-101 which
    directed that ``[t]he current territorial/Commonwealth status should be
    excluded from any future plebiscite, since it fails to address key
    inequities.'' \4\ DOJ's indication that the current territory option
    was excluded failed to take into account that a ``No'' vote would
    effectively mean the continuation of the current territory status.
    Additionally, DOJ argued that the use of the word ``immediately'' in
    the question would somehow bias voters in favor of statehood without
    recognizing that the Government of Puerto Rico is fully within its
    right to ask island voters if their possible desire for statehood
    admission is something immediate or not.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ House Report 116-101, Commerce Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2020, https://www.congress.gov/
    congressional-report/116th-congress/house-report/101/1?q=%7B%
    22search%22%3A%5B%22House+Report+116-101%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Statehood ``Yes'' or ``No'' is a Valid Exercise of Self-Determination
        Another line of argument by statehood opponents is that somehow the
    statehood ``Yes'' or ``No'' question posed in the 2020 plebiscite,
    which would be repeated as a ratification vote in H.R. 1522, was not a
    legitimate exercise of self-determination. However, they ignore that
    this controversy was resolved prior to the plebiscite by the Supreme
    Court of Puerto Rico (``PRSC''). On October 5, 2020, the PRSC upheld
    the constitutionality of the November 3, 2020 plebiscite, determining
    that it was a constitutionally valid exercise of self-determination and
    that those who contend the plebiscite is not neutral or is
    discriminatory fail to account for the results of the 2012 and 2017
    plebiscites where the other valid status options were presented.\5\
    Additionally, the PRSC held that there has never been a single or
    standard process for admission as a state, and the failure of DOJ to
    approve funding for the vote was inconsequential since the decision to
    hold the plebiscite only depends on the will of the territory, and did
    not require congressional authorization.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Aponte-Rosario, et al., v. President EEC, et al., 2020 PRSC 119
    (P.R. 2020).
        \6\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico have been asked the question
    regarding the island's status three times in the last decade, with
    different language, and each time ``statehood'' has gained the majority
    of support. With more than half of eligible voters casting their
    ballots to determine their political status, the results from this
    latest plebiscite have unequivocally stated the preference of the U.S.
    citizens that reside in Puerto Rico for statehood. Not only did
    statehood win by a bigger margin than the results of the U.S.
    Presidential race,\7\ but more votes were casted in favor of statehood
    than for the sitting Governor of Puerto Rico, Hon. Pedro Pierluisi.\8\
    This confirms that the majority on the island want equality through
    statehood regardless of which local political party is in power.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ National Archives, 2020 Electoral College Results, https://
    www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2020 (Last visited June 9, 2021).
        \8\ Puerto Rico State Elections Commission, Governor Results,
    http://elecciones2020.ceepur.org/Escrutinio_General_93/index.html#es/
    default/GOBERNADOR_Resumen.xml (Last visited June 9, 2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        H.R. 1522 respects the results of the plebiscite in November and
    provides a constitutionally valid and direct path to admission. The
    legislation calls for a final binding ratification vote on the
    statehood ``Yes'' or ``No'' question previously presented to Puerto
    Rican voters. If the island chooses to become a state again, H.R. 1522
    establishes the terms of admission as a state to the Union and repeals
    all laws that are incompatible with the island's new status within 12
    months. Therefore, the island's residents will have a final chance to
    vote ``Yes'' if they support statehood, or ``No'' if they support any
    of the alternative status options.
    Statehood Opponents Are Engaging in Election Denial
        Statehood opponents argue that their alternative to H.R. 1522 is an
    innocuous bill whose only objective is to be fair, neutral and
    democratic. Yet H.R. 2070, Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021,
    introduced by Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY-07) is anything but
    fair and neutral because it is fundamentally based on a rejection of
    the voice of the people of Puerto Rico who have already voted for
    statehood as their future political status on three separate occasions
    in the past 10 years. In fact, in an action that can only be understood
    as election interference, just weeks before the November 3, 2020
    plebiscite, a similar version of this bill was filed in the 116th
    Congress with the implication to island voters that the forthcoming
    vote was meaningless in the eyes of the bill author and its sponsors.
    The purpose of its introduction then, similar to its purpose now, was
    not to respect the will of voters in Puerto Rico, but to subvert it by
    ignoring the significance of the locally led self-determination efforts
    that have been carried out to date. As opposed to being a more fair and
    inclusive alternative to H.R. 1522, as written H.R. 2070 basically
    engages in election denial pretending as if the status plebiscite votes
    had not happened or as if they do not matter. This is wrong, anti-
    democratic, unjust and Congress must reject it.
    Statehood Opponents Call for A Binding Process & Then Do the Opposite
        A key argument of statehood opponents is that the mechanism for
    Puerto Rico's self-determination must be ``binding'' on Congress so
    that the voters on the island are empowered to make the ultimate
    decision and Congress will accept their choice. However, H.R. 2070,
    would propose that the Legislature of Puerto Rico establish a ``status
    convention'' of newly elected delegates that would create a complicated
    process, without any certainty or guarantee that its proposed status
    option will be accepted by Congress. This proposal is non-binding since
    no convention can impose a status option upon Congress or mandate the
    automatic adoption of an unknown future resolution. So, by calling
    itself binding, but taking the power away from voters to choose
    directly on the option that the majority has already favored,
    statehood, the bill makes promises to voters it simply cannot keep.
    When this is combined with the fact that the bill also fails to
    establish clear timelines for defining self-determination options and
    when a referendum will take place, it becomes clear this is less about
    fairness and more about blunting the momentum of last November's
    majority vote for statehood.
        The bill sponsors have also discussed the possibility that the
    convention would consider options that are unconstitutional which would
    spoil the legitimacy of their proposed process, since real self-
    determination needs to be a choice between the constitutionally valid
    alternatives and not a flight of fancy.
    Statehood Opponents Seek to Privilege International Law Over the U.S.
            Constitution
        Instead of recognizing the significance of the last three
    plebiscite votes, H.R. 2070 seeks to shift the footing of the debate
    away from the firm ground of the U.S. Constitution into the shifting
    sands of international law. In fact, the bill findings privilege
    international law over the locally led self-determination efforts that
    have taken place over the last decade which were all directed to
    address this issue within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. A
    notable example of this dynamic is that the bill proposes the creation
    of a ``Congressional Bilateral Negotiating Commission,'' under the
    assumption that Puerto Rico can only exercise true self-determination
    under the context of international law. The reality is that ``bilateral
    negotiations'' are only needed if Puerto Rico were to choose
    independence with or without free association, options that have been
    repeatedly discarded by island voters. Statehood admission does not
    require such an instrument because the terms of statehood are already
    defined by current federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.
        Ironically, the bill sponsors for H.R. 2070, who decry the
    undemocratic impact of Puerto Rico's Financial Oversight and Management
    Board (FOMB), use a similar selection mechanism to appoint members to
    the proposed Negotiating Commission to tell the status convention
    delegates and the people of Puerto Rico how they should choose their
    destiny. The bill implies that Puerto Ricans are unable to
    independently interpret federal laws and choose their self-
    determination options without the prescriptions of federally appointed
    policymakers. In spite of the bill's premise regarding the people of
    Puerto Rico choosing their future, H.R. 2070 is merely an
    unconstitutional facade of self-determination with no specific end-date
    meant indefinitely delay a final resolution to Puerto Rico's status.
    Statehood Opponents Are Telling Congress to Discard Plebiscite Vote
            Results
        Prominent statehood opponents including former Rep. Luis Gutierrez
    and former Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila, have argued in a recent letter to
    Congress that the results of the 2020 statehood vote should be
    invalidated and discarded because of a subsequent special election. On
    May 16, 2021, Puerto Rico held a special election to choose the Puerto
    Rico Congressional Delegation (``Delegation''), entrusted with the duty
    to demand Congress honor the results of the November 3, 2020 plebiscite
    and admit Puerto Rico as a state. Opponents claim that because there
    was a low voter turnout for this special election, the will of the
    voters in November should be disregarded. That is patently absurd.
    Everywhere in the United States we have general elections and special
    elections with varying levels of voter turnout, and yet we do not
    disregard the results of either. Elections are decided by ballots and
    votes cast, not by those who fail to participate and vote on any given
    issue or candidate. In a time when America must make extra effort to
    protect the right to vote and the integrity of our elections, Congress
    must not reverse the will of U.S. citizens legally voting to choose
    their future political status.
    Conclusion--H.R. 1522 is the Appropriate & Constitutionally Viable
            Process for Solving Puerto Rico's Ultimate Political Status

        To put an end of the island's current colonial and territorial
    status, and in accordance with Article 4, Section 3 of the United
    States Constitution, we urge the U.S. House Committee on Natural
    Resources to ``Respect Puerto Rico's Statehood Vote'' and promptly pass
    H.R. 1522. Statehood will guarantee the U.S. citizens residing in
    Puerto Rico the same civil rights and congressional representation
    afforded to the U.S. citizens of the 50 states. No territory that has
    requested admission as a state has been denied before. Puerto Ricans
    have self-determined, and it is now Congress' time to listen to voters
    on the island and ratify their will by establishing the means of
    admission as a state to the Union. Only H.R. 1522 meets the principles
    of equality and respects the will of voters instead of rejecting and
    silencing them.

        We thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. If you
    require additional information or have any questions, please do not
    hesitate to contact the Martin E. Rivera, Esq., Executive Director of
    the National Puerto Rican Equality Coalition, at (r) r-rr or via email
    at rrrrrr, as well as George H. Laws Garcia, Executive Director of the
    Puerto Rico Statehood Council, at (r) r-rr or via email at rrrrrr.

                Sincerely,

            Martin E. Rivera, Esq.,       George H. Laws Garcia,
            Executive Director            Executive Director
            National Puerto Rican
            Equality Coalition            Puerto Rico Statehood Council

                                     ______

    Transcript of Video: ``Statements to the Natural Resources Committee on
                   Occasion of the 6/16/21 Status Hearings''
           Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzC7QwYO5dw

    Introductory Remarks by Dr. Zayira Jordan:
        Las declaraciones que hare hoy son dirigidas al Comite de Recursos
    Naturales con respecto a los proyectos de la Camara de Representantes
    federal, el H.R. 1522 y el H.R. 2070, y en defensa de las voces de
    Puerto Rico que votaron en su mayoria en el plebiscito por la estadidad
    en noviembre 3 del 2020. Hoy, junio 16 de 2021, se discute en el
    Congreso de los Estados Unidos el futuro de todos los que habitamos en
    la isla de Puerto Rico. Se discute nuestro futuro y el destino de
    nuestro estatus. Yo habia preparado un mensaje para presentar en las
    vistas sobre estatus en el Congreso. No estare deponiendo en persona,
    pero no quise dejar que el mensaje permaneciese en silencio. Mi mensaje
    no solo le pertenece al Congreso, sino a Puerto Rico. Asi que hoy, 16
    de junio de 2021, el mismo dia que se estan tomando decisiones sobre
    nuestro bienestar y sobre el futuro de nuestro destino, les entrego mi
    mensaje. Recuerden que aqui no le estare hablando al pueblo de Puerto
    Rico, le estare hablando a aquellos que tienen nuestro futuro en sus
    manos. Le estare hablando a los miembros del Comite de Recursos
    Naturales de la Camara de Representantes del Congreso de los Estados
    Unidos para que nuestras voces sean escuchadas.

        English Translation:

        The statements that I will make today are directed to the Natural
    Resources Committee regarding the bills before the U.S. House of
    Representatives, H.R. 1522 and H.R. 2070, and in defense of the voices
    of Puerto Rico who voted in their majority in the plebiscite for
    statehood on November 3, 2020. Today, June 16, 2021, the future of all
    of us who live on the island of Puerto Rico is being discussed in
    Congress. Our future and the fate of our status are being discussed. I
    had prepared a message to deliver in the public hearings in Congress. I
    will not be testifying in person, but I did not want to let the message
    remain silent. My message belongs not only to Congress, but to Puerto
    Rico. So today, June 16, 2021, the same day that decisions are being
    made about our well-being and the future of our destiny, I deliver my
    message to you. Remember that here I will not be addressing the people
    of Puerto Rico, I will be addressing those who have our future in their
    hands. I will be addressing the members of House Natural Resources
    Committee in Congress, so that our voices are heard.

    Statement by Dr. Zayira Jordan:

        I speak to all members of the Natural Resources Committee . . ..
    How did you come to be here today?
        This is my first question.
        Clearly, none of you were born into the positions you now find
    yourselves in.
        Some of you might be here because you found yourself enchanted by a
    career in politics.
        Some of you might be here because life, for some strange or
    unexpected reason, put you into the position you now find yourselves
    in.
        Call it destiny, call it struggle or perseverance.
        You are all here today to make decisions for tomorrow.
        What are we discussing today?
        This is my second question.
        You are all here today to make a decision as to the future of more
    than 3 million people, and more than them, a decision for those who are
    not born yet, but will be born under the terms of the decision you will
    make today.
        What does it take?
        This is my third question.
        I understand clearly, as an American citizen, the difficulty of
    these proceedings.
        Last night, on the website of https://statehood.dc.gov. I read the
    blueprint of Washington DC path to statehood. The website outlined what
    was begun by Mayor Muriel Bowser and the New Columbia Statehood
    Commission, and what is known as the ``Tennessee Plan'' and I quote,
    Under the Tennessee Plan, the prospective state's electorate votes on
    statehood and ratifies a constitution, without an enabling act, and
    then uses this as a basis to petition Congress for admission. This
    approach was pioneered by Tennessee in 1796 and used by Michigan, Iowa,
    California, Oregon, Kansas, and Alaska to gain admission to the Union.
        Congress approved statehood for Tennessee, making Tennessee the
    16th state of the Union in 1796.
        In Puerto Rico, we have done every step according to the Tennessee
    Plan . . ..
        We have a constitution, ratified and put into effect since 1952. We
    have held a more than one referendum in which the majority of the
    people have voted, unequivocally for statehood. We have had ``dream
    teams'' of representatives to fight for our rights, right there on the
    doorsteps of Congress.
        Before the new special delegates under Law 167 of 2020 swear in on
    July 1st of this year to defend our rights; not only statehood, but for
    our democracy, there was the Democracy Commission, or as we better know
    it, in the island La Comision de la Igualdad, created and put into
    effect by former Governor Ricardo Rossello. This commission was
    composed of appointees in the task of lobbying in Congress to approve
    Puerto Rico's request for statehood.
        I ask you, what more does it take to make the will of my people be
    Heard? If we have done practically everything in our power to attain
    our Union within the United States.
        Does it take sacrifice? . . .
        We have sacrificed our sons, and daughters, and fathers, and
    mothers . . . Since 1917, the fateful year in which we became American
    citizens, we have fought and sacrificed as Americans not only in World
    War I, but also in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.
    We have fought and we will continue fighting and sacrificing in every
    war in which the nature of democracy and liberty is at stake. Together,
    side by side, with our brothers and sisters, citizens of the United
    States of America.
        So as you see, thousands of Puerto Ricans have sacrificed to defend
    the American flag, which holds 50 stars, but has room to add one more
    singular star. If not many more . . ..
        Does it take history?
        When the United States fought the cold war against Cuba and Russia,
    we stood as an emblem of democracy and freedom, when so many decided to
    turn their backs against the United States, until President Ronald
    Reagan proclaimed his famous words in 1987 . . ..
        ``Mr. Gorbachev . . . tear down this wall.''
        I ask the same thing today as former president Ronald Reagan asked
    then on that fateful day. Please, tear down this wall of indifference.
        Tear down this wall of anti-democracy.
        Tear down this wall now, and once and for all . . ..
        You might be asking yourselves . . .
        Maybe before I tear down this wall of indifference, it takes more
    suffering. Well, I'll tell you this . . ..
        We have suffered enough.
        Hurricanes, earthquakes, the terrible imprint of the COVID-19
    PANDEMIC.
        We have suffered, and we are used to suffering . . .
        Still, We the people of Puerto Rico, stand strong. Because, United
    we stand, and divided we fall.
        But maybe . . . just maybe . . . it does not take sacrifice, nor
    history, nor suffering. Maybe it takes a little bit of Politics. For
    one cannot be so naive, so as to think that the principles of which you
    stand for politically speaking, could possibly be dismissed in such a
    historical decision.
        It lives within you, your political party, it is like the blood
    which keeps your heart pumping . . ..
        But, let me tell you something about my people . . .
        They could either be democrats or republicans . . .
        I'll tell you this . . ..
        Do not be deceived by the fact that only because we speak Spanish
    and we enjoy the freedoms of this United States, that the majority will
    immediately choose to be one way or the other; democrat or republican.
        Do not be deceived by the fact that many of us are God fearing
    people, and enjoy the benefits of Capitalism, and hold dearly and close
    to our hearts our traditions, that we will be one way or the other;
    republican or democrat . . .. Most immigrants from Cuba who migrated to
    Florida after escaping the Castro dictatorship of communism, found
    their principles to be more attached to that of the Republican Party.
    But most Hispanic immigrants who migrate for economic or social issues
    who end up in California or New York have found their principles to be
    more Democratic leaning.
        I have always chosen to remain bipartisan in my leanings when it
    comes to bringing up the issue of statehood for Puerto Rico. It is a
    question of simply letting go of those things which have politically
    bound us to think one way or the other.
        Democracy, Freedom, Justice is as bipartisan as it gets . . . Truth
    is equally bipartisan.
        We the People of Puerto Rico, American Citizens of this United
    States, are not willing to wait any longer. All I can tell you is that
    the People of Puerto Rico will hold in very high esteem those who
    decide to recognize our voices.
        We will not forget the decision made by all of you today. A
    decision easy to ignore and be indifferent to. Unless your decision
    makes history, which it will, and so all of your names which abide by
    our democracy shall be remembered . . .
        Before I conclude, I will ask of all of you, (Hold one finger up
    and keep it there)
        Just one last question . . .
        For all of you elected officials, whether democrat or republican,
    whether if chosen by destiny, or here, through your own struggles and
    perseverance through it all . . .. If the United States does not
    protect the democracy of its territories, how could it possibly protect
    itself?
        When it comes to doing the right thing, there should be no right or
    left. There should only be up, equality and justice, or down,
    indifference.
        This is a court, and the decision of this jury, will decide the
    fate of the Island of Puerto Rico, and 3 million people, and those who
    are not born yet, but will be born under the terms of the decision you
    will make today.
        The future of this Island belongs to our sons and daughters.
        They will stand in place of us, who have failed them.
        They are stronger than us, for they have suffered every possible
    ordeal capable of human suffering. They are not so easily defeated.
        They will fight, and they will persevere.
        I'll let them speak for themselves . . .. Thank You.

    Statement by Mr. Juan Camilo Ruiz-Pinzon:

        Dear Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the Committee:

        I stand in support of H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico Statehood
    Admission Act, and to speak against H.R. 2070, the Puerto Rico Self-
    Determination Act. My reasons to support the Admission Act are simple:
    respecting the will of Americans as was expressed in the best self-
    determination mechanism a free country can offer: the ballot box,
    enfranchising 3.3 million Americans not adequately represented in their
    government, and to provide full constitutional coverage and equal
    protection of laws for Americans in Puerto Rico.
        H.R. 1522 responds to the call Americans on the island made last
    November, where they voted YES to Statehood in a referendum modeled
    after the ones held in Alaska and Hawaii before becoming states.
    Statehood received more votes than any political candidate or party. It
    won in all senatorial districts and in 33 of the 40 representative
    districts. In the 8 that lost, YES to Statehood still got more votes
    than the candidate who was elected. The last plebiscite showed that:
    support for statehood overcomes partisan politics and that Puerto
    Ricans can differentiate between partisan politics and political
    status.
        Although the pro-status quo party won the Legislature, that fact
    does not and must not erase or ignore that in the same elections,
    Statehood won. I would like to remind people, who object the results of
    the plebiscite because they say that 53% is not enough, that it is the
    absolute majority of the electorate. With lesser margins: laws are
    passed, judicial and executive appointments are confirmed and
    politicians, including presidents, are elected. That's called living in
    a democracy.
        The filing and cosponsorship of the Admission Act tells 3 facts
    that speak for themselves:
        First, it was introduced by Puerto Rico's elected representative in
    Congress, not by another member representing another district. Second,
    it shows that admitting Puerto Rico as a state is a bipartisan effort
    representing a diverse movement from all sides of the political
    spectrum. Third, two members cosponsoring this bill hold leadership
    positions in the House: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Republican
    Conference Chair Elise Stefanik.
        The Self-Determination Act is flawed and contradictory for the
    following reasons. It says that the Legislature of Puerto Rico has the
    inherent authority to call for a status convention but ignores that, by
    that same authority, our duly elected leaders have called for
    referendums. It says that it recognizes our natural right to self-
    determination, but ignores that Puerto Ricans themselves already
    exercised that right and chose statehood. It gives the fantasy that
    there are multiple options when there are only two: statehood or
    independence. It is not time-bounded, complicates the issue with
    unfamiliar voting formats and unclear definitions of choices, and tries
    to bind Congress in a potential exercise of legislative entrenchment;
    therefore making the proposed referendum non-binding.
        Statehood means complete protection of the U.S. Constitution to
    more than 3 million Americans who somehow, just by living on the
    Island, lose equal protection of many laws. It means equal justice
    under the law; self-government; and upholding the ideals and values
    upon which the United States was founded, and for which thousands of
    Puerto Ricans have fought and died for without being able to enjoy them
    on the Island.

        Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting in Downes v. Bidwell
    (1901), wrote:

            ``The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere
            upon the earth . . . the people inhabiting them to enjoy only
            such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them is wholly
            inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well as with the
            words, of the Constitution.'' Justice Harlan was known as the
            Great Dissenter for his dissenting opinions in cases that
            restricted civil rights. Dissenting in Plessy v. Ferguson, he
            argued that the constitution was color-blind and that all
            citizens should have equal access to civil rights. In 1954, he
            was vindicated in Brown v. Board of Education.

        And now, it is up to you to vindicate once again a Justice who
    stood in the right side of history.

    Statement by Ms. Zuleyka Rivera:

        Por que Puerto Rico debe ser estado? Puerto Rico debe ser estado
    porque los ciudadanos puertorriquenos tendriamos los mismos derechos
    que los demas estadounidenses. Asi tendriamos representacion en el
    congreso para todo lo relacionado con los programas de los diferentes
    departamentos, ya sea salud, educacion, trabajo, seguridad, economia,
    entre otros. Adicional, tendriamos el derecho de votar por el
    presidente en las elecciones generales cada cuatro anos. Esto nos
    ayudaria a que se defendieran nuestras ayudas, salarios, programas y
    asistencia en todos los ambitos. Otro derecho seria el tener salarios
    justos y razonables como los tienen los otros estados. Siendo el estado
    51 no nos sentiriamos discriminados por ser una isla como ocurre
    actualmente por no tener representacion congresional. Tanto nuestros
    jovenes y adultos tendriamos mejores oportunidades educativas y
    laborales. De esta manera nuestros policias, maestros, enfermeros y los
    demas profesionales estarian mejor pagados y asi no tendrian que irse
    de la isla.

        De ser Puerto Rico un estado, no seriamos discriminados ni
    rechazados por ser un territorio como ocurre ahora mismo. Nuestros
    hombres y mujeres han servido en las fuerzas armadas y asi se sentirian
    bien valorados y aceptados como los demas de los otros estados; pues
    han sido marginados a pesar de haber dado hasta la vida en muchos
    frentes de batallas.

        Para tener todo lo antes expuesto, es necesario que seamos el
    estado 51 de la nacion norteamericana con los mismos derechos y
    privilegios que tienen los otros 50 estados. La mayoria del pueblo
    puertorriqueno asi lo expreso en las elecciones. Llevamos mas de 100
    anos siendo una colonia y necesitamos la igualdad. A nivel personal yo
    quiero quedarme aqui, quiero que mi familia y amigos regresen y quiero
    que volvamos a estar unidos pues se han ido a los estados a buscar un
    mejor porvenir. Pero y por que irnos? si es aqui donde debemos estar y
    se que si logramos lo que tanto anhelamos que es convertirnos en el
    estado 51, sucedera.

        English Translation:

        Why should Puerto Rico become a state? Puerto Rico should become a
    state because Puerto Ricans would have the same rights as other
    Americans. We would have representation in Congress for everything
    related to the programs of the different departments, either health,
    education, work, security, economy, among others. Additionally, we
    would have the right to vote for the president in the general election
    every four years. This would help us to defend our aid, salaries,
    programs and assistance in all areas. Another right would be to achieve
    fair and reasonable wages as the other states have. Being the 51st
    state, we would not feel discriminated against for being an island as
    it happens currently for not having congressional representation. Both
    our young people and adults would have better educational and
    employment opportunities. This way our police, teachers, nurses and
    other professionals would be better paid and so they would not have to
    leave the island.

        If Puerto Rico were a state, we would not be discriminated against
    or rejected for being a territory as it happens right now. Our men and
    women have served in the military and would feel well valued and
    accepted like the rest of the other states; because they have been
    marginalized despite having given up life on many fronts of battles.

        To obtain what I have expressed, it is necessary that we are the
    51st state of the American nation with equal rights and privileges that
    the other 50 states have. Most of the people of Puerto Rico expressed
    this in the election. We have been a colony for more than 100 years and
    we need equality. On a personal level I want to stay here. I want my
    family and friends to come back and I want them to let us be united
    again because they have gone to the states to look for a better way to
    come.

    Statement by Ms. Bianca Cardona, Esq.:

        Women in Puerto Rico have played an important role in the
    development of history. If we study women from a social context, women,
    as in other countries, have been marginalized in the most important
    sectors, such as politics, employment and equal rights. For years women
    in Puerto Rico were only considered for domestic work, and were
    prevented from being part of the development of the society in which
    they lived in, the culture and above all were limited to the
    achievement of their ambitions they had as women. However, it is
    important to note that, although in the first half of history women had
    a social boom, after the American colonization of the island, women
    began to capture quotas of social participation, forming an essential
    part of our history.
        That is why today I am proud to be part of this effort,
    representing women, because just as we have fought in the past to
    advance women's rights, today I fight for the equality of all Puerto
    Ricans, socially, economically and politically.
        The history that defines the people of Puerto Rico has been one
    full of stumbles, uncertainties and stagnation. While we have managed
    to overcome in a Puerto Rico that is suffering an economic and
    political recession, we must aspire to guarantee a stable future for
    the generations that are growing up and those to come. The political
    euphoria that we are experiencing at this time is the result of people
    who are tired of coming to a Puerto Rico with limitations and no hope
    for development.
        The people of Puerto Rico, aware of the problem of our territorial
    relationship, have expressed themselves in different ways to demand
    that the U.S. Congress take action on our social, political and
    economic future. The plebiscite on Puerto Rico's status have been one
    of the main forums in which the people have expressed themselves on the
    preferential status for Puerto Rico. However, other mechanisms have
    also been used to raise the issue of Puerto Rico's disadvantaged status
    in its relationship with the United States.
        Today, the United States is composed of 50 states, 48 of which are
    often referred to as mainland states, to differentiate them from Alaska
    and Hawaii, both because of their location and because of their insular
    nature. As are the island territories, such as Puerto Rico.
        Since the independence of the thirteen British colonies on July 4,
    1776, the United States did not officially stop growing until President
    Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the incorporation of Alaska and Hawaii as
    the 49th and 50th states, respectively. The construction of the
    country, mainly throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, was the result
    of various forms of territorial expansion. On one hand, much of the
    territory was acquired through purchases and transfers of British,
    French, Spanish and Mexican territories; among other examples, we find
    the cases of the purchases of Louisiana and Florida. On the other hand,
    the United States acquired some territories by conquest from other
    political entities, such as the Republic of Texas or the United Mexican
    States.
        In the case of Puerto Rico, it became a part of the United States
    as a result of the Spanish-American War, which culminated in the Treaty
    of Paris of December 10, 1898, between Spain and the United States. The
    Treaty of Paris set a precedent for the United States as it was the
    first time it acquired a territory without the intention of making it a
    state. The expansionist policy of the United States in the 19th
    century, before the Spanish-American War, reflected a theory: that of
    incorporation as a territory in preparation for statehood. All
    territories acquired multiplied their original population and
    dissipated boundaries with a view to integrating them as members of the
    American nation.
        The Treaty of Paris provided that the political conditions and
    civil rights to be conferred on the territories acquired under the
    treaty would be determined by Congress. This idea practiced by the
    United States in the colonization of Puerto Rico was contrary to the
    value it preached as a nation, since it was precisely on those
    principles that it based its independence.
        [Other states have adopted admission mechanisms, such as the
    Tennessee Plan, which has achieved the admission of 34 territories,
    including the State of Tennessee.] The Tennessee Plan is a strategy
    that was founded in 1795 for the incorporation of Tennessee as a state
    of the Union. As part of the process, a referendum was held in which
    the majority of the people voted in favor of admitting Tennessee as a
    state. A law was then passed to elect a legislature with two senators
    and representatives, who would go to the U.S. Congress to represent the
    mandate of the people and achieve the incorporation of Tennessee as a
    State of the Union.
        For its part, Puerto Rico has taken different mechanisms that
    emerge in the self-determination of the people to determine its
    political future. As part of these mechanisms, Puerto Rico passed
    legislation in 2017 to adopt the Tennessee Plan and held a referendum
    of the people, where Statehood obtained 97% of the voters' support.
    Accompanied by that process, the Act of Admission was filed by Resident
    Commissioner Jennifer Gonzalez Colon. Due to the extraordinary
    circumstances that occurred with the atmospheric event of Hurricane
    Maria and the devastation it left on the island, unfortunately the
    process was hindered.
        Puerto Ricans were recently granted the opportunity to express
    themselves again, this time under a particular plebiscite, where the
    people were asked if they wanted Statehood, Yes? Or No? As a result of
    the plebiscite, Statehood obtained 52.5% of the votes. [Following this,
    the legislature approved Laws No. 1654 and No. 1675, for the adoption
    of the Tennessee plan, this time with a delegation elected by the
    people of Puerto Rico. The delegation is composed of 6 members, 2
    Senators and 4 Representatives, who have the duty to represent the
    mandate of the people of Puerto Rico expressed in the status plebiscite
    of November 3, 2020.]
        Accompanying this process, the Puerto Rico Admission Act was filed
    under H.R. 1522, by our Resident Commissioner, Jennifer Gonzalez and
    Florida Representative Darren Soto. The bill was filed on March 2, in
    commemoration of the 104th anniversary of the granting of U.S.
    citizenship to Puerto Ricans. Since the filing of H.R. 1522, it has the
    support of 60 Members of Congress, including senators and
    representatives, such as Alaska Representative Don Young.
        Finally, Puerto Rico finds itself in a historic scenario, where for
    the first time, after 123 years as a territory of the United States,
    and more than 500 years of colonialism, Puerto Rico will have the
    opportunity to be admitted as a State of the Union. Puerto Rico has in
    its favor the number of U.S. citizens residing in the territory, with
    approximately 3 million citizens according to the most recent census.
    This would represent a significant electoral weight, which would give
    it more political power than 25 states in the nation.
        For all the aforementioned reasons, the Puerto Rico Statehood
    Admission Act, H.R. 1522 should be taken into consideration in order
    for the Puerto Rican people to be able to ratify the results of the
    past plebiscite.
        Thank you for your time.

    Statement by Mr. Ricardo Marrero-Passapera:

        Puerto Rico has been a territory for more than 500 years, first of
    Spain and now of the United States. Therefore, it should not be foreign
    to our will that the status is an issue that moves us as Puerto Ricans.
    As a result of the discussion on the status, six (6) plebiscites have
    been held to decide between the options of Statehood (annexation),
    Independence (separation) or Commonwealth (current status), as well as
    the approval of evaluation committees on the status of Puerto Rico.
        The Foraker Act of 1900 formally represented the non-incorporation
    of territories as a state, thus granting greater powers to Congress and
    the President to administer the territory. This unequal treatment over
    the other states of the nation led to the argument that Puerto Rico was
    treated as territory and not as part of the union. Under this premise
    and through the insular cases the legal creature of the U.S. Congress,
    was named ``unincorporated territory'' was established and validated,
    maintaining as a foundation that we belong to, but are not part of [the
    United States]. This doctrine was validated by Associate Justice Edward
    Douglass White in his opinion offered in the case of Downes v. Bidwell,
    for the controversy that asserted whether it was constitutional for
    Congress to impose through the Foraker Act a tariff on trade between
    Puerto Rico and the United States, in light of the Uniformity Clause.
        The great changes resulting from the military conflicts between the
    countries of the Western Union, and the intervention of the United
    States in these conflicts, led to changes in the civil and political
    order in Puerto Rico. President William Howard Taft took the initiative
    to propose the granting of American citizenship for Puerto Rico, which
    culminated in the approval of the Jones bill, which was finally signed
    by President Woodrow Wilson on March 2, 1917. This bill was the product
    of great controversy, due to the conditions that were imposed, since it
    would grant citizenship without the motivation of admitting Puerto Rico
    as a state.
        This act leads us to argue about the violation of the value of
    equal treatment of American citizens. The first violation we must
    recognize is not having the right to vote for those Members of Congress
    who pass Federal laws that apply to Puerto Rico, not having fair
    representation in Congress, and not being able to vote for the
    President of the United States.
        Interpreting what is expressed in the Constitution of the United
    States, this closes the doors to the millions of Puerto Ricans residing
    on the island, to have full equality as the rest of their fellow
    citizens, by applying federal laws without the consent of the governed,
    with the argument that the right to vote will be recognized only to the
    residents of the states.
        Under the colonial condition imposed on us and not being a state,
    Puerto Rico does not have the right to the electoral college because
    the territories do not meet the requirements established by the 14
    Amendment, which establishes that: ``All persons born or naturalized in
    the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens
    of the United States and of the States in which they reside. [. . .]'',
    so the territories are not part of the United States for constitutional
    purposes.
        Under this premise presented by the Congress, we allude to
    international law on the establishment of the ``International Covenant
    on Civil and Political Rights'' ratified by the General Assembly in
    December 16, 1966.
        Under the Treaty of Paris, the Congress of the United States is
    granted plenary powers over the territory, and it was provided that it
    would have the responsibility not only to determine the civil rights,
    but also the political status of its inhabitants. In this matter we
    must mention that Congress has not taken forceful action to define
    Puerto Rico's status under the regimes of international law and the
    U.S. Constitution.
        These rights began to be discussed after the approval of the
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948, adopted by
    the United Nations (UN). This declaration emphasizes the equality of
    rights that all human beings should enjoy. Article 2 states: ``No
    distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional
    or international status of the country or territory to which a person
    belongs, whether it be an independent country, a territory or under any
    other limitation of sovereignty. By this declaration Puerto Ricans
    residing on the island should have equal rights and duties as citizens
    residing in one of the fifty (50) states.
        We must mention that the precedents set in cases subsequent to the
    creation of the Commonwealth create ambiguity in the fact that Congress
    continues to have plenary powers over and above the sovereignty that
    was recognized to Puerto Rico in 1952. The final determination made by
    the Supreme Court in the case of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez-Valle, and the
    establishment of the PROMESA Act, which creates the Fiscal Oversight
    Board, demonstrated the permanence of Puerto Rico as a territory
    subject to the plenary powers of Congress, which violates international
    agreements on the self-determination of peoples and the value of equal
    rights.
        Finally, we would like to allude to the Constitution of the United
    States, where in its preamble establishes the expression ``We the
    People of the United States'' . . .
        This declaration marks the core value of the nation's constitution
    and the intent by which it is created. The cases brought to abolish
    slavery in the nation, as well as other movements such as the
    petitioning for women's right to vote, used this consensus to argue
    that the term ``We the people'' refers to the inclusion of all American
    citizens in the rights outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
        Therefore, we believe it is meritorious to take action on what this
    resolution proposes, to promote equal rights and social justice for
    U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico, so that they may enjoy the right
    to vote for the president of the United States. It is important that
    the U.S. Congress take action on the referred case and enforce the
    rights of the Constitution for all U.S. citizens with equality.
        The bills before the House Committee on Natural Resources, chaired
    by Congressman Grijalva, allude to taking action in favor of the
    freedom of determination of the people of Puerto Rico on the future of
    their relationship with the United States. Certainly, the guarantee of
    the right to self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico has been
    guaranteed in all the processes of expression of the people through the
    various plebiscites held since 1967, until the last one held on
    November 3, 2020. But in order for the value of the people's right to
    self-determination to be realized, Congress has the duty to take action
    in favor of the democratic expression of Puerto Ricans residing here on
    the island.
        H.R. 1522, introduced by our only congressional representative,
    Jenniffer Gonzalez, and Congressman Darren Soto, for consideration by
    the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, sets precedents
    in the history of the admission of territories as a state of the union.
    It also ensures concrete action on the mandate sent by the people of
    Puerto Rico last November 3 in favor of statehood, with the
    ratification of the results and the approval of the President of the
    United States.
        In contrast with H.R. 2070, presented by Congresswomen Nydia
    Velazquez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who presented a bill that seeks
    the creation of a status convention that is unprecedented in the
    processes of admission of territories to the nation, and historically
    only the colonies who have wished to betray themselves toward the
    formation of an independent Republic, have accepted it.
        With much respect to this Congress and members of the House
    Committee on Natural Resources, I submit that H.R. 2070 does not
    represent the will of the people and I request that it not be taken
    into consideration. The only piece of legislation that provides the
    tools for the advancement of the Puerto Rican people and that
    represents the will of the majority of the Puerto Rican people is H.R.
    1522.
        Thank you.

    Statement by Mr. Rodney Rios:

        I would like to begin by stating that it is my sincere hope that
    this brief message helps to state the facts and clear the air regarding
    the issue of Puerto Rico's status. Too often in the status debate we
    get lost in a labyrinth of myths, contradictions and mutual
    recriminations, which in the end help no one and contribute little or
    nothing to a solution. Former president John Adams once remarked that
    ``facts are stubborn things''. I wish then to focus exclusively on the
    facts of this issue.
        First, statehood for Puerto Rico does not entail annexation. From
    the historical record, it is clear that through the Treaty of Paris in
    1899 the United States annexed Puerto Rico. After annexation there
    arose the question of what Puerto Rico's status would be in regards to
    the rest of the country. This question was not pertinent before 1898;
    before then it was understood by our founders that all territories that
    were acquired permanently by the United States would, eventually,
    become states of the union as long as they met certain criteria. The
    requisites for statehood are and were that the territory had a
    republican form of government, the resources to maintain a state
    government and the desire of that Territory's people to become a State
    of the union.
        It was only after the acquisition of Puerto Rico that the idea of
    permanent territories, colonies to put it another way, reemerged as an
    option. Sadly, I believe this was so because of the stain in our
    country of racial discrimination, an evil which we have long fought to
    defeat. As such, it comes as no surprise that the Supreme Court
    concocted through judicial hocus pocus the idea that some territories
    were to be incorporated and destined for statehood, and that others
    were to be unincorporated and would be forever cursed to be at the
    mercy of the changing whims of Congress. Now, this sounds very
    different to the principles of self-determination that have guided this
    country since the Founding.
        In any case, President Calvin Coolidge once stated in relation to
    Puerto Rico that ``It would not be difficult to demonstrate that the
    existing status of Puerto Rico is much more liberal than any other
    status in its history; that its people have more control of their own
    affairs, with less external intervention; that its people enjoy freedom
    and the protection of the law.'' He was right. Since annexation the
    Puerto Rican people have been free and made great progress. Imperfect
    progress, but progress, nonetheless. The simple fact of the matter is
    that Puerto Rico is better after annexation than before.
        However, one of the fundamental principles of a free society is
    that citizens vote for the people that make and execute their laws.
    There can be no freedom without popular sovereignty; in America the
    people govern. And here lies the crux of the issue. Puerto Ricans are
    American citizens; and citizenship in America is supposed to be only
    one. Furthermore, being citizens for more than a century, it has been
    long understood in American history, that a political community
    composed of American citizens has an inalienable right to statehood.
    Moreover, as former Puerto Rican Governor Rafael Hernandez Colon once
    noted, there has never been a political entity composed of American
    citizens that has separated from the Union. This must also be taken
    together with the fact that Puerto Ricans have never favored
    independence. Independence, then, would not only be antidemocratic, but
    it contrary to our traditions and constitutional order.
        This brings us to the 2020 plebiscite. For a long time it was
    teased by the enemies of political equality that statehooders should
    organize a simple yes or no vote on statehood to solve the issue once
    and for all. This was done in 2020, and the people voted by a majority
    for statehood. States, as is clear from the historical record, create
    themselves before admission to the Union by whatever mechanisms they
    deem fit.
        Historically speaking, Puerto Ricans have voted only to create a
    local government to preserve that commonwealth status, and since 2012
    the people have voted for statehood on numerous times. As such, to
    pretend to continue a fruitless and pointless discussion by including
    independence or free association in a self-determination process, is a
    mockery of the democratic vote of Puerto Ricans. It is also an
    ignorance of the history of Puerto Rico and our deep commitment to
    permanent union.
        We in Puerto Rico are not asking for alms, or to be maintained. Do
    not listen to the voices of gridlock from the extreme right or left. We
    Puerto Ricans are not victims; we have borne the price of freedom in
    every war from World War One to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    We are a free, proud and noble people. What we are demanding as our
    right, as our heritage, is for a chance to have our political rights
    and powers as a State of the Union. To have equal footing, as the
    doctrine is called. To have the power that all other states have
    through voting representation and the Tenth Amendment protections of
    residual and shared sovereignty of a State in relation to the federal
    government.
        In sum, Puerto Rico has an organized political system, a desire for
    statehood, and the resources to maintain a state government. All
    requirements for admission have been met; additionally, Puerto Ricans
    do not want independence, and they are American citizens. It would be a
    shame if this Congress were to end without heeding the voice of the
    people and it decided to side with obstructionists and in favor of the
    discriminatory precedents of a bygone era. We have come very far as a
    nation; it would be a stain in our national honor to keep citizens
    without representation at this day and age. I hope this Congress is
    wise enough to approve a federal statehood plebiscite which will
    resolve this issue once and for all. We are all ready and a century too
    late. Thank you for your time.

                                     ______

        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. My first question will be to Dr.
    Ponsa-Kraus. Have you had opportunity to read all the DOJ
    reports on both bills?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. I am sorry. Have I read the reports? Yes,
    I have.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Did DOJ raise any constitutional
    issues or concerns with H.R. 1522?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. No. No constitutional concerns.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. The first part of the report says the
    Department of Justice supports providing the people of Puerto
    Rico, and I quote, ``the opportunity to vote on whether to
    become a state of the Union, as H.R. 1522 would do.''
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. That is right.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. So, for you, that would mean that the
    Department of Justice is in support of H.R. 1522?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. That is how I interpret that sentence.
    Yes.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. And is the first letter of the report,
    correct?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. That is right.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I will yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sablan.
        Let me now recognize Ms. Gonzalez-Colon for her 5 minutes.
    You are recognized.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
    continue making my questions at this time. Dr. Ponsa, when you
    saw that part of the report that actually is the first line of
    the report from DOJ, did the DOJ raise any constitutional
    issues or concerns with H.R. 2070.
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Yes, it did.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Can you briefly enumerate those that
    concern you the most?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. They coincide with the ones that concerned
    me before. One is that the failure to specify the options opens
    the door to unconstitutional options. And the other is that it
    purports to bind Congress when that is an illusory promise.
    Congress can't bind itself to enact a joint resolution in the
    future.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. It has been said here in the hearing
    from several witnesses that H.R. 2070 will guarantee
    citizenship. Do you understand that other options,
    independence, can guarantee citizenship for Puerto Rico?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. No other option than statehood can
    guarantee citizenship in the way that the citizenship clause of
    the 14th Amendment does. Other options could include
    citizenship, but they could not guarantee it prospectively.
    And, in my opinion, this is not a question of first impression
    in the sense that it is spelled out in the citizenship clause
    of the 14th Amendment. It guarantees birthright citizenship to
    persons born in the United States. So, if one is independent,
    with or without a free association, then the United States has
    the power to provide birthright citizenship, but it can also
    decide in the future to stop granting it.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. You read the report, as I did. And
    that report from DOJ says that H.R. 2070 does not recognize
    there are only three constitutional status options in statehood
    or keeping the territorial status. So, in fact, doesn't H.R.
    2070 leave the door open for the convention to come up with
    unconstitutional status options?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. That is right. It does. And that has been
    my greatest concern from the beginning, that it opens the door
    to such options, that it doesn't specify the constitutional
    options, and that means it consigns Puerto Ricans to continue
    having the same debate they have had for 70 years without the
    kind of guidance that they need from Congress to tell it here's
    what the constitutional options are and the ones that we would
    agree to.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. You have been hearing about nationhood
    and being sovereigns in Puerto Rico and many other things. Is
    Congress the ultimate source of the Puerto Rico government's
    authority?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. With Puerto Rico's current territorial
    status, yes, it is.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Sadly, but it is like that.
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. That is right.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. And are there other viable options
    under the U.S. Constitution other than statehood or
    independence or the territorial status?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. There are not. I do not believe that free
    association short of independence is possible. I completely
    agree with Professor Cox Alomar that there are lots of forms of
    free association, but they all involve independence with a
    treaty or compact of free association. Anything between
    independence and statehood is territorial under the U.S.
    Constitution.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Having said that, can a constitutional
    convention or a status convention, as proposed in the other
    bill, create a new non-territorial status compatible with the
    U.S. Constitution?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. No. It cannot.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Has the Federal Government previously
    relied on a convention to define the constitutional status
    options?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Not to define them, no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. My second question will be, is
    statehood the only non-territorial status option that
    guarantees the constitutional U.S. citizenship?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Prospectively, yes. I agree that current
    U.S. citizens cannot be stripped of their citizenship
    involuntarily under any circumstance, but statehood is the only
    one that guarantees U.S. citizenship prospectively in the
    future.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. The Federal executive branch, the
    courts, and Congress have all confirmed repeatedly that Puerto
    Rico is a territory and that the only non-territorial options
    available are statehood and independence. And DOJ just
    reaffirmed this claim. In your opinion, do the people of Puerto
    Rico need a status convention to know and understand this?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. No. I don't think they do.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Do you think that voters in the island
    are capable and knowledgeable enough to understand that status
    options are available to them and their consequences without
    having to resort to an assembly of a few selected--where
    decisions are made behind closed doors?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. I do believe they are capable of it, yes.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields.
        Let me now recognize Representative Gallego for his 5
    minutes. Sir, you are recognized.
        Mr. Gallego?
        Mr. Gallego. I apologize. Can you hear me now?
        The Chairman. Yes. Thank you.
        Mr. Gallego. Sorry. You would think after all these months
    I finally would get it together, right?
        My first question is for Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. And I apologize
    if I mispronounced your last name. I appreciate you responding
    to criticisms about low levels of participation in the 2020
    plebiscite. In your experience as a lawyer and a professor,
    have you ever seen the same argument used to dismiss results of
    an election in a state in the United States?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. I have not, no, and you pronounced my name
    perfectly. Thank you.
        Mr. Gallego. Very good. And to note, I have heard this
    from--I said this last time. I have heard this argument in the
    past to also turn back plebiscites, actually, in Arizona, for
    example. And it is usually done by my Republican colleagues,
    especially when trying to do a tax increase. So, witnesses
    supporting both bills, including yourself, have mentioned the
    importance of having clear definitions of options on a self-
    determination ballot. In addition to the clarification around
    free association citizenship, what important information do you
    believe should be included in the definitions of statehood and
    independence?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Well, I appreciate that question because I
    completely agree that there should be clarity for the voters.
    But I believe that a ballot can't spell every last detail of a
    transition out. That is unrealistic. The voters need to choose
    on the basic options, and then the transitions need to be
    developed and implemented.
        So, for statehood, I think voters should understand that it
    gets them equal representation and U.S. citizenship now and in
    the future, which I believe they understand.
        For independence, I believe they should understand that
    that is a separate sovereignty, and Puerto Rico gets to decide
    its own future.
        And with free association, I believe it is critical that
    they understand that it is a form of independence and that
    citizenship would be within the power of the United States,
    that no current citizen would lose their own citizenship, but
    that it would be up to the United States whether to grant
    citizenship in the future, and it could change that policy. I
    believe that voters would deserve to understand that.
        Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Doctor.
        Rev. Carmen Cabrera, just a general statement, I really
    appreciate that you talk about that Puerto Ricans have served
    in the armed services. I was lucky enough to serve in the U.S.
    Marine Corps with a lot of Puerto Ricans, actually, and very
    proud Americans. Can you describe as a community leader the
    impact that you have seen territorial status--what it causes to
    our service members and their families and what a positive
    change would come from us having stated, for example, the
    reimbursement fees with TRICARE, a lot of things of that nature
    that is unequal?
        Did I get bounced off?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. That question is not for me, right?
        Mr. Gallego. No, I am sorry. I apologize. That was for Rev.
    Cabrera.
        The Interpreter. Can you please repeat the question? This
    is Nestor Lima. I will be interpreting for her.
        Mr. Gallego. Oh, I am sorry. Yes.
        [Speaking in Spanish.]
        The Interpreter. So, in review, the question is what is the
    difference between specifically health care in----
        Mr. Gallego. For veterans' benefits in general.
        The Interpreter. Yes, veterans' health care and other
    benefits in the United States versus Puerto Rico for those who
    have served in the military?
        Mr. Gallego. Correct.
        [The following answers were delivered through an
    interpreter.]
        Rev. Cabrera. Let me point out a few differences. For
    example, some that receive Social Security benefits do not
    receive in Puerto Rico some benefits that are received in the
    United States. And what we are also addressing is not just the
    funds and grants but also the dignity that has been negated or
    neglected. I can compare it to a father who pays attention to a
    son who does not live at home. And he allows the son to do
    everything, but he doesn't allow him to come back home and make
    decisions within his family. That is our posture for us here in
    Puerto Rico. This is how we feel.
        So, it is not just about the benefits and about the money.
    And the other ones who are explaining their positions, they are
    doing it in a proper way as well. My position is about the
    heart of the Puerto Ricans, and it has to do with dignity. We
    have voted many times for statehood, and we don't have to keep
    voting for this. And I think it is time for the Congress to do
    what needs to be done.
        Mr. Gallego. Thank you. And I would just like to note
    Puerto Rico actually has sacrificed more men and women in these
    last 20 years than many, many states in the United States.
        Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gallego. The gentleman yields.
    It is my understanding that votes are going to be called at
    2:30. It is supposed to be a lengthy vote process from what I
    understand. We will continue with questioning of those Members
    that are here or the Members that can remain at the meeting,
    and try to proceed that way. If it becomes cumbersome and
    difficult, with all due apologies to the witnesses and to my
    colleagues, we will call a recess until those votes are done.
        With that, let me now turn to the gentleman, Mr. Gohmert,
    for his questions. Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
    very much. Having studied history, gotten a degree in it, I
    have to express a concern. I love the people of Puerto Rico. I
    think they would be a wonderful addition, not just as a
    territory but as a state, but I know historically when language
    divides the country from any part of that country, it can
    become problematic. I understand that the generation coming up,
    most of them speak very good English, and I hope that is
    something that will continue. At this point, I want to yield my
    questions to my dear friend, a wonderful colleague, and that is
    the Honorable Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert, for yielding
    the time. I really appreciate that. I will now make a question
    again to Dr. Ponsa and Dr. Cordova. A few minutes ago, we were
    talking about the voters and if they were capable or not to
    make decisions for the island. And it is Congress' plenary
    power such that they can approve any form status with any set
    of terms, any set of conditions or even benefits regardless of
    precedent. So, my question now will be, Dr. Ponsa, can Congress
    create a political relationship not contemplated in the
    Constitution.
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. No. It cannot. Even its plenary power is
    not unconstrained by the Constitution.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Can you elaborate on that?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Sure. Plenary power means that Congress
    can govern a territory as the Federal Government and also as
    its local government; and it can grant or withdraw autonomy.
    Those powers are very much constrained by the Constitution.
    They don't include the power to create a status that doesn't
    exist and then bind the United States to it. Congress has the
    power to admit states. Other than that, it can recognize
    independent countries, and it can govern territories.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Do you believe that H.R. 2070 offers a
    binding self-determination process?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. No. It is not binding.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Dr. Cordova, do you think H.R. 2070
    offers a binding self-determination process? Professor Cordova?
        Mr. Cordova. Yes, excuse me. I forgot to unmute.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. OK.
        Mr. Cordova. H.R. 2070 does not offer that. It is legal
    fiction which assumes that the people of Puerto Rico somehow
    will exercise their sovereignty and choose whatever path they
    choose, when, in fact, that sovereignty does not lie there. It
    lies in Congress. So, Congress is someone who is authorized to
    determine this, not the status convention.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. What about H.R. 1522? Does this bill
    offer a self-executing binding process should a majority of the
    voters on the island support statehood because this is a
    process? This is not forcing a solution on the voters.
    Actually, it needs this bill to get approved to them, be a
    ratification process on the island.
        Mr. Cordova. Sure. And I think part of the comments of the
    Department of Justice precisely regarding H.R. 1522 recognizes
    that even the vote on ratifying the statehood in Puerto Rico
    would have to return to Congress. There is basically a process
    built in already where Congress would exercise its
    constitutional prerogatives. So, yes, I think H.R. 1522 does
    have the prerequisites to----
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Professor. Dr. Ponsa, do
    you think that H.R. 1522 offers that self-executing binding
    process?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. It does offer a self-executing process. It
    offers statehood, which is something that Congress not only has
    the power, but the duty to do. I do believe Puerto Ricans are
    the ones who get to make a choice but among valid options, and
    Congress should offer them and has the power and duty to do
    that and it does so on H.R. 1522.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Do you believe that a yes-or-no vote
    is a legitimate self-determination process?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Unquestionably, it is.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Do you agree that H.R. 2070 is
    colonial and paternalistic in nature given that it ignores the
    will of the people?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. I do. I think it is offensive that it
    ignores the November referendum. I think it is offensive that
    it provides for a bilateral negotiating commission that is
    neither bilateral nor negotiating. Really, I have serious
    problems with it, and they are not just constitutional.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Dr. Ponsa. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Let me now recognize the gentlelady from New
    York, Ms. Velazquez, for 5 minutes. You are recognized.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Cox, does a status convention open the door to
    unconstitutional issues?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. The answer is no, and it is rather
    surprising that that argument could be raised. Could you
    imagine the framers in 1787 saying let's keep the Articles of
    Confederation and not convene the convention because Washington
    might all of a sudden become a dictator or all of a sudden he
    might become a king--I mean, that is ridiculous.
        The whole idea here is to have an inclusive process, a
    process that opens up the door for folks to actually have a
    meaningful, detailed conversation that has never happened since
    1898.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. Is Congress vested with the
    authority to negotiate any model of free association with
    Puerto Rico?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. The answer is yes. Congress has plenary
    authority under the Territorial Clause--I mean, has ample
    authority.
        Ms. Velazquez. And can you further explain why this is not
    an issue of constitutionality but of political will from
    Congress.
        Dr. Cox Alomar. That is another huge issue. I am listening
    to folks mixing up constitutional law with public policy.
    Public policy, that is something very different from--the fact
    that the Constitution allows for something to happen doesn't
    necessarily mean that Congress will actually do this. But
    Congress does have authority to do things, right? It is a
    matter of political will to decide what it wants to do.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. This is 2021. Is it morally and
    politically correct for Congress to offer the people of Puerto
    Rico a status option that is subject to the plenary powers of
    Congress, meaning that the U.S. Congress has total authority
    over the island which will pose a clear continuation of the
    history of colonization?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. Of course not. The Senate is dealing with a
    John Lewis bill. All of a sudden, America is actually right now
    before the G7, NATO, trying to fight authoritarianism against
    Putin. And all of a sudden, you have folks here trying to say
    that America shouldn't decolonize Puerto Rico. I mean, it
    doesn't make any sense.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. And Mr. Cox, this is a yes-or-no
    answer. In your opinion, would commonly known Act 2022, now
    renamed Act 60, that effectively creates a special tax
    treatment for foreigners in Puerto Rico be possible under
    statehood?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. No. Pursuant to the Uniformity Tax Clause,
    the answer would be no.
        Ms. Velazquez. OK. The DOJ report on H.R. 1522 argues that
    the Oversight Board is statutorily denominated part of the
    territorial government of Puerto Rico and will continue to do
    so if the island were to become a state. What should we make of
    Governor Pierluisi's previous statement that no state can have
    a fiscal board?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. Well, that is an illusory argument.
    Obviously, Congress has authority to impose conditions. If you
    go back to 1791, when Vermont acceded to the Union, all the way
    to Hawaii, 1959, you see that Congress has authority to make
    and impose conditions on territories acceding to the Union. So,
    Congress does have authority.
        Ms. Velazquez. And would H.R. 1522 automatically grant
    statehood to the island? Is statehood a done deal per the
    language on that bill?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. Well, no. The DOJ says it is no--there is
    no fait accompli. The DOJ on the first page of its opinions
    says this is not a done deal, right? I mean, it is pretty
    obvious.
        Ms. Velazquez. I would like for you to talk to us about the
    lessons we can learn from the pacts that were negotiated by the
    Pacific Islands.
        Dr. Cox Alomar. Well, the problem with those arrangements
    is that folks in the Pacific, they were not U.S. citizens,
    right? The Pacific Islands have a different history. And the
    other thing that people need to realize in the Committee is
    Puerto Rico presents a unique situation. Puerto Rico's
    relationship to the United States has really no parallel. We
    are U.S. citizens. Puerto Rico is its own nation
    sociologically. I hear witnesses speaking Spanish. Obviously we
    have a heritage that is somehow different from the Anglo
    heritage, and that is something that has to be dealt with by
    Congress. It is very, very difficult to superimpose the same
    solutions that have been used in the Pacific to Puerto Rico.
    Puerto Rico is completely different.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. Congressman Gutierrez, what does
    it say that in the last May election to select a shadow
    delegation whose only purpose is to lobby Congress, and where
    only 3.8 percent of voters participated, ousted Governor
    Rossello has now been elected again? Approximately 1 million
    Puerto Ricans marched asking for his resignation in 2019. And
    now with 3.8 percent of voters, he is back. Is this 3.8 percent
    representative of the will of the people in Puerto Rico?
        Mr. Gutierrez. Absolutely not. Let's remember something.
    This was not part of the campaign in November. In other words,
    Pedro Pierluisi and the New Progressive Party did not say after
    the election we are going to pay six people $150,000 in spite
    of the fact that schools are still closed, in spite of the fact
    that pensions are not being paid, in spite of the fact that
    there are not roofs over certain people's homes.
        But we are going to pay them--never said that. And think
    about it, Congresswoman. They elected Ricky Rossello, who was
    ousted by the people of Puerto Rico. You are right. A million
    people----
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
        Mr. Gutierrez [continuing]. One-quarter of the population
    came and marched----
        The Chairman. The time is up.
        Mr. Gutierrez [continuing]. Governor of Puerto Rico.
        The Chairman. Mr. Gutierrez, the time is up.
        Mr. Gutierrez. I participated in that.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady
    yields. Let me recognize Mr. Lamborn for your 5 minutes, sir.
    You are recognized. Mr. Lamborn? Mr. Lamborn is not available.
    Mr. McClintock, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. You are welcome, sir.
        Mr. McClintock. I am very disappointed with the Republican
    position on this issue. H.R. 1522 seems to me to be quite
    unambiguous. It would automatically make Puerto Rico a state
    upon a Puerto Rican referendum. And we have heard many reasons
    why this may or may not be in the interest of Puerto Rico. That
    is a question for Puerto Rico.
        The question that Congress must decide is whether that is
    in the interest of the United States as a whole to admit Puerto
    Rico as a state. That is the responsibility that this bill
    would completely aggregate. I find that shocking, and I
    strongly disassociate myself and support that are expressed for
    that on behalf of the Minority. To me, this bill sidesteps
    fundamental questions that arise from statehood. And let's
    start with the impact of taxation. Many Puerto Ricans are
    exempt from Federal income taxes that they would have to pay
    under statehood. The general accounting office has estimated
    that the added tax burden that would accompany statehood could
    cause enormous job losses and additional damage to the economy
    of Puerto Rico. There is a question of language. The language
    of the United States is English, period. A common language is
    absolutely essential in a democracy. It is based on resolving
    our political differences by open debate. Open debate is
    impossible in a polyglot society.
        Seventy-six percent of Puerto Ricans, according to one
    recent poll, thought it would be unacceptable that English
    might become their official language. As one nation, we have to
    be able to talk with each other. The government of Puerto Rico
    is a fiscal basket case, which we have been dealing with on
    this Committee for many years. It has far too many public
    employees, unsustainable pension obligations, and a long
    history of corruption.
        Its labor participation rate is one-third less than that of
    the United States. An important question is does Puerto Rican
    statehood make America stronger or weaker. Furthermore, there
    has been a very unconvincing history of referenda on this
    issue, of six votes on the question since 1966. Three times,
    the people of Puerto Rico said no to statehood. The most recent
    vote was a narrow 52 to 48 in favor of statehood after many
    Puerto Ricans have already fled to the mainland. That is not
    the kind of convincing mandate that you decide the fundamental
    political relationship between Puerto Rico and the United
    States for all eternity. The impact of additional taxation will
    accompany statehood, the imposition of an official language
    opposed by a large majority of Puerto Rico and the strong
    minority sentiments in Puerto Rico for independence, free
    association, or our continued commonwealth status set the stage
    for catastrophic civil unrest if statehood should be imposed on
    such a slender, fragile, and perhaps transitory majority.
        The question we need to ask is whether admitting Puerto
    Rico as a state makes our country stronger or weaker. That is
    the crucial question. But I am shocked and saddened to see my
    party content to simply ignore. This abrogates our
    responsibility under the Constitution and instead leaves this
    far-reaching and permanent decision to a simple referendum
    within Puerto Rico. I would appeal to my Republican colleagues
    to reconsider. I have no questions and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Thank you, Mr.
    McClintock. Let me now recognize Mr. McEachin. Sir, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of
    time, I am going to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Soto of
    Florida.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. Soto. I thank the gentleman. Thank you, Chairman. I
    thank the gentleman from Virginia for your support of the
    Statehood Admission Bill as well. Colleagues, last hearing, you
    heard about the difficult challenges facing Puerto Rico over
    the past few years and currently: Hurricane Maria, the
    deadliest natural disaster in modern history, a decade-long
    recession, Draconian PROMESA budget cuts, earthquakes, and now
    COVID-19.
        As a result, Puerto Rico lost 11.8 percent of its
    population since 2010 according to the 2020 Census. The
    conclusion is obvious. The territorial status is failing Puerto
    Rico, and it is not surprising. Puerto Rico is just too big to
    be a territory anymore--3.2 million Americans there, bigger
    than half the states nearly, and yet they have one non-voting
    Resident Commissioner for the whole island. And she does her
    best, but she doesn't even get a vote on the Floor.
        Against this backdrop, the Puerto Rican legislature passed
    a law to have an election, a simple statehood yes-or-no
    question in a high turnout general election. This is the same
    ballot question used by countless states to join these United
    States before this moment. And in November 2020, they voted yes
    by 52.52 percent. And the reasons are obvious. There is no
    question at this point that having two U.S. Senators and four
    voting Members of Congress would have helped them greatly
    through these crises. There is no question that Puerto Rico as
    a territory gets far less funding than states. This wreaks
    havoc on health care, their economy, disaster relief, child tax
    credits, earned income tax credits, Social Security, and
    countless other aspects of their lives down there. We have
    spent hours upon hours in this Congress and prior Congresses
    trying to make Puerto Rico equal in Federal program after
    Federal program.
        In one bill and one vote, we can empower Americans in
    Puerto Rico to solve these inequities at once. Our bill sets up
    one last statehood yes-or-no question. And let me state the
    obvious. If they want statehood, they could vote yes. And if
    they do not, they could vote no. The vote would be binding, and
    the only action left would be approximately a year-long
    transition period, and then they would be admitted.
        Since our last hearing, Chairman Grijalva asked the U.S.
    Department of Justice to submit reports on both bills. Last
    hearing, we told you that there were only three statuses
    available to Americans in Puerto Rico under the U.S.
    Constitution: statehood, territory, and independence. The U.S.
    Department of Justice agrees. The U.S. Supreme Court already
    ruled this last year. Last hearing, we told you that a
    statehood yes-or-no question was constitutional. The U.S.
    Department of Justice agrees.
        Last hearing, we talked about the need to end the PROMESA
    fiscal board as part of the transition process. The U.S.
    Department of Justice agrees, and we will amend our bill to
    make it clear that the PROMESA fiscal board will be dissolved
    during the transition period before Puerto Rico is admitted as
    a state.
        Last hearing, we told you that a constitutional convention
    could not make up new status options. The U.S. Department of
    Justice agrees. Last hearing, we told you that a constitutional
    convention could not bind future Congresses. And yet again, the
    U.S. Justice Department agrees. So, here we are today in the
    second of two historic hearings with worthy debate. This is the
    first time Congress has had hearings on a straight-up statehood
    admissions bill in our history.
        It is the first time that the U.S. DOJ has weighed in
    timely and thoroughly on the constitutional issues and status
    options available to Americans in Puerto Rico. And soon under
    Chair Grijalva, we will have a markup. It has taken 120 years
    for Puerto Ricans to get to this moment, and it is time to give
    Americans in Puerto Rico one last binding referendum to choose
    whether to be admitted as a state or not.
        That is the opinion backed by the majority vote in Puerto
    Rico. It is also backed by a bipartisan group of legislators,
    including their own Resident Commissioner, Jenniffer Gonzalez-
    Colon, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. For these reasons
    stated, I urge you all to support H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico
    Statehood Admission Act. And from there, if my time is
    remaining, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Thank you very much,
    Mr. Soto.
        Let me now recognize Mr. Graves. Sir, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes. The gentleman is recognized.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon, are there other people on that side of
    the dais that have not been recognized that need to be
    recognized?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I can see Ms.
    Radewagen on the queue.
        The Chairman. OK. If Mr. Graves is not available, Ms.
    Radewagen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking
    Member Westerman, for holding this hearing. As a fellow Member
    representing a U.S. territory, I want to align myself with the
    statements made today by Resident Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon
    and reiterate my support for her legislation. And, with that, I
    yield my time to the Resident Commissioner.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Ms. Radewagen. I just want
    to take the floor where Mr. McClintock left it. And I wish to
    respond. I strongly disagree with his position, but this is
    part of being part of America. Not everybody will think alike.
    And, again, sometimes people are misinformed. The Republican
    platform has endorsed statehood for more than 40 years.
        So, having said that, I think this is a process to
    establish which bill has the constitutional base to respond to
    the voters or the people of the island. I may say this. If we
    are Americans, as we are, we should be listened to--that is the
    beauty of democracy. And that is the reason the people of the
    island have been voting many times requesting that equality
    that comes through statehood. This is not different from what
    Alaska and Hawaii did in the past.
        Having said that, I would like to recognize Dr. Ponsa-
    Kraus. Do you want to respond to any of the statements
    Members----
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Yes, I do. I think the argument that a
    constitutional convention as proposed in H.R. 2070 opens the
    door to unconstitutional options has been misunderstood and
    mis-stated. The argument isn't that a constitutional convention
    in Puerto Rico might do something crazy. OK? It is much more
    precise than that, and it has a context. The context is that
    Puerto Ricans were led to believe for many decades that
    Commonwealth could be non-territorial. They were led to believe
    that by the Commonwealth Party in Puerto Rico. They were told
    they had a compact. They were told they were no longer a
    territory. They voted for that under the impression they had
    something they did not have. That is the context in which the
    argument that H.R. 2070 opens the door to unconstitutional
    options exists.
        The problem is that if Congress doesn't specify the options
    the way the DOJ has done, if Congress doesn't specify the
    options and say here are the constitutional non-territorial
    options that we would be willing to agree to because they are
    consistent with the Constitution, and they would decolonize
    Puerto Rico, then what they do is send Puerto Ricans back to
    the drawing board to have the same fight again.
        It is a waste of time, and it is a delay tactic designed to
    defeat a statehood offer, which Puerto Ricans earned with their
    vote in November. So, the argument isn't Puerto Ricans might
    just do something crazy. OK? The argument is a specific legal
    argument with a context.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Sorry. You just explained it. And my
    question will be, people argue that the current level of
    support for statehood is somehow not enough. Is there a
    constitutional threshold of support that a territory must meet
    in order to become a state?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. There is not. And can I just say that if
    Congress offers an option that will obviously have an impact on
    the support that the option has, people are voting for
    statehood without knowing whether Congress would grant it. And
    Congress is the only one that has the power to admit. So,
    neither is there a constitutional requirement for a threshold,
    nor is it sensible to think that the level of support will be
    the same after an offer.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I am making those questions because
    sometimes, I can see that for other issues, 50 percent is good
    enough to elect the President of the United States, but 54
    percent is not enough to show the majority of the will of the
    island, and we must be consistent with those percentages. And
    you are the professor here, so I will take your opinion as the
    one that DOJ established.
        Is a simple majority of electors required to select the
    President of the United States?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Yes.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. If the U.S. Constitution only provides
    for statehood or independence, can the U.S. Congress enact
    anything else that at some external committee or convention
    process referring to academic theories?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. It cannot. And Congress' plenary power to
    govern territories is not relevant to Congress' power to create
    a free association that is anything other than independence.
    That is what free association is. And plenary power doesn't
    change it.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Let me now recognize the gentleman from Chicago. Mr.
    Garcia, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Garcia? Mr.
    Garcia is not available.
        I recognize the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Soto, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman.
        [Speaking in Spanish.] Thank you Rev. Carmen Cabrera for
    attending this hearing. And I have just two questions for you.
    I really appreciate you being here and giving a perspective as
    someone living a second-class citizenship on the island. And I
    know there is going to be some interpretation, right?
        The Interpreter. OK.
        Mr. Soto. Rev. Cabrera, why do you think more Puerto Ricans
    voted for statehood than any candidate on the ballot in
    November 2020?
        The Interpreter. Was it 2020 or 2019?
        Mr. Soto. 2020.
        Rev. Cabrera. 2020.
        The Interpreter. OK.
        Mr. Soto. [Speaking in Spanish.]
        Rev. Cabrera. We deeply appreciate our relationship with
    the United States of America. And the youth in Puerto Rico,
    they are changing their mindset. They are the children of
    parents who have seen the inequality. That is like a feeling
    that is inherited to the children, and when they come to the
    ballot box, they vote that way.
        Mr. Soto. Rev. Cabrera, LULAC has been a champion of Latino
    civil rights for many, many years in our country. Why do you
    think LULAC is supporting the Statehood Admission bill?
        Rev. Cabrera. In the different areas that LULAC helps with
    civil rights, with benefits and the well-being of Latinos, they
    know that Puerto Rico must accept their reality as a colony.
    And the way of getting out of this is by getting out of the
    disenfranchisement in becoming the 51st state of America.
    Again, this is not the first time that we vote. We have voted
    many, many, many times. And we have given the opportunity for
    Puerto Ricans to vote. And time and time again, we have voted
    for statehood.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Thank you, Mr. Soto.
    And let me recognize Mr. Obernolte for his 5 minutes. Sir, you
    are recognized.
        Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you to the witnesses for what has been a very interesting
    hearing. In the interest of time, I would like to yield my
    remaining time to the Representative from Puerto Rico, Miss
    Gonzalez-Colon.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Congressman, for yielding
    the time. I appreciate that. I will go back to some of the
    questions. A few minutes ago, we were talking about the
    contributions of Puerto Ricans to our Nation. And I think it is
    important to establish the numbers that are participating in
    our military forces. Eighteen thousand Puerto Ricans were part
    of World War I in our armed services. Sixty-five thousand
    Puerto Ricans fought in the Second World War. Forty-eight
    thousand Puerto Ricans fought in the Korean War, helping the
    United States. And then 48,000 fought in Vietnam and 61,000 in
    Korea. Ten thousand soldiers from the island in the U.S. Army
    fought in the Gulf War. And then you have more than 25,000
    Puerto Ricans that are active in military service, 5,000 of
    them just in the reserve, more than 8,000 in the National
    Guard, more than 38,000 deployments in Operation Enduring
    Freedom. And I can go on to establish all the recognitions that
    are Puerto Ricans in the Armed Forces--making the ultimate
    sacrifice for our Nation as they were in the Korean War having
    the Congressional Gold Medal, among many others.
        Having said that, I would like to go back to some of the
    questions. Dr. Ponsa, do you understand that the U.S.
    Constitution only provides for statehood or independence, or
    can Congress do anything else?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. The only constitutional non-territorial
    options are statehood and independence. Anything in between is
    territory.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I do believe that the analysis of H.R.
    1522 was particularly comprehensive and helped dispel some of
    the myths that are being used against statehood. For example,
    some of the opponents of statehood, on both sides of the aisle,
    claimed that Puerto Rico would first have to become an
    incorporated territory prior to the state. Didn't DOJ dispel
    this in this report, arguing that Congress could amend any bill
    to clarify that Puerto Rico will remain unincorporated?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Absolutely. And that is clear historically
    and doctrinally as well. There is no requirement that Puerto
    Rico become incorporated before becoming a state. It is within
    Congress' power to say that it is unincorporated until it
    becomes a state.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Opponents for statehood as well also
    claim that all Federal taxes lost will immediately apply to
    Puerto Rico from becoming a state. However, DOJ again dispels
    that, saying that, and according to the DOJ report, Congress
    has the power to enact legislation provided for Federal or
    delayed application of the constitutional or informative
    requirements. Is that correct or no?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. That is correct.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Do you want to expand on that?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Even the Supreme Court opinion that
    invented the status of unincorporated territory made clear that
    Congress could incorporate in certain respects and not others
    and be gradual in not others. And that same Court upheld what
    would otherwise have been a violation of uniformity just a few
    years later in the territory of Alaska. So, Congress does have
    the power to do this gradually and to incorporate one step at a
    time and provide for an appropriate transition.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Didn't DOJ also argue that legislation
    provided for gradual transition to taxes and bankruptcy before
    Puerto Rico will be constitutional?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. I didn't hear the beginning of the
    question. I am sorry.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Didn't the DOJ report also argue that
    legislation provided for a gradual transition to tax and
    bankruptcy laws, uniformity for Puerto Rico will be
    constitutional?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Yes, it did. Yes.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. And according to that report of DOJ
    that we are looking into today, will Congress have the ability
    to cite economic circumstances unique to Puerto Rico as a basis
    for a continuation or phase-out of the tax status that treats
    Puerto Rico differently?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Yes, absolutely. It stands to reason that
    Congress, with its plenary power to govern territories and its
    power to admit can provide for a reasonable transition. And the
    idea that suddenly all these oppressive things happen overnight
    has always been a scare tactic.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Dr. Ponsa.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I now recognize Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
    Sir, you are recognized. Mr. Garcia?
        Let me now recognize Mr. San Nicolas for 5 minutes. Sir,
    you are recognized.
        Mr. San Nicolas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    first begin by thanking the Committee for convening this
    hearing. I am actually on Guam at the moment. I have been with
    the Committee since 3 a.m., and this has actually been one of
    the most informative hearings that I have sat through in some
    time. I wanted to credit all of the witnesses for definitely
    bringing their A-game. Everybody absolutely is making strong
    cases for both bills, and that is something that I think is
    indicative of the fact that Puerto Rico is absolutely ready to
    vacate its territorial status.
        We have the intellect, we have the capacity, and it is time
    for us to move forward. I wanted to first address statements
    made by a colleague questioning whether or not admitting Puerto
    Rico as a state is something that is good for the country. I
    think that as long as this country maintains the hypocrisy of
    colonies, then we are losing our credibility internationally,
    and we are also undermining our credibility domestically. There
    should be no territories in this country ever. That is not what
    this country was founded upon, and it is not the future of this
    country.
        That being said, Mr. Chairman, Guam is observing this
    hearing and these proceedings with great interest as we as a
    territory also endure the same circumstances of Puerto Rico,
    notwithstanding some differences in our unincorporated
    territorial relationship with the United States. I wanted to
    first posit a question to Dr. Christina Ponsa-Kraus.
        You made it very clear in your testimony that the options
    provided to Puerto Rico, if they are going to be truly
    constitutional, can only be statehood or independence. Am I
    hearing that correctly?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Yes. Independence, including free
    association. Statehood or independence, including free
    association.
        Mr. San Nicolas. So, free association can also be a status
    option on a referendum, that would be constitutionally
    consistent?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Absolutely. My position is just that it
    needs to be made clear that free association is a form of
    independence. There is a lot of confusion. Is it two options or
    three options? Well, free association is a form of
    independence. You can count it as 2A and 2B, or 2 and 3.
        Mr. San Nicolas. I very much agree. I am very familiar with
    free association having our freely associated allies to the
    south of Guam in Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and
    the Republic of the Marshall Islands. They are all independent
    countries with compacts of free association with the United
    States. I think it is very important for us to clearly put that
    on the record that free association is independence with a
    treaty. That is absolutely what free association is.
        I also wanted to clarify some sentiments that were raised
    by our former colleague, Former Representative Luis Gutierrez.
    Sir, you mentioned that 52 percent was inadequate for that to
    reflect the will of the people. I am concerned that if we put
    forward status options that involve multiple considerations,
    whether it is statehood, free association, Commonwealth or
    independence, wouldn't having multiple status options actually
    result in an outcome even worse than 52 percent? Mr. Gutierrez?
        Mr. Gutierrez. Representative, here is my point. They
    define the manner in which the plebiscite was going to be
    conducted. Who did that? They had a majority in the House, a
    majority in the Senate. They had the governorship. And they
    decided that it was going to be yes or no on statehood.
        And my answer to you is the following. We are going to
    ultimately decide on one status. But let's remember this is
    irrevocable. You make Puerto Rico a State of the Union, and it
    is irrevocable. It should be something in which everyone
    participates. How is it----
        Mr. San Nicolas. I don't mean to be disrespectful. I need
    to reclaim my time, so I can make a final point. If I may
    reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. San Nicolas, thank you.
        Mr. San Nicolas. Thank you. So, my concern and just to
    conclude, I co-sponsored both bills, and that has to do with
    where I initiated my remarks. There should be no territories in
    this country. We need to move this issue forward one way or
    another. I am concerned about diluting the question again and
    there being some kind of undecided outcome, and no one knows
    how to move forward. I am also concerned about whether or not
    we are being very, very clear. And I think that that needs to
    happen regardless of what bill passes. But I will be voting for
    both. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. Graves, sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Congressman Gutierrez, nice to see you again. I hope you are
    doing well. I first want to just make note that I want to
    disassociate myself with comments made earlier.
        The Chairman. Mr. Graves, we are having some difficulty
    hearing. Is there a problem on your end in terms of----
        Mr. Graves. Let me try to see if I can go along to--any
    better or no?
        The Chairman. It is better. Yes.
        Mr. Graves. All right. I am not sure if you heard me
    earlier. I just want to say that I first disassociate myself
    with comments made earlier about the appropriate litmus test or
    language for folks to be citizens of the United States. I don't
    think that is the appropriate standard and very concerning to
    hear those comments made.
        Secondly, I want to thank all the witnesses that I have
    enjoyed hearing in discussion at this hearing and previous. Dr.
    Ponsa-Kraus, in your opinion, would it be disingenuous to tell
    people, the people of Puerto Rico, that there are other
    constitutionally viable status options other than statehood,
    independence, or the current territorial status?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Yes, it would be, and it has happened
    before, and it will hopefully never happen again.
        Mr. Graves. Is free association independent?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Free association is a form of
    independence, yes.
        Mr. Graves. Has the United States ever granted blanket
    citizenship to the residents of an independent nation?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. No. It never has.
        Mr. Graves. In an independent Puerto Rico under a treaty of
    free association, would U.S. citizenship be granted for future
    generations?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Congress would have the power to do so,
    and Congress would also have the power to stop doing so.
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to
    Congresswoman Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Garret Graves, for
    yielding the time, and your help in many Puerto Rican issues,
    not just in this Committee but in the Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee. And I will try to take your last
    question. And, again, I will go directly to Dr. Ponsa and
    Professor Cordova.
        Following that analysis of the Department of Justice
    regarding H.R. 1522, some are saying that statehood is the one
    that is going to say whether voters of the island will have the
    final say, that they will have to ratify statehood also made by
    Congress in a referendum. Is that correct?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. That is correct. H.R. 1522 offers it, and
    the voters have a chance to vote yes or no.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. And that would be the way to ratify
    the final step in the process to gain statehood, correct?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. Right. Well, as H.R. 1522 provides, then
    the President would be required to issue a proclamation in the
    wake of a yes vote for statehood. There are more steps, but the
    final substantive stuff would be that choice of yes if the
    voters made it.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. So, the first step is actually
    recognizing the votes of November of last year, and that is
    what this bill, H.R. 1522, does, recognizing that vote,
    prompting the question to Congress so Congress can make the
    offer to the people of the island. And once this bill is
    approved--needs to be in the House, it appears to be approved
    in the Senate--if the President is to sign it, then having a
    Federal sponsor of a referendum in Puerto Rico with that final
    yes or no question--do you want to be admitted as a state? Yes
    or no? Thus, in that process, the ``no'' will mean any other
    option, correct?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. No leaves open a subsequent process. To
    choose any other option, we are going to vote on statehood
    again. I mean, ``no'' doesn't rule anything out. The
    constitutional non-territorial options remain available.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. So, that will mean that people that
    have been saying that they are excluded from the ballot, that
    they were excluded in the past November referendum is not
    correct, actually. The people who were against statehood, who
    were for independence, who were for free association or even
    the people who wanted to remain as a territory, they were
    paying directly for the ``no'' as an option. So, they were
    represented legally and constitutionally speaking.
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. That is right. Opponents of statehood
    freely campaigned against statehood, and supporters freely
    campaigned for it. No party, no option, no voter was excluded.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady yields. Mr. Graves yields.
        Let me recognize Mr. Garcia. Sir, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to overcome
    the technical glitches. The people of Puerto Rico have suffered
    too much for too long. And we can all agree that most of Puerto
    Rico's problems are rooted in its colonial status. As Chair
    Grijalva has stated, Congress needs to keep moving forward on
    this because Puerto Rico can't stay in limbo any longer. The
    future of millions of Puerto Ricans shouldn't be a political
    football. We have an opportunity to rectify Puerto Rico's long-
    standing colonial status which has resulted in its people being
    treated as second-class citizens. But let me be clear. It must
    be done correctly and transparently. Regardless of the status
    outcome, the people of Puerto Rico deserve a thoughtful and
    thorough transition plan as required in the Puerto Rico self-
    determination plan.
        A question for Dr. Cox Alomar. In the analysis of H.R.
    1522, Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, the DOJ concluded
    that its biggest concern was execution and transition. In your
    view, would it be possible for the people of Puerto Rico to
    know what a transition to statehood might look like before they
    vote on it? And would they know the economic and political
    trade-offs?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. Well, under the current bill, there is no
    certainty. The people of Puerto Rico would basically be in the
    dark. I mean, there is no certainty about whether PROMESA would
    stay under statehood. There is no certainty of whether Puerto
    Rico would become an incorporated territory or for how long.
    And that is the basic flaw of the bill before the House right
    now before the Committee, lack of certainty.
        Mr. Garcia. So, it is not as it has been portrayed in your
    opinion by the statehood advocates.
        Dr. Cox Alomar. There could be no--I am sorry, sir. I mean,
    very quick, there can be no self-determination if there is no
    informed choice in the first place.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
        Dr. Caraballo, in their analysis, the DOJ recommends,
    quote, ``that Congress consider providing a more tailored
    solution for continuity in the operations of the Oversight
    Board.'' PROMESA passed out of Congress 5 years ago last week,
    but seems like we are talking about it non-stop in the
    Committee since I got here. I think it is fair to say that
    resolving Puerto Rico's debt in a democratic way is a
    complicated political issue.
        Do you think it is realistic for Congress to quickly find a
    tailored solution for PROMESA, and would it be possible for
    Puerto Rican voters to know what the solution might be before
    choosing statehood?
        Dr. Caraballo-Cueto. Yes. I believe that there is a quick
    pass through it. We just have to get rid of the Fiscal Control
    Board that the majority of the citizens in Puerto Rico reject.
    Once we do that, then we can start talking among more
    democratic ways to restructure the debt, especially by looking
    at what the civil society can do. The first thing that many
    people have been demanding is auditing the debt. And that is
    the first step that has to be done before restructuring.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
        And to Congressman Gutierrez, can you talk about two
    things, and briefly, in a minute and 25 seconds? The first is:
    I understand that the FBI Director in the year 2000 offered an
    apology to advocates of a different political solution, those
    for independence for all of the repression that had been
    inflicted upon them for a long time. And (2), I heard a lot of
    talk about civil rights here from advocates of statehood. What
    is their practice in terms of defending civil rights on the
    island?
        Mr. Gutierrez. No. 1, great question. No. 1, it was the FBI
    Director in the year 2000 in a congressional hearing who said
    the FBI conducted illegal searches and criminal actions against
    proponents of independence in Puerto Rico, and they did it for
    over 50 years. It wasn't just happenstance. They did it. It is
    called the creation of Las Carpetas where over 100,000
    advocates of Puerto Rican independence were monitored. And
    Congressman Garcia, we have to understand it wasn't just that
    they created dossiers on them. They destroyed families. They
    destroyed reputations. They destroyed people. And they
    debilitated the fundamental democracy in Puerto Rico. And
    secondly, look, they continued to come before the Congress of
    the United States to say, ``Where are my human rights? Where
    are my civil rights?'' Statehood is what gives it to us while
    they diminish and undermine the rights of the LGBTQ community
    in Puerto Rico.
        The civil code was just changed recently in Puerto Rico to
    undermine same-sex marriages. No. 1, the right of a woman to
    have control over her body and her reproductive system again is
    debilitated. The racist notions--I mean, think about it. The
    Statehood Party in Puerto Rico thinks it is fine to use the N-
    word. They think it is fine. They have legislators who give
    congratulatory resolutions to journalists who are fired by
    Univision, one of them for using the N-word.
        How can at this time in this nature--and I just want to say
    to you, Congressman Garcia, look. We cannot let this go by. We
    cannot allow this to continue to happen. You and I have to be
    on the City Council together. We have to go to the Congress
    because black people gave up their lives so that we could have
    a Voting Rights Act, so that we could espouse our positions.
    Cox Alomar is here with us, a distinguished jurist. And when he
    ran for Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, the former----
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
        The Chairman. I know. Gentlemen, time is up.
        Mr. Gutierrez. That is something that we should also
    address.
        Mr. Garcia. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
        Let me now recognize Mr. Hice. Sir, you are recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Let me now go to Representative Tiffany. Sir, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ranking Member, Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, are there additional
    people on your side of the dais that wish to be recognized?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman, some Members are on the
    Floor at this time, so at this time, there are no Republicans
    in the queue.
        The Chairman. OK. I appreciate that. Thank you. If Mr.
    Cohen is available on the Majority side, sir, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        I think the voting is undergoing. Let me now attempt to
    recognize a member of the Committee, Ms. Tlaib, for 5 minutes,
    any comments you may make or questions?
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
    your comments and questions.
        Given the fact that people are voting at this point, we
    will recess for a limited period of time, hopefully 15-20
    minutes, and get some of the Members that had indicated they
    wanted to participate and be recognized, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Tlaib,
    Mrs. Trahan, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Mr. Hice, and Mr. Tiffany. And
    if the Ranking Member is comfortable with that, we will recess
    and allow them to come back. You are right. This is a very
    important meeting, and I would not want to deny them their
    opportunity to have an opportunity to ask questions, so now we
    will----
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. Can we
    establish how much time?
        The Chairman. The Committee will notify, but I will--what
    time is it right now?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. 3:20.
        The Chairman. Let's say 4 o'clock.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Perfect.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        And to the witnesses, my apologies. The vote occurred. It
    is a long vote, and hopefully we will be back soon and be able
    to continue with this hearing and with the participation of the
    Members. Thank you very much. The Committee is recessed until 4
    o'clock.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. Will staff please notify the Ranking Member
    and whomever is going to be available in terms of Members, but
    we need to reconvene the meeting?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Ready to go.
        The Chairman. OK. Thank you. And before we gavel the
    meeting to start, let me just thank all the witnesses in
    particular for their endurance and their patience. I very much
    appreciate it.
        As Ms. Gonzalez-Colon knows quite well and the staff knows
    quite well, I get really frustrated with the hearings on the
    issue of status in Puerto Rico, whether it is PROMESA, because
    they go on for a long, long time.
        And I am not frustrated today--having learned a lesson that
    the issue of status, the issue of the economic and human life
    in Puerto Rico, is of tremendous consequence to everybody that
    is here, to the Members and to Congress. So, having to recess,
    having to convene back together and having a meeting that has
    extended this far, I appreciate the time. But I think it is
    necessary time because we need to move forward. So, we are
    going to reconvene the meeting, and Representative Gonzalez-
    Colon, are there any Members on your side? The sequence was the
    Minority's turn to have questions.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman, not at this time. They
    are still voting on the Floor. So, I understand that we should
    go with the next in the queue. We can continue with whatever
    Members are available.
        The Chairman. OK. The votes were much longer than
    anticipated, and I want to now recognize Representative Tlaib
    from Minnesota if she is available for any questions or
    comments she might have.
        Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Chairman. I am actually from
    Michigan, but it is OK.
        The Chairman. Michigan. I am sorry. Oh, God. And I was just
    on that meeting with you.
        Ms. Tlaib. I do have a question. Is Representative
    Velazquez on? Is she logged on? I know I just saw her voting
    just now because I am yielding my time to her, so I just logged
    on to make sure that I yielded my time to her.
        The Chairman. If you would hold, I am certain she is on her
    way, and then I can--I haven't asked questions yet, and I can
    utilize that time to recognize myself.
        Let me ask is Mr. Cohen available for questions.
        And Representative Ocasio-Cortez, is she available for
    questions?
        OK. With that, let me ask the questions that I had
    intended. And thank you very much. And I want to thank all the
    witnesses.
        Two of the witnesses had to leave, and that is unfortunate.
    Professor Cox Alomar, can we discuss the results of the 2020
    plebiscite? If I have the numbers correctly, yes on statehood
    received 52.52 percent, and no was 47 percent out of a turnout
    of 54.7 percent of eligible voters in Puerto Rico.
        Based on these results, is it accurate to say that the
    majority of Puerto Ricans voted in favor of statehood, which,
    if granted by Congress, would be irreversible and permanent?
    Any response to that question, sir?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. Well, Mr. Chairman, the problem really is
    not the numbers. The problem is that there wasn't a real
    informed choice. I mean, statehood wasn't fully defined in
    terms of its consequences. Obviously, statehood is a matter
    that goes into perpetuity. And we do not want to have a Brexit
    situation in Puerto Rico, right? We want the people of Puerto
    Rico to actually exercise their right to determine their future
    on the basis of an informed choice. And the DOJ opinion is
    pretty clear. I mean, there are a series of very problematic
    areas which are completely left undefined in the statehood
    bill.
        What happens with PROMESA and what happens with the debt,
    what is the transition to tax uniformity as required under the
    Constitution and the Equal Footing Doctrine? So, the issue here
    is trying to avoid what has happened with the Brexit, what has
    happened in southern Sudan, what had happened in other places
    where people are making choices pretty much in the dark.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Ponsa-Kraus, the U.S.
    Department of Justice submitted reports on the two pieces of
    legislation. It was approved by the White House. All executive
    branch agencies with an interest in the bills also had input.
    And those weren't presented to the Committee with comments on
    and recommendations regarding each piece of legislation. Having
    said that, would you support H.R. 1522 and H.R. 2070 if they
    were amended as recommended by the Justice Department/the Biden
    administration?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. I do support the changes suggested to H.R.
    1522, which are not to its basic merits, but there are some
    improvements there that I don't have objections to. As for H.R.
    2070, I certainly don't agree that territorial status should be
    part of any self-determination process at all.
        The Chairman. OK.
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. If it specified the options, that would be
    an improvement, but I would still object to it because I
    believe that Puerto Ricans have had a full, free, and fair
    debate for 70 years and that a constitutional convention, while
    it sounds nice, in the context of Puerto Rico is a delay. It
    doesn't move the process forward because Puerto Ricans do know
    what the actions are. And what they need is a campaign for
    options that educates them as to the basic features, but they
    don't need a constitutional convention. Constitutional
    convention is for making constitutions, and Puerto Rico has one
    already.
        The Chairman. OK. Let me just follow up real quickly
    because if I may, Doctor, one of the things that I think the
    Members in Congress and certainly in this Committee are attuned
    to is unintended consequences. And I ask that question because
    having gone through the agony of PROMESA, having gone through
    the agony of relief efforts, the duality and inequality in
    terms of the application of whether it is Social Security,
    taxes, etc., benefits to the citizens of Puerto Rico by the
    Federal Government, and now dealing with the status issue that
    has been constant. You are right, it has been constant for
    decades.
        Let's say we are going into a transition around H.R. 1522.
    Does the issue of the Oversight Board established under
    PROMESA--does that occur before or after action on H.R. 1522?
    Does constitutional uniformity in terms of taxation and
    bankruptcy laws, as an example, that single out Puerto Rico, do
    they occur--and that requires legislative action as well--do
    they occur before or after action on H.R. 1522?
        Dr. Ponsa-Kraus. They absolutely occur after. I think the
    word ``agony'' is exactly right. It is 123 years of agony, and
    it is decades of agonizing debate. It is one thing to ask the
    voters to offer them options that are constitutional and non-
    territorial and defined in their basic features for sure, for
    example, statehood, guaranteed citizenship--is independent. You
    offer them that. But then once the voters make that choice,
    then you work out the details of a transition. I mean, think
    about free association, for example. You cannot put to the
    voters a negotiated treaty of free association before they have
    chosen it, right? So, there is no way for every last detail to
    be worked out beforehand. The voters know the basic options.
    They should be told what their basic features are. And then the
    transition should be worked out. So, I don't think action
    should be delayed.
        The Chairman. Delayed being one way, the unintended
    consequences being the other way to describe it, but we will go
    with your word, ``delay,'' at this point.
        Congressman Gutierrez, in this whole discussion in looking
    at H.R. 2070 and the legislation itself, fundamental to it is a
    process, an engagement process, a civic engagement process, a
    public participation process that, as you described it and as
    the legislation describe it, lays the issue of status open for
    everyone to be able to understand exactly what happens, what
    intended and unintended consequences might be to that and have
    input and recommendations relative to that.
        Can you talk a little bit about that transparency issue
    that you mentioned at the beginning of your discussion.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here is the
    point. There hasn't been a free debate and discussion. In 1948,
    they passed the Ley de La Mordaza. And for 10 years, it was
    illegal. You would be put in jail for displaying this flag.
    There are consequences to that action, as FBI Director Freeh
    apologized and said that the FBI conducted criminal acts of
    repression against those that didn't favor a permanent
    relationship with the United States, the independence
    movements.
        So, you have to put that in context. What I want to say is,
    Mr. Chairman, I actually lived it. I watched the commercials
    each and every day. I was part of that campaign. We have people
    coming here as witnesses who weren't there, didn't see what
    happened, were never there. What happened was we had dirty,
    filthy--how would I say it--dark money.
        We don't know where it came from. So, to say it was fair,
    Mr. Chairman, is just not true. There were at least 20----
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
        The Chairman. Yes. Let me reclaim my time, Mr. Gutierrez.
    Yes. I have been the subject of some full-page ads here in
    Arizona from the pro-statehood people that I have not been able
    to verify who is paying for it at this point. But anyway, that
    doesn't bother me.
        Let me recognize now Ms. Tlaib. You are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to now yield
    my 5 minutes to Congresswoman Velazquez.
        Ms. Velazquez. OK. Thank you, Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much
    for yielding time to me. I just want to say that time and time
    again, people continue to allege unconstitutionality of H.R.
    2070 with complete disregard to the fact that we have the pen.
        The U.S. Congress, we have this pen. We write legislation.
    We pass the law. So, it is up to us, to Congress, without
    thoroughly, precisely vested by the Constitution, to decide
    what type of mechanism for decolonization we should pursue. So,
    having a transparent process and having options, that is
    exactly what we need to do in order to decolonize Puerto Rico.
        And we, in consultation, the Congress, with a bilateral
    commission, that will be the responsibility to decide what are
    the options that will be included. What are the terms and
    conditions and an education element that is so important. As I
    said before, this is not any election. This is an election to
    define and decide once and for all the colonial status of
    Puerto Rico, to put an end to that--2021. Mr. Cox, I would like
    for you to review any comments or opinions that were made
    before that you feel you need to address.
        Dr. Cox Alomar. Yes. I want to go back to the issue of
    context, and to the issue of opening doors for alleged
    unconstitutional options. When we talk about context, in the
    specific issue of Puerto Rico's status, we need not say that
    the sole culprit for x or y status was a local political party.
        We need to go back to what the United States represented to
    the United Nations. We need to go back to Mason Sears, to Henry
    Cabot Lodge, to the First Circuit of Appeals in Boston, which
    basically, under Chief Judge Magruder, even Justice Breyer,
    when he sat in the First Circuit, actually articulated a
    doctrine whereby Puerto Rico was described as having acceded to
    a special relationship under American federalism, a mutual
    consent agreement covenant with the U.S. Congress.
        So, it is not as if a local political party all of a sudden
    concocted a surreal political status. The context is very broad
    and obviously encompasses representations made by the Truman
    administration, the Eisenhower administration, the Kennedy
    administration, the Johnson administration, and a whole series
    of other administrations. As much as it is a Puerto Rican
    problem, this is an American problem, and it was authored by a
    series of administrations going back to the McKinley
    administration.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Cox.
        Mr. Cueto, I would like to address my next question to you.
    How Federal taxation under statehood or an incorporated
    territory will affect the island's economy? How would Puerto
    Rico afford paying for essential services and the debt if it
    also must pay Federal income, excise, gas, and telecom taxes
    they don't pay now? Would the creation be seriously disrupted
    under statehood as the 2014 GAO report on the effects of
    statehood suggested?
        Dr. Caraballo-Cueto. Well, the worst-case scenario will be
    an incorporated territory because we will have taxation, but we
    will not have the parity in Federal programs. So, it is going
    to cost more to Puerto Rico. Plus we are going to lose the tax
    advantages that we have right now to attract investment from
    abroad. And under statehood, especially the middle class and
    the upper class will have to pay more taxes. But the low-income
    class will receive more benefits in the case of parity for
    Federal programs. So, there is a trade-off in terms of taxation
    in the case of statehood. But in the case of incorporated
    territory, that will be the worst of all scenarios.
        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Let me recognize the gentlelady from New
    York, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Chairman Grijalva.
    Thank you for taking the time to have this meeting and this
    hearing today, and thank you to all of our witnesses who have
    come to share their expertise.
        I am a proud co-lead along with Representative Nydia
    Velazquez on H.R. 2070, which is the Puerto Rico Self-
    Determination Act, and as was noted by one of our witnesses,
    self-determination is a human right. I believe that this
    legislation is the best answer to the centuries-old question of
    Puerto Rico's status and colonial history. I am pleased that in
    the Department of Justice's analysis of our bill, they conclude
    that Puerto Rico as an island does, in fact, have a right to a
    fair and democratic self-determination process and that one-
    sided initiatives fail to grant Puerto Ricans this outcome.
        However, I want to be clear that a true decolonization
    process exempts the current territorial status. With that said,
    I just want to clear up some mythologies around this bill. To
    Dr. Cox Alomar, very quickly as a yes or no, have former
    statehood plebiscites and referendums in Puerto Rico been
    plagued historically by electoral irregularities, inaccuracies
    and/or been unilaterally influenced by one party?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. The answer is yes.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Would a constitutional assembly be the
    most inclusive, democratic, and just process given that history
    of irregularity and bias? Would a constitutional assembly be
    the most just process for the decolonization of Puerto Rico in
    your view?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. Definitely yes, and I actually invite you
    to take a look at the White House Task Force Report of 2011,
    which basically suggests that the convention is the most
    encompassing process.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Now, additionally, in our
    self-determination bill, does the bill oppose statehood?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. No.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. No. Our bill does not oppose statehood
    whatsoever. And does this bill, on the other side, too--does it
    impose independence necessarily on the island?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. The answer is no.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. No. It is status agnostic, and it is
    focused on the process. Now, let's contrast that with the
    statehood bill. The Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, if
    passed, would it admit Puerto Rico immediately to the United
    States as its supporters claim?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. The answer is no. And the DOJ says there is
    no fait accompli. This is no done deal. I mean, it is pretty
    clear----
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. This bill, if passed, will not
    immediately admit Puerto Rico as a state. Now, would this--in
    your expert opinion, can voters legitimately exercise their
    right to self-determination without knowing fully the options
    that they are voting for?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. The answer is no. Take a look at Brexit.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much. I think that is a
    wonderful example of the situation that voters are in where
    they had a status vote, were not fully informed, and many of
    them regret what is happening. On that note, do you believe
    that Puerto Ricans on the island have ever had the benefit of
    being fully informed that voting for statehood also means
    potentially ensuring the survival of La Junta de Control
    Fiscal?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. No. There is no proper process of actually
    informing folks what is going on. No.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, you would say that Puerto Ricans
    don't know that La Junta could stay and be preserved if the
    statehood bill passes?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. The answer is no.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Lastly, in the cases of Alaska and
    Hawaii, when they were admitted to the United States, they had
    a mandate that information about the legal effects of statehood
    and the transition be provided to those voters. Alaska and
    Hawaii had full information.
        Does H.R. 1522, the statehood bill, have any mandate at all
    that information about the legal effects of statehood be
    granted to voters the way that they were in Alaska and Hawaii?
        Dr. Cox Alomar. The answer is no.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, they are being treated differently
    even compared to other recent communities that were most
    recently admitted as states into the country. Puerto Ricans
    deserve to have the full facts and information about what not
    only the statehood bill contains but also what that transition
    would mean because we cannot make these decisions with a lack
    of information and find out afterwards that there are tax
    implications, financial implications, and status implications
    that may negatively affect their lives.
        So, our bill, H.R. 2070, contains, guarantees, and mandates
    a full information campaign so that Puerto Ricans will know
    what they are voting for. It doesn't say no to statehood. It
    doesn't mandate independence. What it mandates is a fully
    informed and just process that Puerto Ricans deserve. With
    that, I thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Cox Alomar, for
    your expertise, and I yield back to the Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields.
    Madam Ranking Member, are there any Members on your side that
    we did not get to?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. They are still on the Floor.
        The Chairman. OK. As we said, we are wrapping up this
    hearing. I want to thank all of you for the sacrifice of time
    and the changes you had to go through to be here, the witnesses
    in particular. To all of you, thank you very much. It was a
    very good one.
        The process of decolonization of Puerto Rico and the path
    to self-determination is the goal. And the issue for me is full
    disclosure and transparency. The issue for me is the public's
    right to know. The issue for me is that there be a level of a
    public understanding and embrace on the part of the Puerto
    Rican people on the island as to their path toward that self-
    determination. And statehood is one of the options, as my
    colleague, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, said very clearly. But also the
    process for me is to assure that those other important
    prerogatives that any voter, and certainly the people of Puerto
    Rico that have been left behind in Federal policy and Federal
    attention for too long, needs to have. We are going to continue
    to go forward.
        I will work with the Ranking Member to continue a meeting.
    The process goes forward. These two pieces of legislation
    continue to be very much the focal point of what this Committee
    will have to deal with. And the other point I want to make is
    that I am going to follow up with the Department of Justice in
    terms of the prerogatives and the powers of Congress and our
    legislative responsibility in terms of what we can and cannot
    do. There could have been some really clear denunciations about
    you can't go any further than this because of constitutional
    limits and prohibitions.
        I would like to get that opinion. I would like to get that
    pretty clearly as to what the prerogatives are so that that
    argument either continues, is validated, or is off the table.
    Thank you very much, Representative Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you
    so much for your cooperation and for helping put this meeting
    together.

        With that, the meeting is adjourned, and thank you so much.

        [Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                            Statement for the Record
                             Department of Justice
               H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act

                               Executive Summary

        The Department of Justice supports providing the people of Puerto
    Rico the opportunity to vote on whether to become a state of the Union,
    as H.R. 1522 would do. The Department's concerns with the bill relate
    only to the manner of execution. The Department's primary concerns are
    (1) providing for an orderly transition of the Financial Managements
    and Oversight Board for Puerto Rico that was established by the Puerto
    Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (``PROMESA''),
    Pub. L. No. 114-187, 130 Stat. 549 (2016); and (2) addressing legal
    complications that would ensue from application of certain
    constitutional uniformity doctrines upon Puerto Rico's transition to a
    state. The Department stands ready to assist further in refining the
    legislation to address these and other concerns described in more
    detail below.

                          Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1 (Short Title)

        The stated purpose of H.R. 1522 is allow the Puerto Rican people to
    choose whether to become a state or remain a territory. The bill itself
    would not admit Puerto Rico as a state; rather, it would direct the
    President to issue a proclamation setting a date on which Puerto Rico
    will become a state if a majority of Puerto Rican voters chooses
    statehood in a territory-wide referendum. The Department would thus
    recommend that the title of the bill be the ``Puerto Rico Statehood
    Determination Act,'' or simply the ``Puerto Rico Statehood Act,'' so as
    not imply that admission of Puerto Rico as a state is a fait accompli.
    Section 2 (Findings)

        Subsection (4): It is unclear what section 2(4) means in saying
    that Puerto Rico, unlike Alaska and Hawaii, has not achieved statehood
    ``due to anomalies emanating from the 1901 Downes ruling and its
    progeny.'' Although Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), held that
    Puerto Rico was an unincorporated territory--and therefore not ``surely
    destined for statehood,'' Boumedienne v. Bush, 553 U.S. 753, 757
    (2008)--it did not hold that Puerto Rico's current status as an
    unincorporated territory is immutable.

        Subsection (13): As all of the current inhabited territories of the
    United States (the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
    Northern Mariana Islands, in addition to Puerto Rico) are also
    considered unincorporated, we recommend changing ``unlike territories
    that are parts of the United States'' to ``unlike incorporated
    territories in the past.''

        Subsections (15)-(19): We note that the validity of the plebiscites
    identified in these findings is disputed. The Department of Justice has
    previously stated that the ballot propositions in the 2012 and 2017
    plebiscites contained inaccuracies and were potentially misleading and
    that the premise of the 2020 plebiscite--that the people of Puerto Rico
    had conclusively rejected the current territorial status in 2012 and
    2017--was one with which the Department disagreed. See, e.g., Letter
    for Juan Ernesto Davila Rivera, Chairman, Puerto Rico State Elections
    Commission, from Jeffrey A. Rosen, Deputy Attorney General, Re: Request
    of Federal Funds for Puerto Rico Plebiscite at 3 (July 29, 2020).
    Although the Department advised that all available status options were
    required to be included in the ballot for the 2017 plebiscite, we were
    not provided adequate time to review and approve the finalized ballot
    in time for the vote.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Department has assumed a role in approving the ballots and
    voter education materials for the recent plebiscites upon Puerto Rico's
    requests for disbursement of funding for a plebiscite under the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128 Stat.
    5, 61 (2014).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 3 (Admission)

        Section 3 provides:

            Subject to the provisions of this Act, and upon issuance of the
            proclamation required by section 7(c), the Commonwealth of
            Puerto Rico is hereby declared to be a State of the United
            States of America, and as such shall be declared admitted into
            the Union on an equal footing with the other States in all
            respects.

        The language of section 3 is in some tension with the language of
    section 7(c). According to section 3, Puerto Rico would become a state
    upon ``issuance of the proclamation required by section 7(c).'' Section
    7(c), however, directs the President to issue a proclamation that
    declares the date (no more than 12 months after the Governor's
    certification) on which Puerto Rico would become a state, in order to
    ``facilitate a transition process.'' Under section 7(c), therefore,
    Puerto Rico becomes a state upon the date specified in the
    proclamation, not upon the issuance of the proclamation. Section 10,
    providing for termination of all federal and territorial laws
    incompatible with a status of statehood for Puerto Rico under the
    Constitution, similarly is tied to ``the date of statehood admission
    proclaimed by the President under section 7(c).'' We presume that one
    of the purposes of this transition process is to give Congress time to
    adjust federal law to be consistent with Puerto Rico's new status as a
    state (by, for instance, repealing tax and bankruptcy laws unique to
    Puerto Rico that might implicate the uniformity requirements of the
    Constitution, discussed further below). Declaring that Puerto Rico will
    become a state ``upon issuance of the proclamation required by section
    7(c)'' will not afford time for these adjustments.

        The Department therefore recommends that section 3 be revised as
    follows:

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    `Section 4 (Physical Territory)

        The Department has no concerns with this section.
    Section 5 (Constitution)

        Section 5 provides:

            The constitution of the State of Puerto Rico shall always be
            republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the
            Constitution of the United States and the principles of the
            Declaration of Independence. The constitution of the
            Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as approved by Public Law 82-447
            and subsequently amended, is hereby found to be republican in
            form and in conformity with the Constitution of the United
            States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence,
            and is hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed as the
            constitution of said State.

    This provision seems to leave open the possibility of further
    amendments to the Constitution of Puerto Rico that would not have been
    known to Congress or the President at the time this bill is enacted
    into law. The Department recommends that section 5 be revised as
    follows:

            The constitution of the State of Puerto Rico shall always be
            republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the
            Constitution of the United States and the principles of the
            Declaration of Independence. The constitution of the
            Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as approved by Public Law 82-447
            and subsequently amended as of the date of enactment of this
            statute, is hereby found to be republican in form and in
            conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the
            principles of the Declaration of Independence, and is hereby
            accepted, ratified, and confirmed as the constitution of said
            State.
    Section 6 (Certification by President)

        Section 6 provides:

            Upon enactment of this Act, the President of the United States
            shall certify such fact to the Governor of Puerto Rico.
            Thereupon the Governor shall, within 30 days after receipt of
            the official notification of such approval, issue a
            proclamation for the election of Senators and Representatives
            in Congress.

    This language could be read to imply that Puerto Rico will be entitled
    to Senators and Representatives in Congress as soon as the bill is
    enacted, instead of on the date set by the President in section 7(c)
    for Puerto Rico's admission as a state. To avoid that implication, the
    Department recommends that section 6 be revised as follows:

            Upon enactment of this Act, the President of the United States
            shall certify such fact to the Governor of Puerto Rico.
            Thereupon the Governor shall, within 30 days after receipt of
            the official notification of such approval, issue a
            proclamation for the election of Senators and Representatives
            to serve in Congress upon admission of Puerto Rico as a State.

    Section 7 (Ratification Vote)

        Subsection (a) (Ratification of Proposition): Subsection (a)
    prescribes the method by which the Puerto Rican people may vote to
    approve making Puerto Rico into a state. It requires a ballot with the
    following question:

            Shall Puerto Rico immediately be admitted into the Union as a
            State, in accordance with terms prescribed in the Act of
            Congress approved [date of approval of this Act]?       Yes
            ____        No ____ .

    Because this language incorporates by reference the terms of this bill,
    including the territorial bounds of the new state (section 4) and other
    legal effects (sections 9 and 10), the Department believes it is
    constitutionally adequate to provide the voters of Puerto Rico with
    clear notice of what they would be approving. There is some tension,
    however, between voting that Puerto Rico be ``immediately'' admitted as
    a state and voting that Puerto Rico be admitted ``in accordance with
    terms prescribed in the Act of Congress,'' since that Act provides for
    the President to declare a later date on which Puerto Rico would be
    admitted. We recommend deleting the word ``immediately.''

        It should also be noted that the prescribed ballots for Alaska and
    Hawaii statehood included some additional detail about the legal
    effects of statehood that might have prompted voters to inspect the
    acts of Congress more closely. See Hawaii Statehood Act, Pub. L. No.
    86-3, Sec. 7(b), 73 Stat. 4, 7 (1959) (``(2) The boundaries of the
    State of Hawaii shall be as prescribed in the Act of Congress approved
    [on date of enactment], and all claims of this State to any areas of
    land or sea outside the boundaries so prescribed are hereby irrevocably
    relinquished to the United States. (3) All provisions of the Act of
    Congress approved [on date of enactment] reserving rights orto the
    United States, as well as those prescribing the terms or conditions of
    the grants of lands or other property therein made to the State of
    Hawaii[,] are consented to fully by said State and its people.'');
    Alaska Statehood Act, Pub. L. No. 85-508, Sec. 8(b), 72 Stat. 339, 343
    (1958) (``(2) The boundaries of the State of Alaska shall be as
    prescribed in the Act of Congress approved [on date of enactment] and
    all claims of this State to any areas of land or sea outside the
    boundaries so prescribed are hereby irrevocably relinquished to the
    United States. (3) All provisions of the Act of Congress approved [on
    date of enactment] reserving rights orto the United States, as well as
    those prescribing the terms or conditions of the grants of lands or
    other property therein made to the State of Alaska, are consented to
    fully by said State and its people.''). Congress might consider
    instructing Puerto Rico to include similar informative language on the
    ballot, which might include language making clear the effect of
    statehood on any Federal laws found to be at odds with constitutional
    uniformity requirements, discussed further below.

        Subsection (b) (Certified Results): Subsection (b) prescribes a
    process by which the Governor of Puerto Rico would certify to the
    President and to Congress the results of the voter referendum in
    subsection (a). The Department does not recommend changes to this
    provision.
        Subsection (c) (Presidential Proclamation): Subsection (c) would
    direct the President, upon receiving the Governor's certification in
    subsection (b), to issue a proclamation ``declaring . . . the date
    Puerto Rico is admitted as a State of the Union on an equal footing
    with all other States.'' In this proclamation, the President would
    certify that the people of Puerto Rico have voted in favor of statehood
    (based on a certification by the Governor of Puerto Rico to that fact)
    and would designate a date on which Puerto Rico would become a state.
    The President could declare that Puerto Rico is to be admitted as a
    state as much as 12 months after the certification of results by the
    Governor, ``in order to facilitate a transition process.'' Confusingly,
    however, the final sentence of subsection (c) provides: ``Upon issuance
    of the proclamation by the President, Puerto Rico shall be deemed
    admitted into the Union as a State.'' This contradiction is similar to
    the one noted above in section 3. Assuming that Congress intends for
    the transition process to be effective, the Department recommends
    deleting the final sentence in section 7(c).
    Section 8 (Election of Officers)

        Section 8 provides that, upon issuing the proclamation required by
    section 6, the Governor of Puerto Rico shall institute a process for
    the voters of Puerto Rico to elect Senators and Representatives.
    ``Puerto Rico shall be entitled to the same number of Representatives
    as the State whose most recent Census population was closest to, but
    less than, that of Puerto Rico,'' H.R. 1522, Sec. 8(2), and that number
    of Representatives would be added temporarily to the current total of
    435 Representatives in the House, until the next apportionment, at
    which time the number of Representatives in the House would revert to
    435. ``Thereafter, the State of Puerto Rico shall be entitled to such
    number of Representatives as provided for by applicable law based on
    the next reapportionment.'' Id.

        According to the Census Bureau's recently issued population counts
    and apportionments based on the 2020 Census, Puerto Rico's population
    in 2020 was 3,285,874. Utah was the State with the closest population
    that was less than Puerto Rico's, with a population of 3,275,252 and
    four Representatives. As a result, under section 8 Puerto Rico would be
    temporarily entitled to four Representatives and the House would
    increase temporarily to 439 members. This arrangement would last until
    the next apportionment following the next decennial census, likely in
    2031.

        The temporary designation of Representatives for Puerto Rico based
    on its population count in the most recent census would comply with the
    constitutional requirements for apportionment of Representatives. Other
    than stating that ``Representatives shall be apportioned among the
    several States according to their respective numbers, counting the
    whole number of persons in each State excluding Indians not taxed,''
    U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Sec. 2 (Apportionment Clause) (emphasis added),
    the Constitution does not prescribe a precise formula by which
    population is to be used in determining how many Representatives each
    state will receive. Exact apportionment ``according to [the states']
    respective numbers'' is not possible, since it would yield a non-whole
    number of Representatives for each state, and the Apportionment Clause
    necessarily accords Congress some flexibility in devising a formula to
    distribute Representatives among the states. Congress has used a
    variety of methods over time to determine the number of Representatives
    for each state, settling on the current method of equal proportions in
    1941. See Royce Crocker, Cong. Research Serv., The U.S. House of
    Representatives Apportionment Formula in Theory and Practice, No.
    R41357, at 1-2 (Aug. 4, 2013); Pub. L. No. 77-291, Sec. 1, 55 Stat.
    761, 762 (1941), codified as amended at 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2a. Although the
    apportionment of Representatives to Puerto Rico equivalent to the
    number apportioned to the state with the closest, but lower, population
    than Puerto Rico deviates slightly from simple application of the equal
    proportions approach, it appears well within the range of discretion
    accorded to Congress by the Apportionment Clause and is consistent with
    historical practice when a territory is newly admitted as a state. For
    example, Hawaii received one Representative following its admission to
    statehood, and its apportionment then rose to two Representatives under
    the equal proportions approach after the 1960 census. See Cong.
    Research Serv., Puerto Rican Statehood: Effects on House Apportionment,
    No. R41113, at 2, 5 (Mar. 16, 2011); Hawaii Statehood Act, Pub. L. No.
    86-3, Sec. 8, 73 Stat. 4, 8 (1959).

        In addition, temporarily increasing the number of Representatives
    to 439 would come nowhere close to contravening the constitutional
    requirement that ``[t]he number of Representatives shall not exceed one
    for every Thirty Thousand.'' U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3. Here,
    too, this approach accords with historical practice. With the admission
    of Alaska and Hawaii, each of which received one Representative, the
    House of Representatives increased temporarily from 435 to 437 members
    until the next apportionment following the 1960 census. At that time,
    the House reverted to 435 members and the newly admitted states
    received Representatives along with the other 48 states in accordance
    with the method of equal proportions.
    Section 9 (Continuity of Laws, Government, and Obligations)

        Subsection (1) (Continuity of Laws): Subsection (1) would provide
    that laws both of the United States and of Puerto Rico shall remain in
    effect following Puerto Rico's admission as a state, if they are ``not
    in conflict with this Act.'' Section 10, discussed next, would provide
    for the repeal of any law ``incompatible with the political and legal
    status of statehood under the Constitution.'' To make these provisions
    parallel, the Department recommends that subsection (1) be modified to
    provide that the laws of the United States and of Puerto Rico shall
    remain in effect if they are ``not in conflict with this Act or with
    the Constitution.''

        The Department additionally recommends that Congress consider
    providing a more tailored solution for continuity in the operations of
    the Financial Managements and Oversight Board for Puerto Rico
    (``Oversight Board''). The Oversight Board was established by the
    Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act
    (``PROMESA''), Pub. L. No. 114-187, Sec. 101, 130 Stat. 549, 553
    (2016), codified at 48 U.S.C. Sec. 2121, to approve plans for
    restructuring Puerto Rico's debt as well as Puerto Rico's budget and
    fiscal plans, id. Sec. Sec. 201-212, codified at 48 U.S.C.
    Sec. Sec. 2141-2152. PROMESA created the Oversight Board ``as an entity
    within the territorial government for which it is established,''
    pursuant to Congress's authority under the Territory Clause, Article
    IV, Section 3. Pub. L. No. 114-187, Sec. 101(b), (c). The Supreme Court
    recently held that the members of the Oversight Board were local or
    territorial officers because they have ``primarily local duties.'' Fin.
    Oversight & Management Bd. for P.R. v. Aurelius Inv., LLC, 140 S. Ct.
    1649, 1663 (2020).

        Subsection (2) (Continuity of Government): Subsection (2) would
    provide that ``individuals holding legislative, executive, and judicial
    offices of Puerto Rico shall continue to discharge the duties of their
    respective offices when Puerto Rico becomes a State.'' As the Oversight
    Board is statutorily denominated part of the territorial government,
    and the Board members are territorial officers, the Oversight Board
    would appear to become part of the new state government if Puerto Rico
    becomes a state. This would accord with historical practice, although
    the statehood admission acts for Alaska and Hawaii more clearly
    provided that, upon admission as a state, ``officers not required to be
    elected . . . shall be selected or continued in office as provided by
    the constitution and laws of said State'' and would ``exercise all the
    functions pertaining to their offices'' in, under, or by the authority
    of the government of said State. Alaska Statehood Act, Pub. L. No. 85-
    508, Sec. 8(c), 72 Stat. 339, 344 (1958); Hawaii Statehood Act, Pub. L.
    No. 86-3, Sec. 7(c), 73 Stat. 4, 8 (1959).

        One complication, however, is that PROMESA provides that the seven
    members of the Oversight Board will be appointed by the President and
    sets out an elaborate structure whereby the President can select from
    congressionally provided lists, thereby avoiding the need for Senate
    confirmation, or can appoint ``off-list'' in which case Senate advice
    and consent is required. 48 U.S.C. Sec. 2121(e)(2). It is unclear
    whether or how this appointment structure would transfer over to the
    state level upon Puerto Rico's becoming a state. Questions about the
    Oversight Board's composition might undercut its capacity to operate.

        The Department thus recommends that Congress expressly provide in
    H.R. 1522, or in separate legislation enacted during the transition
    period effected by the President's proclamation of a date for admission
    of Puerto Rico, for an orderly transition of the Oversight Board into
    an entity of the new State of Puerto Rico. Alternatively, of course,
    Congress may decide that the Oversight Board should terminate
    operations if Puerto Rico becomes a state, in which case the Department
    would also recommend express legislation to that effect.
    Section 10 (Repeals)

        Section 10 provides that ``[a]ll Federal . . . laws, rules, and
    regulations, or parts of Federal . . . laws, rules, and regulations,
    applicable to Puerto Rico that are incompatible with the political and
    legal status of statehood under the Constitution and the provisions of
    this Act are repealed and terminated as of the date of statehood
    admission proclaimed by the President under section 7(c) of this Act.''
    This abrupt transition oversimplifies what it will take to admit Puerto
    Rico on an equal footing with other states. Some additional legislation
    will likely be required to address instances where federal law
    regarding Puerto Rico is not compatible ``with the political and legal
    status of statehood.''

        Under current federal tax and bankruptcy law, for example, Puerto
    Rico is treated differently than states. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. Sec. 933
    (providing tax credit to ``a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico'' for
    ``income derived from sources within Puerto Rico''); id. Sec. 7653(b)
    (``Articles, goods, wares, or merchandise going into Puerto Rico, the
    Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa from the United States shall
    be exempted from the payment of any tax imposed by the internal revenue
    laws of the United States.''); PROMESA, Pub. L. No. 114-187, 130 Stat.
    549 (2016), codified at 48 U.S.C. ch. 20 (providing special process for
    restructuring the debt of Puerto Rico). The Constitution meanwhile
    requires that all ``Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform
    throughout the United States,'' U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, and
    authorizes Congress to make ``uniform Laws on the subject of
    Bankruptcies throughout the United States,'' id. cl. 4; see also id.
    Sec. 9, cl. 6 (``No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of
    Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another;
    nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State be obliged to enter,
    clear, or pay Duties to another.''). These uniformity requirements have
    not applied to Puerto Rico given its status as an unincorporated
    territory, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 282-84, 287 (1901); id. at
    291, 339-40 (White, J., concurring, joined by Shiras and McKenna, JJ.),
    but would become applicable upon Puerto Rico's becoming a state.

        Presumably, one reason why the Act allows up to a year between a
    vote by Puerto Rico in favor of statehood and Puerto Rico's admission
    as a state is to provide a window within which Congress can address
    this conflict between current law and uniformity requirements, as well
    as any other issues implicated by Puerto Rico's transition to
    statehood. It is possible, however, that Puerto Rico would become an
    incorporated territory, and thus fully subject to the Constitution and
    the uniformity requirements of Article I, even before the date the
    President designates for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state.
    Although the case law on when a territory is deemed to be incorporated
    is not ``altogether harmonious,'' Downes, 182 U.S. at 258, one
    formulation the Supreme Court has frequently used is that an
    incorporated territory is one that is ``surely destined for
    statehood.'' Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 757; see also United States v.
    Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 268 (1990) (an ``unincorporated
    territory'' is one ``not clearly destined for statehood''). Under H.R.
    1522, Puerto Rico would appear to be ``surely destined for statehood''
    when the President of the State Elections Commission for Puerto Rico
    certifies under section 7(b) that a majority of Puerto Rican voters
    have cast ballots in favor of statehood. At that point, section 7(c)
    requires the President to proclaim the date on which Puerto Rico would
    succeed to statehood.

        Attorney General Thornburgh took a similar view in 1991, regarding
    a bill that would have authorized a referendum on the legal status of
    Puerto Rico accompanied by a non-binding ``commitment by Congress to
    implement the status receiving a majority.'' S. 244, Sec. 101(e)(2).
    The bill contemplated that the implementing legislation would include a
    five-year transition period to phase out the special tax treatments for
    Puerto Rico that would have come into conflict with the Uniformity
    Clause. Attorney General Thornburgh testified that Puerto Rico ``would
    become subject to the requirements of the [U]niformity [C]lause as soon
    as Congress passe[d] implementing legislation to make Puerto Rico a
    State,'' because at that point in time it would have to be considered
    ``destined for statehood.'' Political Status of Puerto Rico: Hearings
    on S. 244 Before the S. Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 102d
    Cong. at 189-90 (Feb. 7, 1991) (``1991 Hearings'').

        We nevertheless believe that Congress should be able to enact
    legislation providing for a delayed or gradual application of the
    Constitution's uniformity requirements, including the potential delay
    of up to a year before these requirements apply envisioned by the
    combination of sections 7(c) and 10. Some case law suggests that
    incorporation rests on the intent of Congress as expressed in statutes
    (or on the intent of the President and Senate, as expressed in
    treaties), and not just on an independent judicial assessment of the
    likelihood that a particular territory will eventually become a state.
    See Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 309 (1922) (``[I]n
    the absence of other and countervailing evidence, a law of Congress or
    a provision in a treaty acquiring territory, declaring an intention to
    confer political and civil rights on the inhabitants of the new lands
    as American citizens, may be properly interpreted to mean an
    incorporation of it into the Union[.]''); see also Rassmussen v. United
    States, 197 U.S. 516, 523 (1905) (``That Congress, shortly following
    the adoption of the treaty with Russia, clearly contemplated the
    incorporation of Alaska into the United States as a part thereof, we
    think plainly results from the act[s] . . . concerning internal revenue
    taxation, . . . extending the laws of the United States relating to
    customs, commerce and navigation over Alaska and establishing a
    collection district therein.'') In Balzac, the Court reasoned that,
    ``[h]ad Congress intended to take the important step of changing the
    treaty status of Porto Rico by incorporating it into the Union, it is
    reasonable to suppose that it would have done so by the plain
    declaration, and would not have left it to mere inference.'' 258 U.S.
    at 306; see also id. (``[I]ncorporation is not to be assumed without
    express declaration, or an implication so strong as to exclude any
    other view.''). The Supreme Court has also highlighted the role of
    ``practical considerations'' in determining which constitutional
    provisions apply to a given territory, noting ``a common thread'' in
    the relevant case law: ``the idea that questions of extraterritoriality
    turn on objective factors and practical concerns, not formalism.''
    Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 757-64.

        H.R. 1522 does not contain an express declaration of intent to make
    Puerto Rico an ``incorporated'' territory immediately upon
    certification of a pro-statehood vote. To the contrary, H.R. 1522 seems
    designed to postpone incorporation until the effective date in the
    President's declaration, at which time Puerto Rico would skip past the
    intermediate step of being considered an incorporated territory and be
    admitted directly into the Union as a state. Moreover, the immediate
    disruption that would result were Puerto Rico to quickly become subject
    to the Constitution's uniformity provisions should count strongly
    against such a result. To reduce the possibility of immediate
    incorporation even further, however, the Department recommends that
    Congress state expressly that Puerto Rico shall remain unincorporated
    until its admission as a state under section 3.

        Even if the uniformity requirements of Article I were to become
    immediately applicable upon certification of a pro-statehood vote, we
    think that legislation providing for a gradual transition to tax and
    bankruptcy uniformity for Puerto Rico would be constitutional. In
    United States v. Ptasynski, 462 U.S. 74 (1983), the Court upheld a tax
    exemption for crude oil produced in a geographically defined area that
    encompassed Alaska and ``certain offshore territorial waters'' that
    were ``beyond the limits of any State'' against a uniformity challenge.
    Id. at 78. Previously, the Court had made clear that the Uniformity
    Clause ``does not require Congress to devise a tax that falls equally
    or proportionately on each State'' and thus had confirmed Congress's
    authority to draw ``distinctions between similar classes'' in
    ``defining the subject of a tax,'' as long as the tax applied evenly
    ``wherever the classification is found.'' Id. at 82. The Court appeared
    to regard the geographic classification in Ptasynski as a logical
    extension of this principle, in view of credible evidence amassed by
    Congress of ``climatic and geographic conditions'' unique to the
    covered geographic region. Id. at 78; see id. at 78-79 & nn. 6-7
    (discussing evidence).

        Although the tax exemptions for Puerto Rico in 26 U.S.C.
    Sec. Sec. 933 and 7653 are arguably distinct in being expressly ``drawn
    on state political lines,'' id. at 78, the reasoning of Ptasynski
    suggests that a geographic classification based on state boundaries
    does not violate the Uniformity Clause if Congress can demonstrate that
    the classification arises from genuine differences in economic
    circumstance that fall incidentally along state lines. In the case of
    Puerto Rico, the objective of maintaining the tax preferences for a
    short transition period would be to ameliorate the economic dislocation
    that would result from a sudden loss of pre-existing tax preferences
    accompanying the switch from commonwealth status to statehood. Attorney
    General Thornburgh testified to similar effect in 1991, stating that
    ``the uniformity clause permits tax transition provisions, provided
    they are narrowly tailored, to prevent specific and identified problems
    of economic dislocation that Congress concludes would otherwise result
    from the transition from a non-incorporated territorial status to
    either an incorporated territorial or State status.'' 1991 Hearings at
    190; see also Puerto Rico's Political Status: Hearings on S. 712 Before
    the S. Comm. on Finance, 101st Cong. at 7 (1989) (``1989 Hearings'')
    (testimony of Shirley D. Peterson, Assistant Attorney General for the
    Tax Division of the Department, that the Uniformity Clause did not
    ``disable Congress from fashioning reasonable and necessary
    transitional measures'').

        To the best of our knowledge, no court has addressed the extent to
    which Congress may provide for transitional disuniformity in the tax
    treatment of an incoming state, so any attempt to suggest an outer
    limit on how long the transition period could last would be speculative
    at best. In 1989, the Department testified that a three-year transition
    period to phase out special tax treatment was permissible, see 1989
    Hearings at 7 (testimony of Peterson); in 1991, the Department
    intimated that five years might be too much, see 1991 Hearings at 189
    (testimony of Thornburgh). Notably, at least one statute, retained from
    the period before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as states, continues
    to single out portions of the routes to and from those states for a
    reduced tax on air transportation. See 26 U.S.C. Sec. 4262(b)(2),
    (c)(1); 26 C.F.R. Sec. 49.4262-2(b). It does not appear that this
    differential treatment has been challenged constitutionally, and this
    treatment may be justified by a uniform principle of reducing the
    incidence of the tax on routes of longer distances. By similar logic,
    Congress might be able to cite economic circumstances unique to Puerto
    Rico--perhaps, for example, patterns of investment undertaken in
    reliance on Puerto Rico's disuniform tax treatment--as a basis for a
    continuation or longer phase-out of tax statutes that treat Puerto Rico
    differently.

        We believe a transition period should also be permissible for the
    special bankruptcy provisions for Puerto Rico in PROMESA. In Railway
    Labor Executives Ass'n v. Gibbons, 455 U.S. 457 (1982) (``Rock
    Island''), the Court struck down on uniformity grounds a federal law
    designed solely for the bankruptcy of the Rock Island Railroad,
    reasoning that ``[t]o survive scrutiny under the Bankruptcy Clause, a
    law must at least apply uniformly to a defined class of debtors,'' and
    ``a bankruptcy law . . . confined as it is to the affairs of one named
    debtor can hardly be considered uniform.'' Id. at 473. Yet the Court
    also stated, similar to Ptasyski, that the uniformity requirement ``
    `does not deny Congress power to take into account differences that
    exist between different parts of the country, and to fashion
    legislation to resolve geographically isolated problems.' '' Id. at 469
    (quoting Regional Railroad Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 159
    (1974)). Arguably, legislation limited to Puerto Rico should be viewed
    not as legislation directed at Puerto Rico as a specific debtor, but at
    Puerto Rico as a specific region for which it is necessary to resolve
    ``geographically isolated problems.'' In advising on the
    constitutionality of PROMESA before it was enacted, we had considerable
    doubts that this argument would prevail. But we believe that such an
    argument would be more likely to succeed as a justification for
    disuniformity during a transition period, given that Puerto Rico's
    change in status to a state is a factor distinct from its status as a
    debtor.

        More broadly, we think a good argument can be made that PROMESA
    would not violate the uniformity requirements of the Bankruptcy Clause
    at all were Puerto Rico to become a state. PROMESA was enacted under
    the Territories Clause and its bankruptcy provisions would attach to
    any relevant debt before Puerto Rico becomes a state and uniformity
    requirements applied. Congress could also determine that it is
    ``necessary and proper for carrying into Execution'' its Article IV to
    fashion a broader solution for territories entering the Union, thereby
    avoiding the pitfall of ``a bankruptcy law . . . confined as it is to
    the affairs of one named debtor.'' Rock Island, 455 U.S. at 473. ``As
    stated by the Supreme Court in the Railroad Rail Reorganization
    Cases,'' the Bankruptcy Clause `` `was not intended to hobble Congress
    by forcing it into nationwide enactments to deal with conditions
    calling for a remedy only in certain regions.' '' 1989 Hearings at 8
    (quoting 419 U.S. at 159) (testimony of Peterson).

        In short, regardless of whether Puerto Rico becomes subject to the
    uniformity requirements in Article I at the time a pro-statehood vote
    is certified or on the date set by the President for admission to
    statehood, we think there will be opportunity for Congress to enact
    further legislation providing for a phase-out of those tax and
    bankruptcy laws that single out Puerto Rico for special treatment. We
    recommend, however, that Congress include findings in any such bill,
    ideally supported by expert testimony in public hearings, explaining
    why a phase-out period is necessary to avoid specific economic problems
    unique to Puerto Rico.
    Section 11 (Severability)

        The Department has no concerns with this section.

                                     ______

                            Statement for the Record
                             Department of Justice
           H.R. 2070, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021

                               Executive Summary

        The Department of Justice agrees that the people of Puerto Rico
    should be allowed to choose whether to become a nation independent of
    the United States, become a state within the United States, or retain
    the current status of a territory. Insofar as H.R. 2070 would
    facilitate a choice among those three options, which we believe are the
    three constitutional options available to Puerto Rico, the Department
    supports the bill. In the section-by-section analysis, the Department
    explains the basis for its view more fully and advises of its comments
    on certain sections of the bill.

                          Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1 (Short Title)

        The Department has no comment on this section.
    Section 2 (Findings)

        The Department has no comment on this section.
    Section 3 (Puerto Rico Status Convention)

        Section 3(a) provides that the Puerto Rico legislature will have
    ``inherent authority'' to call a status convention ``for the purpose of
    proposing to the people of Puerto Rico self-determination options.''
    The convention, consisting of delegates elected by Puerto Rico voters,
    would be tasked with ``debat[ing] and draft[ing] definitions on self-
    determination options for Puerto Rico, which shall be outside the
    Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution,'' and presenting
    those options, along with at least one transition plan for each option,
    to Puerto Rico voters in a referendum. H.R. 2070, Sec. 3(c). Once
    assembled, the convention would be ``dissolved only when the United
    States ratifies the self-determination option presented to Congress by
    the status convention as selected by the people of Puerto Rico in the
    referendum.'' Id. Sec. 3(a)(1).

        The Department has three comments on this section.

        1. The Department's first comment relates to the reference to the
    Puerto Rico legislature's having ``inherent'' authority to call a
    status convention. H.R. 2070, Sec. 3(a). We surmise that this
    description of the nature of Puerto Rico's authority is intended to
    acknowledge the Commonwealth's significant autonomy and powers of self-
    government. We note, however, that the use of the word ``inherent'' may
    create confusion as to the ultimate source of the Puerto Rico
    government's authority. As the Supreme Court recently noted, even
    though ``Puerto Rico today has a distinctive, indeed exceptional,
    status as a self-governing Commonwealth,'' the ``ultimate source'' of
    Puerto Rico law is an enactment of the U.S. Congress. Puerto Rico v.
    Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1874 (2016) (concluding that Puerto
    Rico and the United States are not separate sovereigns for purposes of
    the Double Jeopardy Clause). Describing Puerto Rico's authority as
    ``inherent''--that is, ``existing . . . as a permanent attribute or
    quality . . . indwelling, intrinsic,'' OED Online (Mar. 2021)--when in
    fact that authority derives from Congress, is legally inaccurate. The
    Department does not object to some sort of acknowledgment of Puerto
    Rico's self-governance, but to avoid confusion as to the source of the
    Puerto Rico legislature's authority, we recommend striking the word
    ``inherent.''

        2. Second, the Department notes that section 3 appears to be in
    tension with the executive branch's long-standing ``policy . . . to
    enable Puerto Ricans to determine their preference among options for
    the islands' future status that are not incompatible with the
    Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States'' and to
    ``consider and develop positions on proposals, without preference among
    the options, for the Commonwealth's future status.'' Exec. Order No.
    13183 (Dec. 23, 2000). The tension results because of the combination
    of several provisions: section 3(a)(1), which provides that the
    convention would be ``dissolved only when the United States ratifies
    the self-determination option presented to Congress by the status
    convention as selected by the people of Puerto Rico'' pursuant to the
    referendum authorized in section 5; section 3(c)(1), which expressly
    instructs the status convention to develop options for Puerto Rico that
    are ``outside the Territorial Clause of the United States
    Constitution''; and section 3(c)(3), which provides that the convention
    ``shall . . . select and present to the people of Puerto Rico the self-
    determination options that will be included in the referendum under
    section 5.'' See also Sec. 5(a)(1)(B) (``A referendum vote by the
    people of Puerto Rico . . . may consist of choices each composed of a
    self-determination definition and accompanying transition plan as
    presented by the delegates under section 3'').

        Taken together, these provisions appear to eliminate the current
    territorial status as an available choice for the people of Puerto Rico
    under the procedures in the bill. Moreover, these provisions may be
    read to imply that the United States has determined that the people of
    Puerto Rico may not decide to retain the island's current territorial
    status, departing from the executive branch's long-standing view that
    ``Puerto Ricans should determine for themselves the future status of
    the Island'' and the federal government's responsibility is to
    facilitate ``the desire of the people of Puerto Rico to change status
    or to establish, for some period of time, that they have chosen no
    change in status.'' Report by the President's Task Force on Puerto
    Rico's Status at 23-24 (Mar. 2011) (``2011 Task Force Report''); see
    also Presidential Memorandum of December 23, 2000 (``Resolution of
    Puerto Rico's Status'') (noting that ``[s]uccessive Presidents . . .
    have supported the people of Puerto Rico in determining their status
    preference from among options that are not incompatible with the
    Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States'' and
    concluding that the executive branch has ``the responsibility to help
    Puerto Ricans obtain the necessary transitional legislation toward a
    new status, if chosen''). One way to address these concerns is to
    remove the phrase ``which shall be outside the Territorial Clause of
    the United States Constitution'' from section 3(c)(1).

        3. Finally, the Department notes that section 3 does not specify
    that the only constitutionally permissible status options available to
    the status convention--and thus the only options that Congress could
    subsequently adopt by joint resolution, see H.R. 2070, Sec. 6--are
    statehood, independence, or Puerto Rico's current status as a
    territory. Independence is a general term that refers to the
    possibilities both of full independence from the United States and of a
    compact of free association, in which Puerto Rico would become a
    sovereign nation but would continue to have close ties to the United
    States under the terms of a mutually agreed-upon compact. See 2011 Task
    Force Report at 25. Were Puerto Rico to choose a compact of free
    association, it would occupy a status similar to the Republic of the
    Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic
    of Palau. Id.

        As has been the Department's consistent view since 1991, we
    continue to believe that the Constitution limits Puerto Rico to three
    constitutional choices: the current territorial status, statehood, or
    independence. The District of Columbia aside, land under United States
    sovereignty must be either a state or a territory; and if land is ``not
    included in any State,'' it ``must necessarily be governed by or under
    the authority of Congress.'' First Nat'l Bank v. Yankton County, 101
    U.S. 129, 133 (1879). Congress may, in its administration of non-state
    land, afford such a territory considerable powers of self-government,
    as it has already done with Puerto Rico. See Puerto Rican Federal
    Relations Act, Pub. L. No. 81-600, 64 Stat. 319 (1950), codified at 48
    U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 731b-731e. But Congress cannot constitutionally
    relinquish its ability to legislate with respect to that territory
    under the Territories Clause unless it either admits the territory as a
    state, U.S. Const. art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 1, or enacts legislation making
    the territory independent and no longer subject to the jurisdiction of
    the United States. See Mutual Consent Provisions in the Guam
    Commonwealth Legislation, Op. O.L.C. Supp. ____, at *5 (July 28, 1994)
    (``Mutual Consent'') (``The requirement that the delegation of
    governmental authority to the non-state areas be subject to federal
    supremacy and federal supervision means that such delegation is
    necessarily subject to the right of Congress to revise, alter, or
    revoke the authority granted.'') (citing Dist. of Columbia v. Thompson
    Co., 346 U.S. 100, 109 (1953), among other cases). In other words,
    there is no constitutionally permissible status ``outside of the
    Territorial Clause'' other than statehood or independence (including
    free-association agreements).

        Our view on this issue also rests on the general rule that one
    Congress cannot irrevocably bind subsequent Congresses. See Marbury v.
    Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.) (noting
    that legislative acts are ``alterable when the legislature shall please
    to alter [them]''). Although this general rule is subject to
    limitations imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,
    those limitations do not apply to protect Puerto Rico's political
    status from congressional revision if Puerto Rico remains a territory.
    Mutual Consent at *8-9. Territories, like states and their political
    subdivisions, are not ``persons'' for purposes of due process. Id. at
    *6-7. And a particular political relationship with the national
    government is not the type of vested property right that due process
    protects. Id. at *8-9 (citing Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to
    Social Security Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41, 55 (1986), among other cases).

        In the past, Congress has purported to enter into covenants with
    territories that would be alterable only with mutual consent. See,
    e.g., Pub. L. No. 24-241, 90 Stat. 263, 264 (1976) (approving the
    ``Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
    in Political Union with the United States of America,'' section 105 of
    which provides that certain provisions of the Covenant ``may be
    modified only with the consent of the Government of the United States
    and the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands''); Act of Aug. 7,
    1789, ch. 8, 1 Stat. 50, 52 n.a (maintaining the Northwest Ordinance,
    including a prefatory clause providing that the articles of the compact
    would ``forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent''); Mutual
    Consent at *2 n.2. But in view of the foregoing principles, we believe
    that these provisions cannot be binding--a view to which the Department
    has long subscribed. See Mutual Consent at *13.

        We note, in addition, that the principle of a current Congress's
    not being able to bind future Congresses would also apply to any
    compact of free association entered into with Puerto Rico if Puerto
    Rico were to choose that type of independence. As a matter of our
    domestic law, such a compact would necessarily be revocable or subject
    to revision by a subsequent act of Congress. See Medellin v. Texas, 552
    U.S. 491, 509 n.5 (2008) (``[A] later-in-time federal statute
    supersedes inconsistent treaty provisions.'').
    Section 4 (Congressional Bilateral Negotiating Commission)

        Section 4(a) would establish a ``Congressional Bilateral
    Negotiating Commission . . . to provide advice and consultation to
    delegates elected'' to the status convention established under section
    3. H.R. 2070, Sec. 4(a). It would be composed of a number of members of
    Congress, including the chairs and ranking members of the relevant
    congressional committees, members selected by congressional leadership,
    and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico. Id. Sec. 4(b)(1). In
    addition, the Commission would include ``a member from the Department
    of Justice'' and ``a member from the Department of the Interior,'' both
    ``with the consent of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
    majority leader of the Senate.'' Id. Sec. 4(b)(1)(H), (I).

        The Commission would seem to be a legislative branch entity that
    reports only to congressional leadership and is limited to purely
    advisory functions, such as ``develop[ing] recommendations regarding
    self-determination options on constitutional issues and policies'' and
    ``provid[ing] technical assistance and constitutional advice to the
    delegates during the Puerto Rico status convention.'' Id. Sec. 4(c).
    Consistent with separation of powers constraints, we do not understand
    that policy or legal recommendations issued by the Commission would
    bind the Executive Branch. See, e.g., Metro. Wash. Airports Auth. v.
    Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U.S. 252, 276
    (1991) (``If the power is executive, the Constitution does not permit
    an agent of Congress to exercise it.''); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1,
    139 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that congressional appointees may
    ``perform duties only in aid of those functions that Congress may carry
    out by itself, or in an area sufficiently removed from the
    administration and enforcement of the public law'').

        Finally, we note that the name of the Commission, the
    ``Congressional Bilateral Negotiating Commission,'' does not seem to be
    an apt description of the Commission's advisory duties. The Department
    does not read the duties of the Commission to include negotiations with
    the convention and would accordingly suggest that the name be modified
    to more accurately characterize the Commission's role--e.g., the
    Congressional Advisory Commission.
    Section 5 (Puerto Rico Status Referendum; Education Campaign)

        The Department has identified no legal concerns with this
    provision, which sets out the structure for a referendum vote on the
    status options developed by the convention under section 3. We note,
    however, that in the past Congress has sought the Department of
    Justice's involvement in ensuring that the options presented to the
    Puerto Rican people in a plebiscite are constitutional. See H.R. Rep.
    No. 113-171, at 54 (2014). Were the legislation to provide for the
    Department of Justice to have a certification role here, it would help
    ensure that any status option developed by the convention and selected
    by the people of Puerto Rico would be constitutional and thus could be
    ratified by Congress.
    Section 6 (Congressional Deliberation and Enacting Resolution)

        Section 6 would provide that ``[i]f the referendum under this Act
    is approved by the people of Puerto Rico, Congress shall approve a
    joint resolution to ratify the preferred self-determination option
    approved in that referendum vote.'' This provision is constitutional
    only if it is read to mean that Congress shall consider whether to
    approve a joint resolution ratifying the results of the referendum. If,
    instead, it were read to bind Congress to approve a joint resolution,
    it would impermissibly constrain Congress.

        To address this constitutional concern, the Department recommends
    changing ``shall'' to ``may'' in section 6. Alternatively, section 6
    could be amended to provide that Puerto Rico's status shall become
    whatever the people selected. The Department has concluded that
    contingent legislation of that type is constitutionally permissible.
    See Altering Puerto Rico's Relationship with the United States Through
    Referendum, 36 Op. O.L.C. 93, 93-94 (2012) (concluding that
    ``legislation conditioning a change in Puerto Rico's political
    relationship with the United States on the results of one or more
    referenda by the Puerto Rican electorate, without subsequent
    congressional action, would be constitutional, insofar as the
    referendum . . . presented voters in the territory with a limited set
    of options specified in advance by Congress''). However, for this
    alternative approach to be available, it would be necessary for
    Congress to approve the options presented to the Puerto Rican people
    ahead of the vote (or to provide a list of acceptable options from
    which the status convention could choose).

                                     ______

                                                         March 31, 2021

        Dear Congressmen and Congresswoman:

    English
        On November 3, 2020, we went to our voting centers for the third
    time in this decade to vote in favor of the YES to statehood. There
    have been several Annexation Acts that have been submitted to Congress
    and even the US citizens who live on the island have congressional
    action to support these acts.
        The issue of Puerto Rico's political status is not a matter of
    political party ideals. The status issue is about citizens, about us,
    who suffer second-class citizenship every day. Where our elderly and
    disabled do not have the right to supplementary social security,
    because they live in a neighborhood. On our island where schools lack
    educational resources for students since there is no parity of funds
    for being a colony. Where we cannot vote for him President and we lack
    equal representation, with a vote in Congress and the United States
    Senate. And where our military, who serve our flag with so much honor,
    cannot vote for the person who sends them to war.
        We hereby ask you to support the Admission Act for Puerto Rico HR
    1522, so that all citizens who live on this beautiful island have equal
    rights, as US citizens.
    Espanol
        El pasado 3 de noviembre de 2020, fuimos a nuestros centres de
    votacion, por tercera vez en esta decada para votar a favor del SI a la
    estadidad. Han sido varias las Actas de Anexion que se han sometido al
    Congreso y aun los ciudadanos estadounidenses que vivimos en la isla la
    accion dei congreso en apoyar estas actas.
        El asunto del estatus de politico de Puerto Rico no es un tema de
    ideales de partidos politico. El asunto de estatus es sobre los
    ciudadanos, sobre nosotros, los que cada dia sufrimos la ciudadania de
    segunda clase. Donde nuestros ancianos e incapacitados no tienen
    derecho al seguro social complementario, por vivir en una colonia. En
    nuestra isla donde las escuelas carecen de recursos educativos para los
    estudiantes, ya que no existe una paridad de fondos por ser una
    colonia. En donde no podemos votar por el Presidente y carecemos de
    representacion igualitaria, con voto en el Congreso y en el Senado de
    Estados Unidos. Y donde nuestros militares, que con tan tanto honor
    sirven a nuestra bandera, no pueden votar por la persona que los envia
    a la guerra.
        Por este media le solicitamos que apoye el Acta de Admision para
    Puerto Rico HR 1522, para que todos los ciudadanos que vivimos en esta
    hermosa isla tengamos la igualdad de derechos, coma ciudadanos
    estadounidenses.

                Firma,

                                      Jimarie Martinez Baladeio

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4978.013

    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4978.014

    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4978.015

                                     .eps__

              Federation of Municipal Legislators of PR

                                                          April 6, 2021

        Dear Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, Chairman Manchin,
    Ranking Member Barrasso:
        For over one-hundred years, the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico have
    been disenfranchised in federal elections and subjected to unequal
    treatment across federal programs. Last November, voters stood up to
    change that when an absolute majority of 53% demanded statehood in a
    locally sponsored referendum. The Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act,
    H.R. 1522 and S. 780, directly respond to that mandate, and we urge you
    to support it and help get it approved as soon as possible.
        Puerto Rico's referendum was historic because it is the first time
    that statehood received unquestionable majority support on the island
    with a simple ``YES'' or ``NO'' vote. The 117th Congress is therefore
    presented with a unique opportunity to make history and put an end to
    America's inherently colonial rule over Puerto Rico, which runs counter
    to America's values of democracy, equal justice under the law, and
    government by the consent of the governed.
        We recognize there are some in Congress, such as Rep. Nydia
    Velazquez (NY) and Sen. Robert Menendez (NJ), who oppose statehood for
    Puerto Rico and have completely ignored the results of the referendum
    held last November. Today, they will be submitting a counter-proposal,
    the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act (PRSDA), which has faced
    criticism from representatives of all status options.
        The most significant concern, across party lines, is that the PRSDA
    is ultimately non-binding. Under the bill, Congress would be under no
    obligation to implement whichever status option is chosen by the
    convention and later voted on by the electorate. This would represent a
    huge setback for voters in Puerto Rico who have engaged in multiple
    acts of self-determination over the last decade and have shown, with
    increasing clarity, that Puerto Rico's voters reject the current
    territory status and favor statehood above all non-territory options.
        Beyond the will of the people on the island, however, Puerto Ricans
    stateside also favor statehood by wide margins. For example, recent
    polls show 81% of Puerto Rican residents in Florida and 69% of those in
    New York favor the admission of the island as a state. A majority of
    Americans have also supported the idea for decades according to Gallup.
    This is a settled issue on the island as well as across the Nation, and
    Congress has a moral obligation to act.
        The only legislative option that respects the will of the people of
    Puerto Rico, and ensures a binding process of self-determination is
    H.R. 1522 & S. 780, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act. By
    offering statehood, stipulating the terms of admission, and requiring a
    ratification vote, Congress would finally open the door to full
    equality and democracy for the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico while
    leaving the ultimate choice in their hands. If a majority opposes
    statehood at that point, then the island would remain a territory with
    the capacity to pursue independence or free association through the
    procedural mechanism of their choice, including a status convention.
    Congress has a moral obligation to let the people of Puerto Rico decide
    their own self-determination process.
        Our organization represents Municipal Legislators from the 78
    municipalities in Puerto Rico. We believe that it is time to put an end
    to the dysfunctional, obsolete and undemocratic status of territory to
    which Puerto Rico has been subjected. We call on Congress to open the
    door to full emancipation and equality for our fellow Americans in
    Puerto Rico by supporting and passing the Puerto Rico Statehood
    Admission Act. The United States can and must do better.

                Sincerely,

                                 Luis Carlos Maldonado Padilla,
                                                              President

                                     ______

               League of United Latin American Citizens

        Dear Members of Congress:

        LULAC is the largest and oldest Hispanic civil rights organization
    in the United States. The League of United Latin American Citizens
    (LULAC), our National President, National Board Members and one hundred
    and thirty thousand members and supporters nationwide are appealing to
    you to support the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, H.R. 1522 and
    S. 780.
        We strongly support H.R. 1522 and S. 780, the Puerto Rico Statehood
    Admission Act. This legislation respects Puerto Rico's right to self-
    determination, as expressed in previous referenda, and empowers voters
    on the island to have a final say on becoming a state of the union.
        Puerto Ricans have been clear about their demand for statehood,
    most recently in a referendum held last November. Voters were asked the
    question ``Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as
    a state?'' and 53% said yes, while 47% said no. Not only did the
    ``yes'' option win, it also got more votes than any elected official on
    the island, including the governor and at-large delegate to Congress.
    This vote was historic, and ignoring it means being complicit in the
    continued disenfranchisement of over 3 million Hispanic-Americans.
        The island has been stuck in a territorial status limbo for
    decades, in no small part due to partisan infighting and the
    convenience of simply pushing the issue to the side. LULAC believes
    Congress has a moral responsibility to respond to the will of the
    people of Puerto Rico by offering a concrete path to statehood,
    particularly after the results of the 2020 referendum.
        In addition to those on the island, statehood for Puerto Rico has
    the support of a vast majority of Puerto Ricans living in different
    U.S. states, including Florida, Pennsylvania, and New York.
    Additionally, a majority both Republicans and Democrats across the
    nation have supported the idea of making Puerto Rico a state for
    decades. There is no time to waste when it comes to securing the
    enfranchisement of over 3 million Hispanic-Americans, and this Congress
    has all the reasons it needs to get it done.
        Above all else, LULAC listens to the will of the people of Puerto
    Rico, who value their American citizenship and have clearly stated
    their support for the rights that only statehood can assure. We are
    confident that the people of Puerto Rico would ratify that decision via
    popular vote, and we would be proud to welcome our nation's first
    majority-Hispanic state.
        A competing proposal in Congress is the Puerto Rico Self-
    Determination Act, introduced by Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Sen.
    Bernie Sanders (I-VT). LULAC stands in firm opposition to this bill as
    it is written, since it only offers a non-binding ``status convention''
    as a solution rather than the binding ratification vote offered in the
    Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, H.R. 1522 & S. 780.
        The only legislative option that respects the will of the people of
    Puerto Rico, and ensures a binding process of self-determination is
    H.R. 1522, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act. By offering
    statehood, stipulating the terms of admission, and requiring a
    ratification vote, Congress would finally open the door to full
    equality and democracy for the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico, while
    leaving the ultimate choice in their hands. Should a majority oppose
    statehood at that point, then the island would remain a territory with
    the capacity to pursue independence or free association through the
    procedural mechanism of their choice, including a status convention.

                                     ______

      FEDERACION DE ALCALDES DE PUERTO RICO, INC.

                                                           May 14, 2021

            Hon. Raul Grijalva            Hon. Bruce Westerman
            Chairman                      Ranking Member
            House Committee on Natural
            Resources                     House Committee on Natural
                                          Resources

            Hon. Joe Manchin              Hon. John Barrasso
            Chairman                      Ranking Member
            Senate Committee on Energy
            & Natural Resources           Senate Committee on Energy &
                                          Natural Resources

        Dear Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, Chairman Manchin,
    Ranking Member Barrasso:

        As mayors from municipalities across Puerto Rico we write to
    express our strong support for H.R. 1522 & S. 780, the Puerto Rico
    Statehood Admission Act, and to urge the U.S. Congress to approve it as
    soon as possible.
        We represent a wide range of municipalities, from Puerto Rico's
    largest urban centers in the San Juan metro area to rural
    municipalities in the heart of Puerto Rico's central mountain range. We
    represent coastal towns that thrive on tourism, towns with current and
    former military bases, from towns with significant agriculture
    production to towns with advanced industrial manufacturing.
        While each of our municipalities brings its own unique identity and
    contribution, they all share a common challenge. Under the current
    territory status, we are unable to provide an equal quality of life to
    our residents or to generate as many opportunities for our local
    residents as cities and towns in the states.
        The reason for this is simple. Under the current territory status,
    the federal government is able to discriminate against Puerto Rico in
    the laws, programs and policies that we live under every day. This
    creates an unequal playing field from which it is impossible for our
    cities and towns to ever reach our full potential, because we are
    always starting at a disadvantage.
        The other reason is that under territory status we are denied the
    right to vote for President, denied any representation in the U.S.
    Senate, and have only one non-voting Resident Commissioner in the House
    to represent a population that would normally have approximately four
    voting Representatives. This gap in representation means we often have
    to depend on officials we have no role in electing, and are not
    accountable to us, to advocate for the needs and advance the priorities
    of our communities.
        This combination of structural inequality and democratic deficit
    means that many of our most talented, hard-working and productive
    residents are being forced to seek equal opportunities and full voting
    rights only found in the states. This is tearing apart families and
    communities as people in Puerto Rico feel compelled to leave the island
    and move stateside to seek a brighter future. Data from the U.S. Census
    illustrates this starkly.
        According to the latest numbers Puerto Rico's population declined
    11.8% (approximately 440,000 residents) in the last decade. This is not
    only the worse populations loss of any jurisdiction in the entire U.S.,
    but possibly in the whole Western Hemisphere.
        The current territory status is literally robbing our towns and
    cities of their present and future, and voter in Puerto Rico have had
    enough. In 2012 and 2017, voters in Puerto Rico rejected the current
    territory status and favored statehood among the valid non-territory
    options . Then last November, to eliminate any remaining doubt on
    whether or not the majority of Puerto Rico's voters supported
    statehood, 52.5% voted ``YES'' to the island's immediate admission as a
    state of the Union. These voters are calling for equal rights, equal
    representation and equal opportunities to those of their fellow
    citizens in the states.
        We understand that some Members of Congress personally oppose
    statehood and or represent constituents that favor independence for
    Puerto Rico. While we respect their right to their own opinions and
    those of their constituents who do not live on the island, we strongly
    oppose any effort to disregard the will of the majority of the actual
    voters that live in Puerto Rico. That is shy we must also express our
    opposition to H.R. 2070 & S. 865, the Puerto Rico Self-Determination
    Act.
        This bill engages in election denial by ignoring the will of the
    majority of Puerto Rico's voters in support of statehood and opens the
    door to an endless debate on an indefinite number of options, some of
    which are unconstitutional. That is completely reckless, and Congress
    must reject it.
        As mayors, we have seen the issue of Puerto Rico's political status
    debated for decades and we know that until it is resolved we will never
    be able to offer our residents the rights, representation and
    opportunities they deserve and have earned after over 100 years of U.S.
    citizenship. Congress must not delay this debate any further with new
    commissions, false options or indefinite timelines like in H.R. 2070 &
    S. 865. Instead, Congress must listen to the will of the majority of
    Puerto Rico's voters, extend a formal offer of admission to Puerto Rico
    as a state, and empower voters on the island to make the final decision
    to ratify our desire for full equality and democracy through statehood.
        As local elected officials that see and work for the 3.2 million
    U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico every day, we need you to take action now.
    We strongly urge Congress to support and pass the Puerto Rico Statehood
    Admission Act.

                Sincerely,

                                          Angel A. Perez Otero,
                                                              President

                                     ______

                                    CSG EAST

                            RESOLUTION # TR-2020-01

    RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION FOR PUERTO RICO STATEHOOD

    Whereas, the People of Puerto Rico held a plebiscite on November 3,
    2020, in which this question was presented to them: ``Should Puerto
    Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?''; and

    Whereas, 96.8 percent of those who participated in the 2020 General
    Election also participated in the plebiscite, and

    Whereas, of those who participated in the plebiscite, 52.34 percent
    voted ``Yes'' in favor of Congress beginning the statehood process for
    Puerto Rico; and

    Whereas, the ``Yes'' column received 623,053 votes more votes than any
    political candidate present on the ballot in the 2020 General Election;
    and

    Whereas, support for statehood as the final status option has
    incrementally gained support throughout all six plebiscites that have
    been conducted (1967, 1993, 1998, 2012, 2017, 2020); and

    Whereas, both the Democratic and Republican parties' platforms are
    committed to respecting Puerto Rico's right to self-determination; and

    Whereas, the ultimate decision regarding Puerto Rico's future political
    status rests in the hands of Congress; and

    Whereas, in 1992 CSG/ERC supported a resolution asking Congress for a
    prompt response to the formal petition mandated by the people of Puerto
    Rico that would be issued as a result of the 1993 plebiscite;

    Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Council of State Governments'
    Eastern Regional Conference (CSG/ERC) supports the results of the 2020
    plebiscite which clearly show the will of the People of Puerto Rico;
    and

    Be It Further Resolved, that CSG/ERC also supports a prompt response by
    the United States Congress to the formal petition for statehood that
    was supported by the majority of Puerto Rican voters in the 2020
    plebiscite; and

    Be It Further Resolved, that a copy of this resolution will be provided
    to the Governor-Elect of Puerto Rico, the incoming President of the
    Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, the
    President-Elect of the United States, the Vice President Elect of the
    United States, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the
    President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate, the Majority Leader of the
    U.S. Senate, the Chair and members of the U.S. Senate Committee on
    Energy and Natural Resources and the Chair and members of the U.S.
    House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources.

                                     ______

                 Puertorriquenos Unidos En Accion (PUA)
                                            Arlington, Virginia

                                                          June 11, 2021

    President Joe Biden
    THE WHITE HOUSE
    Washington, DC 20502

    Re: UNITED NATIONS DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON PUERTO RICO

        Dear President Biden:

        November 6, 2012 was a momentous day in the history of Puerto Rico
    and the United States. The people of Puerto Rico spoke out on this
    date. Fifty-five percent of the voters expressed their will to change
    the actual colonial relationship between Puerto Rico and the United
    States. Therefore, the era of colonialism by consent in Puerto Rico has
    ended.
        As you should know, the Constitution assigns Congress the
    responsibility of defining the relationship between the federal
    government and U.S. territories. Now, more than ever, the President and
    Congress' role is significant in Puerto Rico's choice to end the
    present colonial status.
        Over 1.8 million registered voters participated in this plebiscite.
    The numbers indicate the will of the people to change the present
    colonial status. However, Congress has been running counter to the
    United States' democratic beliefs by holding back on a meaningful
    process to end colonialism. The people of Puerto Rico have spoken. Now
    is the United States government's chance to express their will to
    change the current relationship between our two nations. The United
    States should commit to implementing the results of the 2012 referendum
    rejecting the actual relationship without any further referendums or
    delays.
        As it has been stated in two Presidential Task Force Reports, ``If
    the process produces a clear result, Congress should act on it quickly
    with the President's support.'' (See Presidential Task Force Report on
    Puerto Rico under President Bush, December 2007, page 23, and
    Presidential Task Report, March 2011, page 3 under former President
    Obama).
        The current relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States
    has deteriorated. Congress arbitrarily implements laws that affect the
    well-being of many Puerto Ricans and their livelihood, from controlling
    the way Puerto Ricans practice their culture and traditions to deciding
    the way they manage their municipal budgets. Recent examples include
    imposing a finance control board that oversees Puerto Rico's finances
    with more power than the democratically elected government and the
    prohibition of the cockfighting sport; a tradition practiced for over
    500 years.
        We have the results since 2012 that support a realistic chance to
    decolonize Puerto Rico. I urge the President of the United States to
    move forward and achieve this goal of a free Puerto Rico and, in doing
    such, stand by the principles of democracy. The recognition of Puerto
    Rico's right to self-determination and the transfer of political powers
    to the people of Puerto Rico is not an issue to be debated. It is
    Congress and the President's responsibility. It is time to speak out.
        On June 18, 2021, the United Nations Decolonization Committee will
    consider Puerto Rico's colonial status. I urge the President to adopt
    this year's resolution and its recommendations, participate in the
    Committee's works and exhort your country's delegation to present the
    official position of the United States government regarding the case of
    Puerto Rico. The voters of Puerto Rico decided in 2012.
        Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this matter.

                Sincerely,

                                                  Manuel Rivera

                                     ______

                               THE PUERTO RICO SENATE
                                 Office of the Senate President

                                                          June 15, 2021

    Hon. Raul Grijalva, Chairman
    Committee on Natural Resources
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington, DC

        Dear Chairman Grijalva:

        I am writing to you as President of the Senate of the Commonwealth
    of Puerto Rico and as President of the Popular Democratic Party, the
    party that controls the parliamentary majority in the Legislative
    Assembly and the majority of Puerto Rico's municipalities.
        During the past few months, the congressional committee that you
    lead has been evaluating two legislative bills that have the purpose of
    addressing the issue of Puerto Rico's political status.
        The first, H.R. 2070 (The Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of
    2021) authored by Congresswomen Nydia Velazquez and Alexandria Ocasio-
    Cortez, as well as H.R. 1522 (The Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act)
    authored by Congressman Darren Soto.
        Our institution has expressed its willingness to support any
    Congressional initiative that seeks to seriously and responsibly
    address an issue as important as Puerto Rico's political status.
        Both initiatives, however, contain serious deficiencies that
    prevent the Popular Democratic Party--the parliamentary majority of the
    Puerto Rican government--from supporting their content at this time.
    The absence of fair procedural mechanisms, the deliberate exclusion of
    the alternative of Commonwealth development and the unrealistic offer
    to convert Puerto Rico into a state of the Union within 12 months,
    without providing details on the impact of federal contributions on the
    island, make these bills unacceptable.
        Consistent with our position, the U.S. Department of Justice has
    reiterated that any political status consultation process intended to
    obtain the validity of the federal government must include the
    Commonwealth option. Moreover, in that opinion, the DOJ only recognizes
    three real alternatives, namely, commonwealth, statehood and
    independence.
        It is for these reasons that the U.S. Congress cannot ignore the
    demand of almost half of the island's electorate and the legal opinion
    of the US Department of Justice.
        As we have pointed out, the bill of Congresswomen Velazquez and
    Ocasio-Cortez has a laudable purpose, but in its wording, it does not
    meet the expectations outlined, since several sections--such as the
    election of delegates and the one that defines the various status
    formulas--are far from resolving the issue, complicate it and make the
    process an ineffective one.
        On the other hand, it is inexplicable that the congressional
    committee that intends to legislate or even urge the legislative branch
    of Puerto Rico to address this issue through future legislation, has
    not had the deference to listen and address the claims of the Popular
    Democratic Party, the party that happens to be the parliamentary
    majority that would have the responsibility to legislate at the local
    level any status proposal on the island.
        However, despite this regrettable omission, I, in discharging my
    responsibility, proceed to submit my comments on both bills summarized
    in the following points:
    About H.R. 2070
        1. H.R. 2070 (The Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021)
    authored by Congresswomen Nydia Velazquez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
    does not include the option of Commonwealth development and rules out
    the participation of political parties in the delegate nomination
    process. For the Popular Democratic Party this is unacceptable.

        2. Contrary to existing legislation adopted by President Barack
    Obama in 2014, H.R. 2070 eliminates the requirement that the US
    Department of Justice must pass judgment prior to any vote on the
    validity of each status formula. For the Popular Democratic Party, this
    should be a mandatory requirement in any congressional legislation.
        3. The way in which H.R. 2070 establishes the delegate selection
    process and the design of status options is a way to mislead voters by
    leading them to vote blindly for delegates without knowing in advance
    their status preferences or the agenda they will advance if elected.
    This is so because the structure of the project places voters in the
    dilemma of electing delegates without knowing what ideological sector
    they belong to or what specific proposals on status formulas they will
    defend. This would be granting a blank check. For the Popular
    Democratic Party, this is unacceptable.

        4. In compliance with the terms of Act No. 51-2020 that called for
    the vote on statehood in the past elections, the majority of the
    Legislature understands that the plebiscite mandate granted to that
    option expires on November 3, 2021; therefore, any Congressional bill
    that intends to act on that vote must be approved on or before that
    date.

        5. We reiterate that if by that date Congress has not acted--
    ignoring the results--and does not pass any legislation in both
    legislative bodies aimed at specifically responding to that result, for
    purposes of the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico, it shall be
    understood that Congress has rejected that vote. Thereafter, the Puerto
    Rico Legislative Assembly shall route a new political status referendum
    invoking the existing legislation passed by Congress in 2014, which
    provided for an appropriation of $2.5 million. (H.R. Rep. No. 113-171,
    at 54 (2014).

        6. Regarding the institutional position of the Popular Democratic
    Party on our vision for the empowerment of the Commonwealth option, it
    is our opinion that the same shall be part of a fair and balanced
    dialogue process between the people of Puerto Rico, the Congress and
    the White House, in accordance with the commitment made by President
    Joe Biden.

        7. We require that any proposed congressional legislation must
    contain clear and detailed transition reports to be presented to the
    electorate prior to any vote. Specifically, voters must know answers on
    such important issues as: the impact of federal taxation under
    statehood on Puerto Rico's economy, the possibility of requiring Puerto
    Rico to become an incorporated territory as a preliminary to statehood,
    and the loss of U.S. citizenship at birth under independence options.
    Such answers are necessary to eliminate fanciful or misleading options.

        8. For the foregoing reasons, the Popular Democratic Party
    recommends a substitute bill (chairman's mark) for H.R. 2070,
    eliminating sections 3 (selection of delegates) and 5 (design of status
    formulas) of the bills in their entirety and leaving the design of both
    matters in the hands of the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico.
    About H.R. 1522
        With regard to H.R. 1522 calling for the admission of Puerto Rico
    as a state, I wish to call your attention to a monumental flaw in the
    bill.
        H.R. 1522 does not provide for assessing if Puerto Rico is prepared
    for statehood. It would admit Puerto Rico as a State in 12 months
    without first examining if the island has enough resources to meet the
    federal tax obligations it would be assuming and be able to raise
    enough state tax revenues to balance its budget, meet debt and pension
    obligations, and provide essential services.

        In a recent brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court, the
    Department of Justice pointed out that:

            Puerto Rico has taken advantage of its exemption from federal
            income tax by imposing a territorial individual income tax of
            up to 33% for the highest bracket--well above the typical rate
            in the States. Puerto Rico Internal Revenue Code
            Sec. 1021.01(a). Puerto Rico has likewise taken advantage of
            its exemption from the federal corporate tax by imposing a
            territorial corporate tax of up to 37.5%--again, well above the
            typical rate in the States. Id. Sec. 1022.01(b), 1022.02(b)(2).

    Pet. Brief, U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, 20-303 (June 2021), 17.

        The reality is that Puerto Rico, even with its particular tax
    rates, has not balanced a budget in over a decade. It even found itself
    unable to pay its general obligations in 2014, prompting Congress to
    legislate, two years later, the creation of a Fiscal Oversight Board,
    as it had previously done for Washington, D.C.
        Five years after the Promesa Act, Puerto Rico still has not
    completed its debt restructuring and has not balanced its first of four
    required budgets in a row.
        On this issue, in 2014, the General Accountability Office took the
    DOJ statement a step further and laid out what would logically occur if
    Puerto Rico were to become a state:

            Puerto Rico's individual and corporate income tax rates are
            relatively high compared to those of the states. If the Puerto
            Rico government wanted to maintain pre-statehood tax burdens
            for individuals and corporations, it would need to lower its
            tax rates, which could reduce tax revenues.'' U.S. Government
            Accountability Office, GAO-14-315, Puerto Rico: Information on
            How Statehood Would Potentially Affect Selected Federal
            Programs and Revenue Sources 31-32 (March 2014).

        With this clear warning of reduced tax revenues under statehood
    falling on a jurisdiction that has experienced chronic budget deficits
    and an inability to meet its general obligations, the Natural Resources
    Committee would be remiss to consider and pass H.R. 1522 without
    adequate studies on the extent of the impact of statehood on Puerto
    Rico's tax revenues.
        This is of particular importance given that debts are currently
    being restructured for the coming decades based on Puerto Rico's
    current tax revenues. If those tax revenues are reduced under statehood
    and debt service would remain unchanged, the impending hit of cuts
    would affect essential services and pensions the hardest, forcing a new
    default. The U.S. Congress cannot ignore this reality. For the above
    reasons, we call for the reject of this bill.

        I hope you will give serious consideration to these remarks.

                Cordially yours,

                                     Jose Luis Dalmau-Santiago,
                                                       Senate President

                                     ______

                            Statement for the Record
                              Miriam J Ramirez MD
                                  San Juan, PR
             Former Senator of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
                     Founder--Puerto Ricans in Civic Action

        Chairman Grijalva, Members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen:

        I applaud your efforts in scheduling hearings to discuss Puerto
    Rico's centennial colonial problem. I have been visiting many of you
    for over the last 40 years; to get the United States Congress attention
    to resolve this embarrassing situation of having a colony of US
    citizens without representation in the government that rules our lives.
    On many occasions, we have been told the ``need to get our act
    together.'' BUT it's YOU, the United States CONGRESS, which imposes
    rules, out of our control, which make it impossible to get our act
    together.

        I am mentioning in my statement, just some of the many decisions
    that are totally under the responsibility of the United States
    Congress, with the hopes that you start from there. It's no use to hold
    more hearings on more plebiscites, when you have made decision to keep
    us locked under a colonial rule in order to facilitate tax evasion for
    CFC's, High Tech Corps, the very wealthy from Puerto Rico, the several
    states, and the world.

        THE US CONGRESS has

        Allowed Puerto Rico to be an Offshore Tax paradise,

        Not allowed Representation in Congress to US Citizens

        Not allowed US CITIZENS to vote for the President and Vice
    President, who determine to send us to wars.

        Therefore, I respectfully request that my statement be included for
    the Record towards the Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1522 (Rep. Soto),
    titled ``Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act,'' and H.R. 2070 (Rep.
    Velazquez), entitled the ``Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of
    2021,'' on Wednesday, June 16, 2021,and which explicitly says: ``with
    the intent of receiving testimony that is primarily from legal and
    scholarly witnesses.''

        We, the US Citizens of Puerto Rico; hereby let it be known, have
    had extensive patience awaiting for the United States Congress to
    resolve the status of Puerto Rico! We, the US Citizens of Puerto Rico
    also want it to be known, a resolution towards the final political
    status of Puerto Rico is not just a matter for scholars, political
    parties and vested interests, whom have access to express their
    viewpoint before a congressional hearing. There is an essential
    ``moral'' and democratic responsibility, with a need to conduct public
    hearing at Puerto Rico.

        The US citizens of Puerto Rico public must be heard!

        We, the US Citizens of Puerto Rico, therefore request, the Natural
    Resources Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives submit a bill
    to the Floor and resolve; the following ``dilemmas'' which Congress
    itself has created towards Puerto Rico, which are:
    1. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico
        It is Imperative that Congress eliminate the Financial Oversight
    and Management Board for Puerto Rico.

        It has proven to be totally ineffective in resolving the fiscal
    public debt issue and has probably cost us more than what we Puerto
    Rican's owe.

        If they were ``true and competent'' experts and advisors, as it was
    sold to us, in the content--why have they spent millions of dollars in
    consulting fees and expenses?

        ``Professionals have requested about $883 Million in fees and
    expenses through the Title III compensation process as of March 1,
    2021.'' These are legal expenses for all parties due to litigation.
    Congress instructed the Board to have consensual negotiations with
    bondholders but instead they have litigated for over four years.
    [Reference; (Exhibit--See Page 2) https://drive.google.com/file/d/
    1RyNs4H7yvpk0P w4DtK57WeHzeZEKggXA/view?usp=sharing.]

        While the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the process
    should cost approximately $370 Million. [Reference; (Exhibit) https://
    drive.google.com/file/d/1QmLknEwU9P20zP57-SZQieBOkBqKieMa/
    view?usp=sharing.]

        We, the US Citizens of Puerto Rico therefore; will be over paying a
    cost of more than $350 Million estimated, due to the actions of the
    Board.
    2. URGENT--United State CONGRESS Modify--IRC Tax Code towards Puerto
            Rico
        Puerto Rico is treated as a Foreign Entity for IRC tax purposes.
    Puerto Rico is a US Territory with US Citizens and should be treated as
    such. This participation will open the way towards our full
    participation within the Federal fiscal system. [Reference; (Exhibit)
    Source: https://howmuch.net/articles/corporate-tax-rates-around-the-
    world.]
    3. URGENT--The United States CONGRESS MUST ELIMINATE TAX EVASION
            SCHEMES which has made Puerto Rico an Offshore IRC tax shelter!
        The very affluent rich and powerful, use our beautiful island to
    evade taxes and enjoy our bankrupt circumstance, while most of the
    population resides under the poverty level, with the lowest per-capita
    income under the American Flag. [Reference; (Exhibit) Source: IRS
    Seizes Foothold on Puerto Rico Tax Haven Movimiento Revolucion
    Estadista Inc.Audits, https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/
    irs-seizes-foothold-on-puerto-rico-tax-haven-audits.]

        We have many more requests for this committee and suggest that it
    hold a hearing to allow the people whom are actually suffering the
    consequences of years of the inactions, report and testify. We, the US
    Citizens of Puerto Rico are more than tired of observing, selected and
    handpicked witnesses who do not represent us, or speak for us.

        I respectfully and publicly request, that the people of Puerto Rico
    who agree with my statement to endorse it by sign your name at the end,
    and ask that it be introduced for the record.

                                     ______

       Movimiento Puertorriqueno Reunificacionista Con
                                           Espana--MPRE

                                                          June 16, 2021

    Hon. Raul Grijalva, Chairman
    Committee on Natural Resources
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington, DC

        Dear Chairman Grijalva and Members of the Committee:

        My name is Manuel A. Rugama Amparo, Vice President of the
    Movimiento Puertorriqueno Reunificacionista con Espana--MPRE (Puerto
    Rican Reunification Movement with Spain). Today I am speaking on behalf
    of the MPRE, a political association which is a legally registered in
    the Department of State of San Juan, Puerto Rico, and all of its
    members.

        We are requesting to consider the inclusion of the option of
    Reunification with Spain as one of the valid options available for the
    Island in this hearing and in future hearings on H.R. 1522 & H.R. 2070.

        The Province of Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States in
    1898 without any justification. One million of Puerto Ricans were
    separated from their true nation and stripped from their spanish
    citizenship, a citizenship that emanated from the spanish constitution
    of 1876 which was the current constitution of the Province of Puerto
    Rico at the time of the US occupation. The Province of Puerto Rico
    never declared its independence from Spain.

        Puerto Ricans have the sacred right to claim the reincorporation of
    the Island to their spanish nation due to the fact that the island was
    separated by an act of war and the imposition of the Treaty of Paris.

                Thank you for your attention,

                                       Manuel A. Rugama Amparo,
                                                 Vice President of MPRE

                                     ______

                            Statement for the Record
                            Professor Roland Blasini

        Chairman Grijalva, and Members of the Committee:

        I respectfully request my statement be included in the Committee's
    Hearing record on H.R. 1522 (Rep. Soto), titled ``Puerto Rico Statehood
    Admission Act,'' and H.R. 2070 (Rep. Velazquez), entitled the ``Puerto
    Rico Self-Determination Act of 2021,'' Wednesday, June 16, 2021, and
    which explicitly says: ``the intent of receiving testimony that is
    primarily from legal and scholarly witnesses.''
        Some 30 years ago, on July 17, 1988; I also had submitted a written
    statement then to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee--Oversight
    Hearing on: ``The International Role of the U.S. Insular Areas''
    Chairman, by the late Hon. Morris K. Udall and distinguish author of
    that essential publication on Congress entitled: ``The Role of a
    Congressman.'' I hereby request once again this statement be also
    posted for public discourse.

        Due to the current political and legislative environment, I
    honestly do not foresee this process ending with a final result of a
    signed Presidential authorization.

        On one side, is our desire to see a final solution toward the
    status matter. On the other side of the coin, is the current political
    reality--for which two additional US Senators would change the
    composition of the upper chamber.
        Due to the highly partisanship and policy implications; James
    Carville, an American political consultant and LSU Mass Communication
    faculty, stated the predicament very clearly: ``Do the Math--We Only
    Have a 50/50 Senate, No One Is Playing Patty-Cake'' (Source: Anderson
    Cooper 360, CNN 8 June 21).

        Since the Chairman released and made available the analysis of each
    bill from the Department of Justice--Memorandum--regarding the issues
    of constitutionality and feasibility, The DOJ states and I quote:

            ``. . . agrees that the people of Puerto Rico should be allowed
            to choose whether to become a nation independent of the United
            States, become a state within the United States, or retain the
            current status of a territory. Insofar as H.R. 2070 would
            facilitate a choice among those three options, which we believe
            are the three constitutional options available to Puerto Rico,
            the Department supports the bill.''

        Due to the fact, the DOJ ``suggest'' to maintain the prevalent
    political regimen; I will address this ``poison pill'' element further
    on.

        Since a deadlock reality is prevalent--I would like to present some
    different options before the Committee, in order to address some
    general consensus options with fundamental public policy and
    administrative developmental reforms, which are:

        1. Via Congressional mandate--ELIMINATE--the Financial and
    Management Oversight Board for Puerto Rico

        One must question; ``the reliability and competency cost'' on
    behalf of the advisors and their role, since its foundation. Thus,
    spending Millions of dollars from Puerto Rican taxpayers' fiscal funds
    in consulting fees and expenses on behalf for themselves, with ZERO end
    results.
        One must also question, the length and duration for the Oversight
    Board; especially due to the past political donations received for the
    2020 campaign election cycle.

        Has the Oversight Board become an ATM or Gravy-Train source for
    elected officials? (Source: Puerto Rico Debt Vultures Give Big to 2020
    Candidates as Fiscal Board Appointments Loom). See: Exhibits 1-2019-
    2020 Campaigns' Committees Donations; 2-2019-2020 Vulture Funds'
    Donations; 3-2019-2020 Vulture Law Firms' Donations.

        2. Establish a RECALL election procedure.

        All elected positions in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's
    government, would be subject to a RECALL Provision and amending the
    Resident Commissioner term for a two-year post.
        During the summer of 2019, a governmental constitutional crisis was
    generated and evolved with disorderly conduct and even up to sporadic
    street violence, at Old San Juan. The final outcome was the Governor's
    resignation. Also during that ``boiling'' time period, various
    instrumental events went on, for which did not prelude toward a smooth,
    rapid and orderly transition.
        Another factor is the local political sociological and cultural
    reality prevalent due to the level of ``institutionalized corruption,''
    which can easily be documented by the number of federal prosecutions of
    not only administrative appointments, but also elected local officials.

        The insertion of a federal RECALL election procedure statute toward
    Puerto Rico, would safeguard an orderly transition and ensure a
    democratic leadership; if prior conditions were repeated once again.

        3. Procedural--Pathway = Methodology for the Status Solution
    Process

        It's time to approach a final status solution, thru an optical lens
    of quantitative theory analysis.
        Rather than present mathematical modeling equations, let me express
    it in simple terms, there is a game--many have played as children call
    ``tug-of-War.'' Under the classic format--there are two sides, the side
    with the greater force pushing, and wins. One the other side, IF a
    modified game model is used, where various ropes are placed thru a
    center and such center illustrates whom the winner is, of such
    interaction will be. The interaction on behalf of the participants can
    neutralize forces and coalitions can evolve, therefore distorting the
    end result.
        Our political constitutional system and order, was developed and
    establish through a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The
    national interest and discussions were focused on a simple two-tier
    model approach, in order to have a final end result on an issue. The
    method used for a solution on behalf this approach is commonly known as
    a decision-tree model.
        Puerto Rico's political status dilemma has quite a different focus;
    since it is based on a multi-polar model, which therefore having
    various final solutions or various options, easily can join different
    options or forces together and neutralize an outcome, having then a
    zero-sum game. The end result being neutralize by the opposite interest
    for a ``spoiler'' option resolution.
        The time has come to approach the voter-pathway electoral
    participation method using a ``decision-tree'' model, for which there
    would ONLY be two options or categories at a time to select from--on
    behalf a simple majority will of the electorate.

          pathway method approach--voters would be asked--for example:
    a. Stage One

    Do you favor maintaining the current political relationship?

    ____ Yes or No

    If the YES option obtains the majority--simply the voter consultation
                would ends, until a future timeframe for another inquiry.

    If the NO option, obtains the majority--then continue the pathway
                toward the next phase.

    b. Stage Two

    Do you favor maintaining ``ties'' with the US or breaking away from the
                US?

    ____ Relationship with US                 ____ Breaking Away from US

    Next stage responds to which option obtained a majority

    c. Stage Three

    If the--Relation with US, obtains the majority.

    A voter inquiry is conducted between options Congress is willing to
                grant--territorial, statehood--voters would select an
                option provided The alternative with a majority would
                continue, toward the next stage,

    If the--Breaking Away from the US, obtains a majority.

    A voter inquiry is conducted between options of Free Association or
                Independence-voters would select an option and the process
                would Continue, of whom obtained the majority of votes.

    d. Stage Four

    The option which obtains the majority results from stage three, would
                be subject toward two (2)--Yes or No voter inquiry
                consultation and a majority--is required--toward a pathway
                solution.

    It is at this stage a Commission is established on both sides. One on
                behalf of Puerto Rico and the other on behalf the Federal
                government to identify, make very clear and educate voters
                the conditions toward the final pathway solution.

        While NO methodological pathway approach is listed in either bill,
    the Zero-Sum Game reality will persist. The desired ``suggestion'' on
    behalf the US Department of Justice for the inclusion on behalf the
    current status is a clear demonstration of providing a ``poison pill''
    toward NO solution. The Federal Government has THREE co-equal branches.
    Therefore, it's time to ensure the independence and individual power by
    each branch of government and not be subject toward a submissive stand,
    dictated by one branch toward another regardless of the affinity on
    behalf of the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
        I simply cannot be silent to this institutional violation on behalf
    of the division of powers and foresee an obligation to denounce such.
    In memory of my experience and education provided, here on The Hill by
    academics, highly skilled staffers from all branches and even the
    Library of Congree personnel, but most of all--the bipartisanship
    institutional Members of Congress, which I have always cherished their
    lectures and pleasantries in the hallway, during those years here on
    the Hill, I cannot be silent.

        4. Objection toward Procedural Usage Constitutional Assembly
    Method--H.R. 2070

        The introduction on behalf for usage of a Constitutional Assembly
    method, as a matter of resolution toward the political status of Puerto
    Rico dilemma; came from the late Juan Mari Bras (La Asamblea
    Constituyente. 1962).
        The strategy was first advocated within entities such as MPI-PSP
    (Movimiento Pro-Independencia), the Puerto Rican Bar Association or any
    organization for which it's leadership withheld post or control were
    independence advocates, in order to push such approach. The reason and
    strategy is very simple, The Constitutional Assembly method requires--
    ALL transfer of power--be vested entirely back toward Puerto Rico;
    therefore, it would be a sovereign nation with such process. Foreseeing
    a negotiation reality, of non-equals and lack of interest any intention
    toward any negotiation--Puerto Rico would be granted its independence
    by default.
        The intellectual author for such approach (Mari Bras), even
    advocated for an ``Independent Monarchy'' republic for Puerto Rico.

        The usage of a Constitutional Assembly also provides, opportunities
    on behalf of organizational managerial ``mischief.''

        Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Ph.D., author of; ``Skin in the Game: Hidden
    Asymmetries in Daily Life'' (2018) points out in a provocative and
    practical manner, redefines what it means to understand the world,
    succeed in a profession, contribute to a fair and just society, detect
    nonsense, and influence others. He clearly demonstrates with vast
    clearly examples on how--Minority rules--A ``stubborn minority'' can
    impose its will on the relatively disinterested majority.
        One must also add, toward this organizational nightmare forecast
    proposal the usage of Serge Galam ``tipping point.'' (Ref. Serge Galam,
    Ph.D. and Taksu Cheon, Ph.D., ``Tipping Points in Opinion Dynamics: A
    Universal Formulaions,'' CEVIPOF--Centre for Political Research,
    Sciences Po and CNRS, Paris, France).

        ``The universal formula is shown to predict the dynamics of public
    opinion including eventual sudden and unexpected outbreaks of minority
    opinions within a generic parameter space of five dimensions. The
    formula is obtained by combining and extending several components of
    the Galam model of opinion dynamics, otherwise treated separately, into
    one single update equation, which then deploys in a social space of
    five dimensions.
        Four dimensions account for a rich diversity of individual traits
    within a heterogeneous population, including differentiated
    stubbornness, contrarianism, and embedded prejudices. The fifth
    dimension is the size of the update groups being discussed. Having one
    single formula allows one to explore the complete geometry of the
    underlying landscape of opinion dynamics. Attractors and tipping
    points, which shape the topology of the different possible dynamics
    flows, are unveiled. Driven by repeated discussion among small groups
    of people during a social or political public campaign, the phenomenon
    of minority spreading and parallel majority collapse are thus revealed
    ahead of their occurrence.''
        Just these two operational realities demonstrate a clear
    operational ``outcome bias'' toward tilting an end result in favor of
    one option, therefore; I come and oppose such inclusion of the
    Constitutional Assembly; in the proposed legislation.

        In conclusion, I respectfully request my entire statement be added
    for the record and thank you.

                                     *****

    Exhibit #1
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4978.016

                                    .eps***

    Exhibit #2
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4978.017

                                    .eps***

    Exhibit #3
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4978.018

                                     .eps__

                            Statement for the Record
                               Elvin Mendez-Rosa
                President, Movimiento Revolucion Estadista Inc.

        Chairman Grijalva, Members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen:

        I applaud your efforts in scheduling hearings to discuss Puerto
    Rico's centennial colonial problem. I have been visiting many of you
    for over the last 40 years; to get the United States Congress attention
    to resolve this embarrassing situation of having a colony of US
    citizens without representation in the government that rules our lives.
    On many occasions, we have been told the ``need to get our act
    together.'' BUT it's YOU, the United States CONGRESS, which imposes
    rules, out of our control, which make it impossible to get our act
    together.

        I am mentioning in my statement, just some of the many decisions
    that are totally under the responsibility of the United States
    Congress, with the hopes that you start from there. It's no use to hold
    more hearings on more plebiscites, when you have made decision to keep
    us locked under a colonial rule in order to facilitate tax evasion for
    CFC's, High Tech Corps, the very wealthy from Puerto Rico, the several
    states, and the world.

        THE US CONGRESS has

        Allowed Puerto Rico to be an Offshore Tax paradise,

        Not allowed Representation in Congress to US Citizens

        Not allowed US CITIZENS to vote for the President and Vice
    President, who determine to send us to wars.

        Therefore, I respectfully request that my statement be included for
    the Record towards the Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1522 (Rep. Soto),
    titled ``Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act,'' and H.R. 2070 (Rep.
    Velazquez), entitled the ``Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of
    2021,'' on Wednesday, June 16, 2021,and which explicitly says: ``with
    the intent of receiving testimony that is primarily from legal and
    scholarly witnesses.''

        We, the US Citizens of Puerto Rico; hereby let it be known, have
    had extensive patience awaiting for the United States Congress to
    resolve the status of Puerto Rico! We, the US Citizens of Puerto Rico
    also want it to be known, a resolution towards the final political
    status of Puerto Rico is not just a matter for scholars, political
    parties and vested interests, whom have access to express their
    viewpoint before a congressional hearing. There is an essential
    ``moral'' and democratic responsibility, with a need to conduct public
    hearing at Puerto Rico.

        The US citizens of Puerto Rico public must be heard!

        We, the US Citizens of Puerto Rico, therefore request, the Natural
    Resources Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives submit a bill
    to the Floor and resolve; the following ``dilemmas'' which Congress
    itself has created towards Puerto Rico, which are:
    1. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico
        It is Imperative that Congress eliminate the Financial Oversight
    and Management Board for Puerto Rico.

        It has proven to be totally ineffective in resolving the fiscal
    public debt issue and has probably cost us more than what we Puerto
    Rican's owe.

        If they were ``true and competent'' experts and advisors, as it was
    sold to us, in the content--why have they spent millions of dollars in
    consulting fees and expenses?

        ``Professionals have requested about $883 Million in fees and
    expenses through the Title III compensation process as of March 1,
    2021.'' These are legal expenses for all parties due to litigation.
    Congress instructed the Board to have consensual negotiations with
    bondholders but instead they have litigated for over four years.
    [Reference; (Exhibit--See Page 2) https://drive.google.com/file/d/
    1RyNs4H7yvpk0P w4DtK57WeHzeZEKggXA/view?usp=sharing.]

        While the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the process
    should cost approximately $370 Million. [Reference; (Exhibit) https://
    drive.google.com/file/d/1QmLknEwU9P20zP57-SZQieBOkBqKieMa/
    view?usp=sharing.]

        We, the US Citizens of Puerto Rico therefore; will be over paying a
    cost of more than $350 Million estimated, due to the actions of the
    Board.
    2. URGENT--United State CONGRESS Modify--IRC Tax Code towards Puerto
            Rico
        Puerto Rico is treated as a Foreign Entity for IRC tax purposes.
    Puerto Rico is a US Territory with US Citizens and should be treated as
    such. This participation will open the way towards our full
    participation within the Federal fiscal system. [Reference; (Exhibit)
    Source: https://howmuch.net/articles/corporate-tax-rates-around-the-
    world.]
    3. URGENT--The United States CONGRESS MUST ELIMINATE TAX EVASION
            SCHEMES which has made Puerto Rico an Offshore IRC tax shelter!
        The very affluent rich and powerful, use our beautiful island to
    evade taxes and enjoy our bankrupt circumstance, while most of the
    population resides under the poverty level, with the lowest per-capita
    income under the American Flag. [Reference; (Exhibit) Source: IRS
    Seizes Foothold on Puerto Rico Tax Haven Movimiento Revolucion
    Estadista Inc.Audits, https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/
    irs-seizes-foothold-on-puerto-rico-tax-haven-audits.]

        We have many more requests for this committee and suggest that it
    hold a hearing to allow the people whom are actually suffering the
    consequences of years of the inactions, report and testify. We, the US
    Citizens of Puerto Rico are more than tired of observing, selected and
    handpicked witnesses who do not represent us, or speak for us.

        I respectfully and publicly request, that the people of Puerto Rico
    who agree with my statement to endorse it by sign your name at the end,
    and ask that it be introduced for the record.

                                     ______

                        Puerto Rico Escogio Estadidad
                                  [Puerto Rico Chose Statehood]

                                                          June 17, 2021

    House Committee on Natural Resources,
    Washington, DC 20515

        Hello Mr. Modeste and Ms. Varela,

        I wanted to write you after yesterday's hearing on the Puerto Rico
    political status bills because, since we met back in March, my
    organization has been very actively working to show Congress that it
    cannot ignore the will of the majority of voters in Puerto Rico.
        We have driven all across the island, risking our lives during the
    pandemic, going from town to town, to collect signatures from average
    citizens on the street who don't have the means or the know-how to
    communicate with Congress. We have been to a multitude of
    municipalities, and have had people drive for hours to come to our
    gatherings to register their signature and send their message. In total
    we have collected over 5,300 signatures to date demanding that Congress
    listen to the will of the people and pass H.R. 1522. We have placed the
    letters here so you can access them, look at the signatures yourself
    and share them with your Committee members. These are real people who
    are living the injustice of territory status every day. Congress has to
    take this into account, and I humbly ask that you include this for the
    record.
        My organization also worked as part of the Puerto Rico Statehood
    Action Network to mobilize support from our fellow citizens in the
    states, and last Monday I flew from Puerto Rico to DC to participate in
    a demonstration calling on Congress to ``Respect Puerto Rico's
    Statehood Vote.'' We mobilized over 40 people to demonstrate on the
    Capitol grounds, some driving from places as far away as Pennsylvania,
    so that Congress understands that action on this is urgent and
    necessary.

        Please help make sure Chairman Grijalva and the rest of the
    Committee sees this.

                Thank you,

                                                Irma Rodriguez,
                                                              President

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4978.019

    .epsSee Attachment

                                     *****

                     PR ESTADIDAD

            Hon. Raul Grijalva            Hon. Bruce Westerman
            Chairman                      Ranking Member
            House Committee on Natural
            Resources                     House Committee on Natural
                                          Resources

            Hon. Joe Manchin              Hon. John Barrasso
            Chairman                      Ranking Member
            Senate Committee on Energy
            & Natural Resources           Senate Committee on Energy &
                                          Natural Resources

        Dear Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, Chairman Manchin,
    Ranking Member Barrasso:

        As U.S. citizens from Puerto Rico, we are coming together to
    express our support for the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act, H.R.
    1522 and S. 780, and to call on Congress to pass this legislation as
    quickly as possible.
        Puerto Ricans have been part of the U.S. for over one hundred and
    twenty years and we have made countless contributions to the betterment
    of American society. During that time the population of Puerto Ricans
    stateside has grown to close to six million. Yet for the three million
    U.S. citizens that remain on the island, we remain disenfranchised in
    federal elections and subjected to unequal treatment in federal laws
    and programs. This reduces economic development, has robbed our poor
    and elderly of lifesaving healthcare, and every day breaks up our
    families and communities as people feel forced to move stateside to
    seek out better opportunities and quality of life for themselves and
    their children.
        Congress must immediately end its inherently colonial territorial
    rule over Puerto Rico, because it violates America's values of
    democracy, equal justice under the law, and government by the consent
    of the governed. Beyond that, it doesn't serve either America or Puerto
    Rico to prolong an outdated, dysfunctional and morally corrupt form of
    government which its own citizens have now rejected on multiple
    occasions.
        On November 3, 2020, an undisputable majority of 53% of Puerto
    Rico's voters demanded change in a locally sponsored referendum calling
    for full democracy and equality through statehood. While some bills in
    Congress, like H.R. 2070 & S. 865, seek to delay, confuse and distract
    from this electoral majority mandate in the name of ``self-
    determination,'' only the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act
    acknowledges and responds to the freely expressed will of the people.
        A majority of voters in Puerto Rico have requested statehood, now
    Congress must respond by officially offering it and allowing voters on
    the island to ratify their choice in a binding vote. To turn around and
    tell voters to go back to the drawing board and re-define multiple
    other options which the majority has rejected three times in the last
    eight years in favor of statehood, would not only be insulting to us,
    but effectively serve as a form of voter suppression. That is simply
    unacceptable and un-American.
        We are natural born U.S. citizens and want an equal seat at the
    table in the federal government that writes and implements the laws
    that we live under. We want our full voting rights as American
    citizens, and would challenge any voting Member of Congress that would
    deny that to us to answer if their constituents would accept the
    second-class citizenship that we are subjected to under territory
    status.
        We are proud to be Puerto Ricans, and also proud to be U.S.
    citizens, and know that there is no law that limits us from being both.
    So, don't let anyone tell you that statehood will somehow diminish our
    cultural pride and heritage. If anything, the economic progress that
    statehood would unleash will allow Puerto Rico to flourish in ways that
    will mutually benefit the Island and the States.
        If you really believe in democracy, justice, government by the
    consent of the governed, you must not hesitate any further or give any
    more excuses. Congress must grant us the equal rights and equal
    responsibilities that we have earned with the blood of our veterans and
    the tears of their mothers, wives, children and families. Pass the
    Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act as soon as possible and together we
    can help make America a more perfect Union.

                Sincerely,

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    There were an additional 250 pages of signatures received for this
    petition. A full listing of all signatures received are part of the
    hearing record and are being retained in the Committee's official
    files.

                                  [all]