[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2553-S2559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. 
        Torricelli, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Mack, Mr. Allard, Mr. Thomas, Mr. 
        Reid, Mr. Breaux and Mr. Warner):
  S. 472. A bill to provide for referenda in which the residents of 
Puerto Rico may express democratically their preferences regarding the 
political status of the territory, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


             THE PUERTO RICO SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleague from 
Florida today in the introduction of the Puerto Rico Self-Determination 
Act.
  In the 104th Congress, I joined as a cosponsor of S. 2019, with a 
bipartisan effort in the Senate to deal with this issue. I know that 
some of my colleagues will question the need for Congress to take up 
this issue. The most common reaction is that we should let Puerto 
Ricans decide the issue for themselves. The problem with that approach 
is that there are two parties in that relationship: Congress, due to 
its constitutional plenary power expressly vested in it by the 
territorial clause of article IV, section 3, clause 2, on the one hand 
and the people of Puerto Rico who have U.S. citizenship but are not yet 
fully self-governing on the other.
  When Congress failed to approve legislation to provide a status 
resolution process in 1991, the Puerto Ricans conducted a status vote, 
and the commonwealth option was defined on the ballot in the terms most 
favorable to its approval, to the point that it promised a lot more 
than Congress could ever approve. Even with the ballot definition that 
would significantly enhance the current status, the existing 
commonwealth relationship received less than a majority of the vote. So 
there is a serious issue of the legitimacy of the current less-than-
equal or less-than-full self-governing status, especially given the 
U.S. assertion to the United Nations in 1953 that Puerto Rico was on a 
path toward decolonization.
  That is why the legislature of Puerto Rico passed Concurrent 
Resolution 2, on January 23, 1997, requesting Congress to sponsor a 
vote based on definitions it would be willing to consider, if approved 
by voters. With timely approval of this legislation, 1997 will be the 
year Congress provides the framework for the resolution of the Puerto 
Rican status question, through a three-phase decisionmaking process 
that will culminate during the second decade of the next century. It 
will be a process with respect to the right of residents of Puerto Rico 
to become fully self-governing, based on local self-determination, and, 
at the same time, recognizes that the United States also has a right of 
self-determination in its relationship to Puerto Rico.
  Consequently, resolution of the status of Puerto Rico should take 
place in accordance with the terms of a transition plan that is 
determined by Congress to be in the national interest. Acceptance of 
such a congressionally approved transition plan by the qualified voters 
of Puerto Rico in a free and informed act of self-determination will be 
required before the process leading to change of the present status 
will commence.
  The bill that I am introducing today, joined in by nine other 
colleagues, and my colleague from Florida, creates an evenhanded 
process that can lead to either separate sovereignty or statehood, 
depending on whether Congress and the residents of Puerto Rico approve 
the terms of the implementation of either of the two options of full 
self-government. Preservation of the current status also will be an 
option on the plebiscite ballot. However, the existing unincorporated 
territory status, including the commonwealth structure of local 
government, is not a constitutionally guaranteed form of self-
government. Thus, until full self-government is achieved for Puerto 
Rico, there will be a need for periodic self-determination procedures 
as provided in this legislation.
  Whichever new status proves acceptable to Congress and the people of 
Puerto Rico, final implementation of the new status could be subject to 
approval by Congress and the people of Puerto Rico, at such time in the 
first or second decade of the next century as a transition process is 
completed.
  This explanation of the bill should dispel any concern in this body 
or the House that empowerment of the people of Puerto Rico to exercise 
the right of self-determination will impair the ability of Congress to 
work its will regarding the status of Puerto Rico.
  Mr. President, in 1956, 4 years after Congress and the people of 
Puerto Rico approved the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutional nature and 
status of unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico. In its 
opinion in the case of Reid v. Covert (354 U.S. 1), the Supreme Court 
confirmed that the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution--article 
IV, section 3, clause 2--confers on Congress the power, in the court's 
words, ``. . . to provide rules and regulations to govern temporarily 
territories with wholly dissimilar traditions and institutions . . .''
  While the Reid case was not a territorial status decision, it is 
significant that the Supreme Court's opinion in this case recognizes 
the temporary nature of the unincorporated territory status defined by 
the high court in an earlier line of status decisions known as the 
Insular Cases. For even though Puerto Ricans have had statutory U.S. 
citizenship since 1917, and local constitutional self-government 
similar to that of the States since 1952, it has become quite clear 
that U.S. citizens residing in an unincorporated territory cannot 
become fully self-governing in the Federal constitutional system on the 
basis of equality with their fellow

[[Page S2557]]

citizens residing in the States of the Union.
  Specifically, unincorporated territorial status with the commonwealth 
structure for local self-government cannot be converted into a 
permanent form of union with constitutionally guaranteed U.S. 
citizenship, or equal legal and political rights with citizens in the 
States including voting rights in national elections and representation 
in Congress. At the same time, Congress cannot abdicate, divest or 
dispose of its constitutional authority and responsibility under the 
territorial clause or be bound by a statutory conferral of special 
rights intended to make the citizens of a territory whole for the lack 
of equal rights under the Federal constitution.
  The concept of an unalterable bilateral pact between Congress and the 
territories is politically implausible and constitutionally 
impermissible. A mutual consent based relationship would amount to a 
local veto power over acts of Congress and would give the territories 
rights and powers superior to those of the States. Indeed, I am not 
certain what the results would be if the States were given the option 
of trading in representation in Congress and the vote in Presidential 
elections for the power to veto Federal law, but it is a prospect 
inconsistent with American federalism.
  Thus, altering our constitutional system to attempt to accommodate 
the unincorporated territories in this way would be a disproportionate, 
inequitable, and politically perverse remedy for the problems the 
territories are experiencing due to the lack of voting in Federal 
elections or representation in Congress.
  Moreover, the concept of enhancing a less-than-equal status so that 
the disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens in the Federal political proces 
becomes permanent would arrest the process of self-determination and 
decolonization that began when the local constitution was established 
by Congress and the voters in the territory in 1952.
  It would reverse the progress that has been made toward full self-
government to attempt to transform a temporary territorial status into 
a permanent one, although that is precisely what has been attempted by 
some in Puerto Rico for the last 40 years. Some in Congress have 
facilitated and promoted the fatally flawed notion that Puerto Rico 
could become a nation within a nation--if only at the level of partisan 
politics while being careful never to formally accept or commit that it 
could be constitutionally sustained.
  In reality, Puerto Rico is capable of becoming a State or a separate 
nation, or of remaining under the territorial clause if that is what 
the people and Congress prefer. But a decision to retain territorial 
status must be based on acceptance that this is a temporary status 
under the territorial clause, which can lead to full self-
government outside the territorial clause only when Congress and the 
voters determine to pursue a recognized form of separate nationhood or 
full incorporation into the Federal political process leading to 
statehood.

  Thus, the question becomes one of how long can a less-than-equal and 
non-self-governing status continue now that Puerto Rico has 
constitutional self-government at the local level and has established 
institutions and traditions which are based upon, modeled after, and 
highly compatible with those of the United States? How long is 
temporary when we consider that Puerto Rico has been within U.S. 
sovereignty and the U.S. customs territory for a century?
  The proposals in the past that the self-determination process be 
self-executing may have had the appearance of empowering the people to 
determine their destiny. However, any attempt to bind Congress and the 
people to a choice the full effect and implications of which cannot be 
known at the time the initial choice is made is actually a form of 
disempowerment. For self-determination to be legitimate it must be 
informed, and a one-stage binding and self-executing process prevent 
both parties to the process--Congress and the people--from knowing what 
it is they are approving.
  Any process which does not enable Congress and the voters to define 
the options and approve the terms for implementation through a 
democratic process which involves a response by each party to the 
freely expressed wishes of the other as part of an orderly self-
determination procedure is a formula for stagnation under the status 
quo.
  That is why the legislation defining a self-determination process for 
Puerto Rico must be based on the successful process Congress prescribed 
in 1950 through which the current constitution was approved by Congress 
and the voters in 1952. That process empowered the people and Congress 
to approve the process itself, then approve the new relationship 
defined through the process.
  As explained below, this is the most democratic procedure possible 
given the complicated dilemma faced by the United States and Puerto 
Rico. For only when the people express their preference between status 
options defined in a manner acceptable to Congress can the United 
States inform the people of the terms under which the preferred option 
could be accepted by Congress. This would empower the people to then 
engage in an informed act of self-determination, and it would empower 
Congress to define the national interest throughout the process.
  In the 104th Congress, S. 2019, was a response to Concurrent 
Resolution 62, adopted by the Legislature of Puerto Rico on December 
14, 1994, and directed to the U.S. Congress, requesting a response to 
the results of a 1993 plebiscite conducted in Puerto Rico under local 
law. See, Congressional Record S9555-S9559, August 2, 1996. Like a 
similar locally managed vote in 1967, the 1993 vote did not resolve the 
question of Puerto Rico's future status, in large part because of 
pervasive confusion and misinformation about the legal nature of Puerto 
Rico's current status.
  The problem of chronic nonproductive debate in Puerto Rico and in 
Congress with respect to definition of the current status of Puerto 
Rico, as well as the options for change, is examined carefully in House 
Report 104-713, part 1, July 26, 1996, pp. 8-23, 29-36. In addition to 
responding to Resolution 62 by introducing legislation addressing the 
subject matter of that request by the elected representatives of the 
residents of Puerto Rico, S. 2019 was intended to complement and 
support the efforts of a bipartisan group of knowledgeable Members in 
the House to address the troubling issues raised in House Report 104-
713, part 1.
  S. 2019 was a companion measure to H.R. 3024, the United States-
Puerto Rico Political Status Act, which was the subject of House Report 
104-713, part 1. Although H.R. 3024 was scheduled for a vote by the 
House in the last days of the 104th Congress, and overwhelming approval 
was expected, a vote was delayed due to ancillary issues. However, 
important amendments to H.R. 3024 were agreed upon by participants in 
the House deliberations, and some of these should be incorporated in 
any measure to be considered in the 105th Congress.

  For example, because the debate in the 104th Congress and in the 1996 
elections in Puerto Rico clarified certain fundamental issues regarding 
definition of status options, it may now be appropriate to include a 
three-way array of ballot options in any future status referendum. 
Thus, commonwealth, independence, and statehood should appear side-by-
side on the ballot the next time there is a status vote in Puerto Rico.
  In the 104th Congress I concurred in the bipartisan position that 
developed in the House deliberations in support of a two-part ballot, 
separating the question of preserving the current unincorporated 
territory status from the two options for change to a permanent form of 
full self-government--separate sovereignty or statehood. However, the 
agreed upon House bill amendments and this new Senate bill make it 
clear that separate nationality or statehood remain the two paths to 
full self-government, and that commonwealth is a territorial clause 
status. I believe this approach will result in a free and informed act 
of self-determination by the residents based on accurate definitions.
  This will simplify the structure of the ballot, and make it all the 
more imperative that the definitions of status options also remain as 
simple and straightforward as possible. All the options presented on 
the ballot in a future status referendum must be based on the objective 
elements of each status option under applicable provisions

[[Page S2558]]

of the U.S. Constitution and international law as recognized by the 
United States.
  In this connection, it must be noted that in the last four decades 
every attempt by Congress and territorial leaders to define the status 
options and establish a procedure to resolve the status question has 
failed. The last process which produced a tangible result and advanced 
Puerto Rico's progress toward self-government was that which Congress 
established in 1950 to allow the residents of Puerto Rico to organize 
local constitutional government.
  Thus, instead of trying to revisit battles of the past over any of 
the bills considered by Congress in 1990 and 1991, a better model for 
taking the next step in the self-determination process for Puerto Rico 
is the one employed by Congress to authorize and establish the current 
commonwealth structure for local self-government based on consent of 
the voters. The process established under Federal law in 1950 was based 
on a three-stage process through which the proposed new form of self-
government was defined, approved and implemented with consent of both 
the United States and the residents of the territory at each stage.
  In the successful 1950 process, Congress set forth in U.S. Public Law 
600 an essentially three-phase procedure as follows:
  Congress acted first, defining a framework under Federal law for 
instituting constitutional self-government over local affairs. An 
initial referendum was conducted in which the voters approved the terms 
for instituting constitutional self-government as defined by Congress.
  A second referendum was conducted on the proposed constitution and 
the President of the United States was required under Public Law 600 to 
transmit the draft constitution approved in that second referendum to 
Congress with his findings as to its conformity with the criteria 
defined by Congress.
  Congress approved final implementation of the new local constitution 
with amendments which were accepted by the locally elected 
constitutional convention and implemented on that basis by proclamation 
of the Governor.
  We should adopt a similar procedure for taking the next step to 
complete the process leading to full self-government which began with 
enactment of Public Law 600 in 1950. Such a three-stage process would 
be one through which:

  First, Congress defines the procedures and options it will accept as 
a basis for resolving the status question. In an initial referendum the 
voters then approve a status option they prefer.
  Second, the President transmits a proposal with recommended terms for 
implementing the choice of the voters consistent with the criteria 
defined by Congress, and upon approval by Congress a second referendum 
is held to determine if the voters accept the terms upon which Congress 
would be willing to implement the new status.
  Third, both Congress and the voters must act affirmatively to approve 
final implementation once the terms of the transition plan have been 
fulfilled.
  This would track the successful model of Public Law 600, except that 
it improves upon it by requiring Congress and the voters to approve 
final implementation. This is more democratic than the procedure 
followed in 1952, in which Congress amended the Constitution and the 
revisions were accepted by the constitutional convention and put into 
effect by proclamation of the Governor.
  To ensure that there is no ambiguity about the new relationship as 
there was after the current local constitution was implemented in 1952, 
the Congress and the voters themselves, again, should have the last 
word on implementation. This prevents the local political parties from 
attempting to exploit ambiguity and convert it into a political 
platform, as has been the case with the current commonwealth structure 
for local self-government.
  In this regard, I note that there are those who continue to suggest 
that definitions of status options for a political status referendum 
should be based upon the formulations adopted by the political parties 
in Puerto Rico. This approach is urged in the name of consensus 
building. However, the history of attempts to address this problem--
including the approval of H.R. 4765 by the House in 1990--makes it 
clear that the illusion of consensus has been achieved on status 
definitions in the past only by sacrificing the constitutional, legal, 
and political integrity of the process.
  Recognizing the principle of consent by the qualified voters through 
an act of self-determination to retain the current status or seek 
change under definitions acceptable to Congress is very different from 
the idea that legislation to make self-determination possible cannot be 
enacted unless there is consent by local political parties to both the 
form and content of what is proposed. The qualified voters of Puerto 
Rico, not the local political parties, are Puerto Rico for purposes of 
the self-determination process.
  No sleight-of-hand gimmicks or disclaimers disguised as good-faith 
commitments will substitute for intellectually honest status 
definitions. We must approve legislation that makes it clear that 
Congress will propose a transition plan on terms it deems to be in the 
best interests of the United States, and when it does the people 
qualified to vote in Puerto Rico will have to decide if the terms 
prescribed by Congress are acceptable.
  If the terms for a change of status defined by Congress are not 
acceptable to the voters, then the right of self-determination can be 
exercised thereafter in an informed manner based on that outcome. There 
should be no stated or implied commitment to a moral obligation to 
consider any status definition--no matter who might propose it--which 
is deemed unconstitutional or unacceptable to Congress. That would be 
misleading and dishonest, and no clever caveat could redeem such a 
breach of the institutional integrity and constitutional duty of the 
Congress.
  In 1997, Congress must take responsibility for informing the people 
of Puerto Rico of what the real options are based on congressional 
definition of the status formulations which Congress determines to be 
consistent with the national interest and the right of self-
determination of both the United States and the people of Puerto Rico. 
This represents an opportunity and challenge as we seek to define our 
Nation in the next century, and there is an obligation for all 
concerned to ensure that the voters in Puerto Rico are given an 
opportunity for a free and informed act of self-determination.
  If we accomplish that, then whatever the outcome may be will 
vindicate 100 years of democratization and development for Puerto Rico 
through its evolving relationship with the United States and the self-
determination of its people.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Puerto Rico 
Self Determination Act of 1997. I am proud to cosponsor this important 
legislation with Senator Larry Craig and a bipartisan coalition of 
eight other distinguished colleagues.
  Mr. President, on December 10, 1898, through the Treaty of Paris that 
ended the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico became part of the United 
States. Next year marks the 100th anniversary of this union.
  Mr. President, there is no better way for us to commemorate this 
special occasion than to give the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico the same 
right that their counterparts in all 50 States and the District of 
Columbia enjoy--the right to choose their political destiny.
  In 1917, the Jones Act gave the people of Puerto Rico U.S. 
citizenship, but it was less than complete. Though they are citizens, 
Puerto Ricans can only vote in Presidential elections if they are 
registered in a State or the District of Columbia. They have a delegate 
in Congress--a position currently held by Congressman Carlos Romero-
Barcelo--who does not have voting privileges.
  But this lack of political rights is not due to a lack of 
communication. Throughout their history as part of the United States, 
Puerto Ricans have expressed their desire to achieve full political 
rights. They have on various occasions let Congress know of their 
desire to be full participants in our democracy. And their actions 
speak even louder than their words.
  Puerto Ricans have contributed in all aspects of American life,--in 
the arts, in sciences, in sports, and especially in service to the 
Nation. Their record of service to this country speaks for itself. In 
World War II alone, more than

[[Page S2559]]

65,000 Puerto Rican men and women served in the Armed Forces. In 
Vietnam, over 60,000 served. The first United States soldier killed in 
Somalia was Puerto Rican. One of the airmen shot down over Libya in 
1986 was Puerto Rican. And it was a soldier from Puerto Rico who 
sounded the alarm--and saved lives--in the 1983 bombing of the Marine 
barracks in Beirut.
  I recently received a letter from retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Dennis 
Freytes, a Puerto Rican who resides in Orlando. He states in his 
letter:

       As an American Puerto Rican, who has proudly served our 
     country, I think that Puerto Rico's political status should 
     be promptly resolved, so we don't have second class citizens 
     in our democratic form of government.

  Puerto Ricans voluntarily joined our Armed Forces and have given 
their lives in defense of our country and democratic way of life. I 
emphasize ``our'' because U.S. citizens must have the same rights no 
matter where they were born or where they choose to live.
  In 1996 and 1997, the Legislature of Puerto Rico, the democratically 
elected representatives of 3.7 million U.S. citizens, overwhelmingly 
approved resolutions requesting that the Congress and the President of 
the United States respond to their legitimate democratic aspirations. 
They requested that a plebiscite be held not later than December 31, 
1998, almost exactly 100 years after Puerto Rico gained territorial 
status. There have been similar referendums in the past, but those were 
locally mandated--Congress gave no direction as to how, if at all, the 
results might affect Puerto Rico's political status.
  It is time for the people of Puerto Rico to have a referendum process 
which defines the choices in a manner which are constitutionally valid, 
and that Congress is willing to uphold.
  Mr. President, I want to particularly stress this latter point. 
Congress needs to understand that if it passes this bill--and I share 
the hope of my friend and colleague, Senator Craig that we will and 
that we will do so expeditiously--it is assuming an important 
political, and moral obligation to the American citizens of Puerto 
Rico.
  This is not a bill without significant consequences. If Puerto Ricans 
ask to remain a Commonwealth, we need to respect their wishes. If they 
want to become a State, we must begin the process of incorporation. And 
if they desire independence, we must take steps to meet that request. 
To do otherwise would be to seriously undermine our credibility with 
the 3.7 million citizens of Puerto Rico and the nearly 300 million 
residents of Latin America.
  Mr. President, for the last 100 years, the United States had given 
Puerto Ricans status as citizens but withheld some of the rights, 
privileges, and responsibilities that come with that privilege. It is 
time for that to end. Puerto Ricans do not deserve second-class 
political status. For all that they have done to enrich our culture and 
defend our Nation from external threats, they have earned the right to 
decide their own political destiny.
  Mr. President, since the early 1900's, self-determination has been a 
cornerstone principle of our Nation's foreign policy.
  As we approach the century mark of the union between Puerto Rico and 
the United States, this bill will serve as a model of American 
democracy at its best--providing citizens with their right to decide 
their own futures.
                                 ______