<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:43194.wais]
PUERTO RICO STATUS
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 856
__________
SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, APRIL 19, 1997
__________
Serial No. 105-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-194 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
T.E. Manase Mansur, Republican Professional Staff
Marie Fabrizio-Howard, Democratic Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held April 19, 1997...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Kennedy, Hon. Patrick J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Rhode Island.................................. 4
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Rodriguez, Hon. Charlie, Designee for the New Progressive
Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico............................... 10
Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos A., Resident Commissioner in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.............. 6
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a U.S. Delegate from the Territory
of Guam.................................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 321
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska; and Chairman, Committee on Resources............ 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Agostini, Juan Antonio, President, Pax Christi-Puerto Rico,
San Juan, Puerto Rico...................................... 122
Arraiza, Manuel Fermin, President, Puerto Rico Bar
Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico......................... 175
Benitez, Prof. Margarita, AFELA, San Juan, Puerto Rico....... 117
Prepared statement of.................................... 264
Bhatia, Hon. Eduardo, Designee for the Minority Leader of the
Senate-Popular Democratic Party, Senate of Puerto Rico..... 110
Prepared statement of.................................... 112
Cintron-Garcia, Hon. Angel M., Designee for the Speaker of
the House, Puerto Rico House of Representatives, San Juan,
Puerto Rico................................................ 188
Prepared statement of.................................... 190
Colon, Rafael Hernandez, former Governor of Puerto Rico,
Ponce, Puerto Rico......................................... 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Fonalledas, Zoraida F., Republican National Committeewoman,
San Juan, Puerto Rico...................................... 194
Prepared statement of.................................... 197
Irizarry, Hon. Carlos Vizcarrondo, Popular Democratic Party,
Puerto Rico House of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico 144
Irizarry-Mora, Prof. Edwin, Economic Advisor, Puerto Rican
Independence Party, Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico.............. 116
Prepared statement of.................................... 146
Mari, Emilio A. Soler, President, Puerto Rican Democratic
Action Foundation, San Juan, Puerto Rico................... 152
Prepared statement of.................................... 154
Martin-Garcia, Hon. Fernando, Designee for the Puerto Rican
Independence Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico.................. 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
McClintock-Hernandez, Kenneth, Designee for the President of
the Senate, Senate of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico... 180
Prepared statement of.................................... 182
Miranda-Marin, Hon. William, the Mayor of Caguas, Caguas,
Puerto Rico................................................ 119
Additional remarks by.................................... 259
Morales-Coll, Eduardo, President, Ateneo Puertorriqueno, San
Juan, Puerto Rico.......................................... 160
Prepared statement of.................................... 162
Pietri, Ivar, San Juan, Puerto Rico.......................... 221
Prepared statement of.................................... 224
Reichard, Hector, Esquire, President, Puerto Rico Chamber of
Commerce, Washington, DC................................... 237
Rodriguez-Orellana, Hon. Manuel, Designee for the Minority
Leader of the Senate-Puerto Rican Independence Party,
Senate of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico............... 131
Prepared statement of.................................... 134
Valle, Etienne Totti Del, Esquire, San Juan, Puerto Rico..... 209
Prepared statement of.................................... 213
Velasco, Ramon L., President, Association of Pro-Commonwealth
Attorneys.................................................. 283
Velez, Hon. Damaris Mangual, Designee for the House Minority
Leader-Puerto Rican Independence Party, Puerto Rico House
of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico.................. 138
Prepared statement of.................................... 140
Vila, Hon. Anibal Acevedo, President, Popular Democratic
Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico............................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Additional material supplied:
Agostini, Juan Antonio, Spokesman, Direcive Board, prepared
statement of............................................... 243
Cardona, Hector Reichard de, Chamber of Conmerce, of Puerto
Rico, prepared statement of................................ 311
Fermin, Manuel Arraiza, Presidente, Colegio de Abogados de
Puerto Rico, prepared statement of......................... 306
Gonzalez, Hon. Ferdinand Lugo, Representative, District 19,
Mayaguez, Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, prepared
statement of............................................... 279
Ramos, Luis Vega, President, PROELA, prepared statement of... 292
PUERTO RICO STATUS
----------
SATURDAY, APRIL 19, 1997,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
San Juan, PR.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:55 a.m. at the
Drama Theater at the Centro De Bellas Artes Luis A. Ferre, San
Juan, Puerto Rico, Hon. Don Young (Chairman of the Committee)
presiding.
Mr. Young. The Committee will come to order.
It is my intention to make an opening statement; and then I
will recognize Mr. Miller, then Mr. Kennedy, then Mr. Underwood
and, in closing, Commissioner Romero-Barcelo.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
Mr. Young. It is a pleasure to be in Puerto Rico to
continue the work of Congress in resolving Puerto Rico's
status. I believe the hearings today in San Juan and Monday in
Mayaguez on the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act,
H.R. 856, are an important part of the process leading to a
response of the Puerto Rican House Concurrent Resolution 2 of
January 23rd of this year, asking for a federally authorized
vote on Puerto Rico's political status before the end of 1998.
As a person from Alaska, when we approached Puerto Rico
yesterday I was stunned again by the shear beauty of the
island's mountains, the greenness of those mountains, the white
beaches and blue tropical sea, as I looked out over those
beaches today and last night.
Another fact that struck me as I looked out over historic
San Juan was the realization that the population of this city
is twice the size of the entire State of Alaska. What an
island! It is no wonder the islands of Puerto Rico have been so
prized and the object of many battles during the past
centuries, including the Spanish-American War in 1898.
In fact, the principal reason we are here today dates back
to when the U.S. flag was being hoisted nearly 100 years ago. A
legitimate question has since been raised and has yet to be
answered: Should the United States flag in Puerto Rico remain
as it is today, be eliminated, or replaced by a flag with an
additional star? Each choice has a corresponding effect on how
it shall be applied to the United States Constitution and
nationality and citizenship.
While the U.S. Constitution follows the flag, Congress
determines the extent of the application, and today in Puerto
Rico the U.S. Constitution applies only in part. United States
nationality also follows the flag and the U.S. Constitution,
which in Puerto Rico today is both U.S. nationality and
statutory U.S. citizenship. This is one of the fundamental
questions with related issues we are attempting to resolve
through these hearings.
Last month, the House Committee on Resources began the
consideration of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status
Act, H.R. 856, with testimony in Washington from six Members of
Congress, the Governor of Puerto Rico, the three political
party presidents of Puerto Rico and the Administration. Their
views are only the beginning of the record which will be added
to by the statements which will be presented here today in San
Juan and Monday in Mayaguez. It is not the location of the
hearings where the statement is given that is important. It is
the substance of the testimony that is important.
During congressional consideration last year of the United
States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, numerous thoughtful
and meaningful suggestions were offered in testimony. Before
the end of the 104th Congress in 1996, over 30 major and minor
changes were incorporated into the bill, which was reintroduced
this year as H.R. 856. I expect many of the proposals presented
during these hearings will result in additional changes to the
current bill, H.R. 856.
However, the bill's fundamental structure for resolving
Puerto Rico's political status has broad bipartisan support in
Congress. The multi-staged approach is sound and offers the
best approach to address the many legal, economic and political
issues that are a part of this self-determination process. A
multi-staged process will ensure that each step taken is
manageable and practical, both for the United States and Puerto
Rico. In addition, the bill guarantees that the people of
Puerto Rico will have the final say in each stage of the
process. Although after these hearings the Congress will enact
the law defining the terms of the process and any change in
status, the people of Puerto Rico will have the final say in
approving each step in the path to full self-government.
In order to obtain a broad cross-section of the views of
the people of Puerto Rico regarding their political status
preference and this process, a large number of witnesses have
been invited to appear before this Committee. I appreciate the
cooperation of each participant in complying with Congressional
rules which are required in other hearings throughout the
nation.
Before we begin with our panel of the distinguished
witnesses and hearing opening statements representing the three
political parties of Puerto Rico, followed by elected officials
and other leaders, I want to share a part of a letter I
received after our hearings on this bill in San Juan on March
23rd of last year from Pilar Barbosa Rosario, Official
Historian of Puerto Rico. This is still in my possession. It
says:
``Greetings to my friend Don Young.
``This is a personal note written, March 24th, 1996.
``As daughter of Jose Celso Barbosa and Official Historian
of Puerto Rico, I try to be impartial and see other points of
view. But when you are almost 99 years of age and have done
research for 45 years, from 1921 to 1966, on Barbosa's private
and public life, it is quite difficult to maintain completely
neutral in our historical interpretations.
``Let me congratulate all persons involved in preparing the
hearing. The hearing was well organized and the people
involved, Congressmen, visitors and Puerto Ricans, we all
learned a lot.
``To me it was a demonstration that in spite of our
colonial status Puerto Ricans have developed and adapted
American democracy to our own political ideologies. They are a
product of our relations with the U.S. but adapted to our
Puerto Rican way of life, different from U.S. and different
from other Caribbean nations and Hispanic-American countries.
To us Puerto Ricans that is not surprising but to our visitors
from the U.S., Hawaii or Latin America, it is something
unique--it is Puerto Rican.
``So help us God that Pilar Barbosa could live three more
years to see what all this results in. So help me God, it is
now or never.
``Sincerely yours, Pilar Barbosa Rosario.''
I was saddened to hear of our loss earlier this year with
the passing of Dona Pilar. What a grand lady and fellow
citizen. Her opinion regarding this process to resolve Puerto
Rico's political status deserves respect and should be
treasured, particularly as one who was born in the 19th
century, before the United States flag was raised in Puerto
Rico.
I believe her hopes for the results within 3 years will
happen. Now definitely is the time for Congress to formally
start the process to permit the people of Puerto Rico to vote
to continue local self-government under Commonwealth, separate
sovereignty or statehood. There is a serious determination in
Congress to solve Puerto Rico's status problem as a top
priority of national importance. I also believe that everyone
who participates in these hearings on the United States-Puerto
Rico Political Status Act, or any other part of the bill's
self-determination process, will contribute to the final
resolution of Puerto Rican status, and will in fact 1 day ``see
what all this results in.''
The gentleman from California.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
delighted to be here this morning for these hearings, to be in
Puerto Rico; and I want to thank our colleague, Carlos Romero-
Barcelo, for the invitation to come to Puerto Rico to conduct
these hearings and thank him and the people for their
hospitality.
My statement will be very short. I think these are very
important hearings; I think these are very timely hearings;
and, hopefully, these hearings are such that they will allow us
to draw to a conclusion the question that has remained open so
very long, both here in Puerto Rico and in the United States,
and that is the status, the permanent status, of Puerto Rico.
That is a decision that I have tried to maintain from the
outset. It is a decision for the people of Puerto Rico. It is a
decision that will then have to be accepted by the Congress of
the United States; and, therefore, we must have a very frank
and a very open process to help us arrive at that decision.
I believe that after many false starts, many
misrepresentations, that this process is, in fact, different. I
believe that this process can, in fact, at the end provide for
the status determination of Puerto Rico.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. I hope
they bring to these hearings a spirit of cooperation and of
helping us to make the determinations. There are many
considerations that we will have to make at the conclusion of
these hearings so that this process can carry forth the
commitment for the resolution of this issue after its
conclusion, and I look forward to these hearings and the ones
on Monday and look forward to hearing from the witnesses today.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman from California.
The gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Kennedy?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling these hearings and
thank you for introducing the United States-Puerto Rico Status
Act, H.R. 856, which I have been proud to cosponsor with you.
This legislation has inspired what Governor Rossello has
called ``a defining moment for Puerto Rico.'' For almost a
century, the people of Puerto Rico have contributed to the
social, economic and cultural history of the United States of
America. They have fought alongside other Americans in war, and
they have shared our times of domestic struggle. It is only
fitting that the Congress act to extend to the people of Puerto
Rico the opportunity to enjoy the full and complete measure of
the rights and privileges that are commensurate with the full
application of the Constitution.
As Governor Ferre has said, with citizenship comes certain
rights and responsibilities. And as a strong proponent myself
of adding the shining star of the Caribbean to our own flag of
the United States, I want to say that I eagerly await the
plebiscite that is sanctioned by this legislation.
It has been my long-standing belief that times have changed
for Puerto Rico. Where Commonwealth status was a good
beginning, I believe that living for today means living for
statehood. The time is right for the island to take its place
at the table of States and receive its share and entitled share
of opportunities. If we want to talk about equality for all
Puerto Ricans, we should give them a voice in the government
that affects their lives.
As my good friend Carlos Romero-Barcelo has said, ``Our
Nation cannot continue to preach democracy throughout the world
while it continues to disenfranchise and deny political
participation and economic equality to 3.8 million people of
its own citizens.''
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you once again for conducting
these hearings. I look forward to the testimony we will receive
today; and, again, it is great to be back in this beautiful
island of Puerto Rico.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Guam has a great interest in this
process, too. Mr. Underwood.
STATEMENT OF THE hon. robert a. underwood, a u.s. delegate from
the territory of guam
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and our good
friend, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, Carlos
Romero-Barcelo, for the opportunity to be here in beautiful
Puerto Rico.
Today and on Monday the Committee will hear from
representatives of various points of view and from all segments
of Puerto Rican society about the most fundamental issue any
people can deal with--their political future. The seriousness
of this issue is underscored by the attention given to the
hearings here in Puerto Rico and, of course, the spirit of the
people as is reflected in the highly charged demonstrations.
The process of conducting congressional hearings depends
upon a sense of fairness and commitment and the leadership of
those committees which conduct those hearings; and I am pleased
to acknowledge the leadership of this Committee--yourself, Mr.
Chairman, Don Young, and the Ranking Member, George Miller--
that while they may not agree on many issues before the Nation,
they certainly agree that Puerto Rico deserves a fair hearing
in Puerto Rico.
This is a level of commitment which not only reflects well
upon the leadership of the Committee but the importance and
seriousness of the issues which we will be confronting and have
been confronting on this issue.
Mr. Young's project, as it is reported here in the press,
is in reality part of a larger project all of us continue to
labor in. All of us are participants in the great American
project, the project of perfecting democracy; and the project
continues whether the issues before us are about racial
injustice, ethnic division, equal opportunity, the appropriate
relationship between States and the Federal Government and, as
it is today, the relationship between the Federal Government
and an appendage, a separate body politic to that government.
In the case before us today, that entity is Puerto Rico;
and, in its existing form, the Commonwealth is described in
various ways, depending upon one's vision for the future. It is
a colony seeking first-class citizenship. It is a freely
associated State. It is a nation awaiting deliverance.
I don't think this it is for us to decide. I think that is
for the people of Puerto Rico to decide in concert with the
Federal Government; and I think our responsibility as a
Committee is to ensure that the process which is ultimately
developed allows for fairness and, most importantly, closure.
It should be a process which does not move the people to a
choice out of desperation or frustration; and it should be a
process in which the options are clear and direct, at least on
the ballot. I think we can leave it up to elected officials
later during campaign season to mischaracterize each other's
positions. It should be a process which leads to change, if
this is the desire of the Puerto Rican people.
This is why in your legislation, Mr. Chairman, the Federal
Government's responsibility to act is so important in this
legislation. The Federal responsibility must be consistent with
the modern 21st century understanding of decolonization, and it
must lead to a process which forces expeditious action.
My role in the process is unique. I represent an island
which is seeking resolution of its own political status. I
share more in common with the Resident Commissioner than with
other Members of the House of Representatives. I represent an
island which came under the U.S. flag through the treaty of
Paris ending the Spanish-American war.
In the March hearing in Washington, Governor Rossello
stated that Puerto Rico has been a colony longer under the U.S.
flag than anyone else. Guam was invaded by U.S. Marines in June
of 1898, and Puerto Rico's experience came a month later. So we
win on that score.
Due to our similarities as historical appendages to the
Federal politic and due to our common colonization even by
Spain, which dates back 325 years for Guam, I feel a special
responsibility not to evaluate the efforts of the Puerto Rican
people but instead to facilitate the aspirations of the people
to move toward the full decolonization of their homeland. And I
believe that, under your leadership, the Committee comes to
this hearing with open hearts as well as open ears.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman from Guam.
It is my great honor now to introduce someone who does not
need introduction. The gentleman has led this program for many,
many years, my good friend, Don Carlos. He has done well. He is
not only a good member of my Committee, I think he does an
excellent job in Washington for Puerto Rico.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, RESIDENT
COMMISSIONER FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you to the other Members.
I would like to begin my remarks today by welcoming back
all of the Committee members to the beautiful capital of San
Juan, the oldest city in the United States. San Juan was
colonized and became a city in 1521. That was quite a bit
before St. Augustine in Florida. As a matter of fact, it was
our first Governor, Ponce de Leon, who was the first European
to start the colonization of what is now the United States of
America.
I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your initiative in
scheduling these two hearings on H.R. 856, the United States-
Puerto Rico Political Status Act, and for your commitment to
achieving full self-government and ending the
disenfranchisement of the 3.8 million U.S. citizens of Puerto
Rico. Thanks to your leadership on this issue, we have been
able to reach the point where we are today.
In addition, I want to take this opportunity to thank our
Ranking Minority Member, my good friend, George Miller, for his
efforts in helping to provide a process in which Puerto Ricans
will have the opportunity to decide freely, without ambiguity
and decisively on what the island's future relationship with
the United States should be.
I want to thank my colleagues, Patrick Kennedy and Bob
Underwood, for also taking time out of this congressional
recess to be here with us and for giving this issue the
importance they have already given to it. Their participation
is very meaningful not only to me personally but I am sure to
all of the people of Puerto Rico.
Last, but not least, I want to thank the 84 Members of
Congress and the 12 Members of the Senate who have already
cosponsored this legislation. It is clear that the U.S.
Congress has finally made it a top priority to resolve the
Puerto Rican status issue, and the bipartisan consensus grows
every day for a federally sponsored plebiscite next year.
The Clinton administration has also joined in expressing
its support for this process. During the Committee's hearing in
Washington last month, the President's spokesperson, Jeffrey
Farrow, stated that establishing a process that would enable
the people of Puerto Rico to decide their future relationship
with the United States was President Clinton's highest priority
regarding this island.
In addition, he indicated that the President hoped that
such a process would be under way next year, the centennial of
the U.S. acquisition of the islands.
It was also mentioned that the President looked forward to
our entering the new millennium having concluded the debate and
implementing the will of the Puerto Rican people.
So make no mistake about it. After 100 years, the Puerto
Rican colonial dilemma has finally become a national issue and
one that two active branches of the Federal Government
recognize has to be resolved as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, the hearings that this Committee will be
celebrating here today and next Monday are truly historic in
nature. The members of this Committee will have an opportunity
to hear from over 50 witnesses representing all of the
political spectrum of the island. I do not recall a hearing in
any of my Committees during my tenure in Congress where we had
so many witnesses to testify on one single subject.
In that regard, Mr. Chairman, these hearings are
unprecedented; and you and Mr. Miller are to be praised for the
fairness, the openness and inclusiveness of this process. The
Committee has tried to receive the widest input from as many
people and sectors as possible; and everyone who has expressed
interest has been given the opportunity to participate and
state his or her point of view, either by submitting a written
statement or by testifying personally.
Back on March 3rd, 1997, exactly 80 years and 1 day after
Puerto Ricans were granted U.S. citizenship, Chairman Young and
Congressman Miller sent a letter to the presidents of the three
political parties in Puerto Rico, requesting them to submit to
Congress the status definition which they believe would be most
appropriate for the status option they supported.
While the party presidents were assured that the specific
definitions regarding their status preferences would be
presented to all of the Committee members for consideration at
the time of the markup, Mr. Young and Mr. Miller were clear in
stating that there was no purpose in presenting the people of
Puerto Rico a status definition which does not represent an
option that the Congress will be willing to ratify should it be
approved in a plebiscite.
If there is something to be learned from our previous
locally sponsored plebiscites, it is that the only way that we
will be able to finalize once and for all this frustrating
debate is if the U.S. Congress clarifies what the options
really are and how it is willing to implement the people's
choice. Only then will the people of Puerto Rico be able to
reach an informed decision on their future. No more false
promises; no more wish-lists. The people of Puerto Rico need
realistic and viable options, and it is our responsibility as
Members of Congress to provide them with those options.
During today's hearing we will have the opportunity to hear
from, among others, the three party presidents or their
representatives, all of whom submitted a response to Chairman
Young and Mr. Miller's request.
The new Progressive Party was in full agreement with the
definition of statehood that was included in the bill and did
not submit any changes.
The Independence Party proposed some minor changes to the
definition that I am sure will be discussed in more detail here
today.
But we should not be concerned with these two definitions,
because they are clear. In the case of statehood, there are 50
more examples; and everyone knows what independence means and
what it entails.
It is the definition of the so-called new Commonwealth that
concerns us, because, once again, the Popular Party was given
the opportunity to come up with a definition of Commonwealth
that is constitutional, realistic, viable and, most of all, a
definition that the U.S. Congress can accept.
Unfortunately, it is quite evident that the definition of
the new Commonwealth submitted by the Popular Party does not
meet the aforementioned requirements. Basic attributes of the
proposed definition, such as the permanent nature of the
relationship, the mutual consent language, the existence of a
compact, the constitutional guarantee of U.S. citizenship, and
the equality of treatment under Federal programs without income
taxes are clearly unacceptable to Congress because they are
either unconstitutional, unrealistic, politically unacceptable
or all of the above.
First of all, the so-called Commonwealth status can never
be permanent in nature, precisely because it is a colonial
relationship which the U.S. cannot maintain. The president of
the Popular Party, Anibal Acevedo Vila, was the first one to
admit this fact in the congressional hearings that were held in
Washington last March 19th.
It is clear the Congress cannot constitutionally bind
itself never to alter the current or any future territorial
relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico nor
renounce its constitutional power under the territorial clause
which states that Congress shall have the power to dispose of
and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the
territory or other property belonging to the United States,
article 4, section 3.
As long as Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory,
the U.S. Congress retains the authority to act unilaterally and
to determine which Federal laws will apply or not in Puerto
Rico.
But what strikes me as the most absurd of the statements in
the definition is the claim that Puerto Rico be an autonomous
body politic, sovereign over matters covered by the
Constitution of Puerto Rico, while at the same time demanding
that Congress guarantee forever the U.S. citizenship of persons
born on the island with the same rights, privileges and
immunities provided for in the U.S. Constitution.
Once again, the Popular Party talks about the rights,
privileges and benefits of U.S. citizenship; but the words
responsibility and obligation are nowhere to be seen in their
definition.
Furthermore, the fact is that the current citizenship
status of persons born in Puerto Rico exists at the discretion
of Congress. Because the Constitution has been partially
extended to Puerto Rico, particularly the fundamental rights of
due process and equal protection, Congress obviously cannot
exercise its discretion in an arbitrary and irrational way. But
the suggestion that the current citizenship can be guaranteed
forever and it is irrevocable by future Congresses is
dangerously misleading. No such statutory status can bind a
future Congress from exercising its constitutional authority
and responsibility under the territorial clause.
In the U.S. constitutional system, equal political rights
come with full and equal citizenship based on birth in one of
the States of the Union or naturalization. Birth on an
unincorporated territory like Puerto Rico does not confer a
citizenship status protected by the 14th amendment of the
Constitution, as indicated by the fact that the U.S. citizens
in Puerto Rico do not have the same economic and political
rights as citizens of the States; and Puerto Rico is subject to
laws passed by the U.S. Congress in which they have no voting
representation.
It is time for the pretense and the partisan mischief to
end. It is time for all of us to put hypocrisy aside and be
truthful about what the real choices are for Puerto Ricans. It
is time to decide if we want to have full self-government and
full empowerment that will allow us to search for a brighter
future in equality with our fellow citizens, or we would rather
live hanging on to an outdated colonial relationship of the
past.
As we approach a century of U.S. sovereignty over Puerto
Rico, the time has come to empower the people by giving them
clear choices which they understand and which are truly
decolonizing so we can reveal Puerto Rico's true desire through
a lifetime act of self-determination.
Mr. Chairman and fellow members, I want to once again thank
you for your interest and attention to this vitally important
issue. I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished
guests and to further congressional action on this subject. The
3.8 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico deserve no less.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. Thank you. I thank the gentleman.
We now will have the first panel, the Honorable Charlie
Rodriguez, the designee for the New Progressive Party, San
Juan, Puerto Rico; the Honorable Anibal Acevedo Vila,
President, Popular Democratic Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico; the
Honorable Fernando Martin-Garcia, designee for the Puerto Rican
Independence Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Please take your seats.
Gentlemen, because you are representatives of the three
different parties today, I will use a little discretion and
allow you more time than the 5 minutes. We will try to keep to
the 5-minute rule, but with respect to your individual
positions, I will be very lenient for a moment as long as you
don't go on all day.
Charlie--Mr. Rodriguez, you are up first.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE RODRIGUEZ, DESIGNEE FOR THE NEW
PROGRESSIVE PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Young, Ranking Democrat George
Miller, Congressman Romero-Barcelo, members of the Resources
Committee. On behalf of Governor Pedro Rossello and the 3.7
million U.S. citizens, welcome to Puerto Rico.
Today I come before you wearing two hats, representing the
New Progressive Party of which the Governor is president, and
as the president of the Puerto Rico Senate. In both capacities
I support the Committee's tireless efforts over the last 3
years in the exercise of its responsibilities under the
Constitution's Territorial Clause toward crafting Federal
legislation that will finally offer Puerto Ricans, for the
first time, the right to freely determine their political
status and to resolve our century-old political relationship
with the United States under a congressionally sponsored
plebiscite.
We have talked long enough in Puerto Rico about our
political status. We have talked for 100 years. It is time now
to act and to find out how strong is the creed of equality,
democratic values, and pluralism of our Nation once the voice
of the people of Puerto Rico is heard in the proposed 1998
plebiscite.
I want to make three essential points:
First, that the constitutional integrity of the status
options offered in the 1998 plebiscite must not be compromised.
These options must reflect what is constitutionally attainable
within the powers of Congress under the Territorial Clause.
They must honestly describe to the people of Puerto Rico what
is legally possible, not what is in consistent with the
Constitution, impractical economically or politically, or
subject to the vicissitudes of future negotiations. The people
of Puerto Rico are closely monitoring these events, and they
are expecting a clear and precise message from Congress of what
may constitutionally be offered in the definitions of the three
competing formulas.
For these reasons, the Committee should adopt, in their
entirety, the three status option definitions as set forth in
the proposed legislation. Congress must state with clarity that
U.S. citizenship cannot exist in a status formula with
sovereign powers.
Second, it is important that the process you have developed
to provide for full self-government for the island through a
self-deposition of the people of Puerto Rico in conjunction
with the Federal Government must not be compromised. It is
crucial that the process be sound, all inclusive, and provides
a peaceful, democratic, and internationally recognized process
for all persons, parties, and interests in the island to
finally resolve Puerto Rico's 500-year old march toward
decolonization.
Finally, your presence here today is due in part to the
initiative of the Puerto Rico Legislature's two concurrent
resolutions seeking Congress's response to our island's
ambiguous political status left unresolved by the 1993
plebiscite. We hope to continue to work with you to realize our
objective, a 1998 plebiscite in which full self-government for
Puerto Rico is initiated.
As the Governor's representative, I want to reaffirm our
party's support of the definition of statehood contained in
H.R. 856. We believe it fairly and accurately reflects both the
benefits and obligations that Statehood entails. It should be
adopted in its entirety as a stated valid option for the status
plebiscite scheduled for 1998.
Puerto Ricans should be well informed of what statehood
means under this definition. They should know that statehood is
the only formula that guarantees our U.S. citizenship, putting
us on equal footing with all other Americans. They should know
that statehood is the only formula that guarantees the
protection of the U.S. Constitution. They should know that
statehood is the only formula that guarantees the Presidential
vote and the election of two Senators and at least six Members
of Congress who will shape the laws that affect our daily
lives.
They should also know that statehood is the only formula
that guarantees Americans citizenship to our children,
grandchildren, and all future generations born in Puerto Rico.
They should know that only statehood guarantees the entire
application and full funding of Federal programs, which will be
provided to the State of Puerto Rico on parity with the rest of
the States of the Union.
They should know, too, that these benefits--citizenship,
equal rights, full funding--carry with them the duty to pay
Federal income tax, a duty that will ultimately be offset by a
corresponding reduction in island taxes as Federal funds
compensate for local outlays.
They should know that the 51st State of Puerto Rico can
continue to have both Spanish and English as its official State
languages, a right reserved and guaranteed to all other States
under the Constitution's 10th Amendment, a right that can only
be changed through a constitutional amendment made applicable
to all the States, not just one or a few.
They should know the commitment of our Nation to democratic
values, multiculturalism, and pluralism, all central to the
American Dream.
One thing we already know is that when the Nation has
required our presence in the battlefields in the First and
Second World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Somalia,
and Bosnia, we have been in the front lines, attesting to our
commitment to democratic values and ideals.
I invite you to visit the memorial dedicated by the people
of Puerto Rico dedicated to the hundreds of citizens, the
people who made the ultimate sacrifice of their Nation. This
memorial is located on the south side of our Capitol.
Puerto Ricans are so committed to our American citizenship
and to our relation with our Nation that in a poll conducted by
a local paper on July 23, 1990, 43.5 percent expressed that if
Puerto Rico became a sovereign nation, they would move to the
continental United States; 42 percent said they would remain;
and 15 expressed to be undecided. The poll revealed that 60
percent of our youth would move to the United States. If the
same question were polled today, the numbers would be even
higher than those in 1990.
In a more recent poll, 91 percent of those interviewed
stated that U.S. citizenship was very important. Surprisingly,
53 percent of independence supporters polled said they consider
U.S. citizenship very important.
In sum, the statehood definition clearly and precisely
declares to voters that it is the only formula that puts Puerto
Rico on an equal footing with all the other States and confers
on its residents the same constitutional rights and
responsibilities as all other U.S. citizens enjoy.
Chairman Young, as stated in the letter signed by you and
Chairmen Burton, Gallegly, and Gilman on February 9, 1996, in
response to the 1993 plebiscite, I quote: There is a need for
Congress to define the real options for change and the true
legal and political nature of the status quo, so that the
people can know what the actual choices will be in the future,
end of quote.
That you have accomplished with H.R. 856. The status
options as defined in the bill meet your criteria. They should
stand as written, or otherwise the self-determination process
will be compromised, as it was in 1993.
The process is important. The 1998 plebiscite campaign will
be free of the demagoguery and rhetoric characteristic of past
status votes where one party or the other impugned the legality
of one or more of the options or questioned Congress's
willingness to implement the results.
Rather, this campaign will be waged on the merits of the
status options, what is good for Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans,
what can be done, and the implications of choosing one path
over the other.
Second, the bill encompasses all status options, thereby
establishing its credibility and claim to inclusiveness. Every
legitimate internationally recognized status option is offered
to voters of every persuasion, a democratic process that denies
no one their say but one which recognizes that the majority
rules.
Putting on my Senate hat, let us remember that it was a
Puerto Rico legislature that requested Congress to respond to
the results of our 1993 plebiscite in which none of the
options, for the first time since 1952, received a majority
vote among our electorate.
H.R. 856 is the final manifestation of Congress's response
to our two concurrent resolutions, and, as I have stated
already, it is a clear and definite framework, providing both
legitimate status options capable of implementation and a self-
determination process consistent with democratic norms and
internationally accepted practices. H.R. 856 should be enacted
as written.
With your continual assistance, Puerto Rico and the
residents of this island will enter the next millennium
confident in their future as first class American citizens,
confident in their future and the American Dream.
The conscience of the democratic world will be closely
watching this process. The international community will finally
judge the firmness of our Nation in respecting the will of the
people of Puerto Rico freely expressed in 1998, a democratic
process which will be a test for the democratic institutions of
our Nation.
Puerto Rico stands as the final frontier of the U.S.
promise of the American Dream to all who live within its
national borders. After 500 years of colonialism, 100 under the
U.S. flag, it is time to provide the people of Puerto Rico with
full and equal access to that dream, a dream whose
constitutional underpinnings we have defended abroad with valor
for over 80 years.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman.
I will allow that to a short degree, but not too much,
because we have a long witness list. I appreciate the
enthusiasm.
I notice--and I will go to the next witness in a moment--I
notice that you carefully said ``the final frontier.'' If you
had stated ``the last frontier,'' I would have been mightily
offended, because that is the motto of our State.
Now we have the president of the Popular Democratic Party.
Mr. Vila, you are up.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANIBAL ACEVEDO VILA, PRESIDENT, POPULAR
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Vila. Good morning. It is a pleasure to welcome you to
the Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. You have just taken some of the time away, and
let's be very careful of what we are doing.
You are up.
Mr. Vila. In my previous experience before you, I expressed
the views of our matter regarding the tenets of political
formula to which we are audience here. It is, as you know, a
formula that stresses the values and aspirations of the United
States, preserving at the same time our distinct national and
cultural identities. This is a status that has served the
people of Puerto Rico well, that has allowed the sons and
daughters of this island to work toward a common ideal of
progress and well-being and to avoid the clashes between
otherwise unaccommodating visions.
If improved, Commonwealth can serve both our people and
your people even better. This is why we have tried for many
years, and continue to try now, to allow our present status to
achieve its full potential. It is not surprising then that our
definition of ``Commonwealth''--the way in which we describe
the essence of our beliefs--is neither new to our people nor
alien to this Committee.
Accordingly, I do not come today to go once again over
terrain that has been very well covered in the past. Today, I
would like to address issues that are most significant for the
process that you have commenced and that still wait to be
discussed.
In this day and age, there is no right to self-
determination if the process for its exercise is not adopted by
consensus but by the sheer exercise of the will and power of
one of the parties.
May I, in this respect, point out two glaring defects of
this bill besides others which we have mentioned in the past.
This bill does not recognize the sovereignty of the people of
Puerto Rico to freely choose among all the alternatives
preferred by the different sectors of the Puerto Rican society.
Accordingly, it does not comply with the elemental
requirements concerning the exercise of the right to self-
determination, the need that the process be made subject to the
approval of the people concerned or, at least, adopted by
consensus of the leading political groups that represent the
people.
The common history shared between Puerto Rico and the
Congress has had two good examples of this. When Puerto Rico
exercised, without exhausting, its self-determination right in
1950, the people validated the process proposed by Congress
with its vote. Later, in the 1989-91 plebiscite process, the
U.S. Congress validated that process by getting the support and
consensus of the three political parties on the island.
As Chairman Young clearly stated, during that process back
in 1990--and I am quoting--a referendum should only be
authorized by Congress if it is to be fair to all parties and
the statuses that they advocate.
That same principle was reaffirmed recently with regard to
this process by the President of the United States, the
Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, in a letter to the
president of the Popular Democratic Party on April 4, 1997,
where he states: I have made it clear that the Federal
Government should offer the people of Puerto Rico serious and
fair options that are responsive to their diverse aspirations
for their islands.
If, notwithstanding the fact that the procedure for the
establishment of Commonwealth required the approval by the
people, that process is not satisfactory to some of you, what
could be said about this process that until now has been
established unilaterally? Why not follow now the same
consultation that governed the constitutional reforms in the
1950's? Why should this bill seek to impose a given procedure,
tilting the table to favor a formula that has never commanded a
majority in this society?
Or is it that half a century after we initiated the self-
determination process, statehood followers have finally come to
realize that the table needs tilting in order to prevent
another defeat for statehood? Is it that you are now willing to
follow them in such a monumental hoax?
This is not a question of naked power to do something, as
debates concerning this bill have pitifully assumed. This is a
question of honest statesmanship and solemn respect or the
principles of democracy and government by consent.
Before this bill goes further, you might as well tell, loud
and clear, whether you are willing to honor the procedural
principles of self-determination that have governed the
proposals for changes in our relations or whether you pretend
to impose the rules unilaterally.
We must assume that the joint letter from Congressmen Young
and Miller of March 3, 1997, giving the three political parties
an opportunity to present a new definition for each formula,
and this second round of hearings before the Committee is a new
approach of openness, to have a referendum fair to all parties
and the statuses they advocate, and to revise the provisions,
findings, and assumptions of this bill which have, until now,
made impossible any meaningful participation for us.
On March 19, I submitted the definition of the new
Commonwealth to this Committee. It describes the minimum
content of our aspirations. It is substantially similar to the
``Commonwealth'' definition included in the Committee report of
H.R. 4765, a bill approved unanimously by the full House of
Representatives on October 10, 1990.
The definition of the new ``Commonwealth,'' as well as the
definition of ``statehood'' and ``independence'' included in
the report to H.R. 4756 and approved by this Committee and the
whole House, were the result of intense discussions and study,
after which the definitions presented by the three parties were
modified before being adopted by the House.
The report on H.R. 4765 stated specifically that inclusion
of the definition--and I quote--constitute a good faith
commitment to consider those matters contained in the
conceptual descriptions of the status that receives majority
support in the referendum in responding to the expression of
will by the Puerto Rican people.
The record said--and I am still quoting--these descriptions
cannot be fairly termed wish lists . . . this section would
pledge that the Committees will seriously and fully review and
respond to the proposals.
In short, there was no absolutely no legal impediment to
the adoption and enforcement of the Commonwealth option there,
and there is none now. The only thing needed is your political
will and your commitment to fair play.
What should be under discussion now before Congress is what
best serves the interests of all parties to the present process
and how to give meaningful content to Puerto Rico's right to
self-determination without artificially raised or dubious
legalisms to obscure the nature of the policy decisions
required.
These are not times to be narrow minded. We must build on
our past and look to the future. Europe is currently creating a
whole new and dynamic relationship which includes a common
market, common citizenship, and most likely common currency,
and he United States has to look to the future with an attitude
that will encourage, not impede, this type of arrangement.
The development of the new Commonwealth is consistent with
these modern tendencies of national reaffirmation and political
and economic interdevelopment among the peoples of the world.
The majority of Puerto Ricans believe in autonomy and self-
government with U.S. citizenship as a bond with the United
States. The current status of Puerto Rico needs development,
not demolition. Thus----
[Applause.]
So far, I have expressed myself in English in an effort to
facilitate your understanding of our positions and underscore
the claim of inclusion that my party has been stressing since
my first appear-
ance last month. Now, I want to express myself from the heart,
and because my heart thinks, feels, and dreams in Spanish, it
can only speak in Spanish.
Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico es un pueblo orgulloso de su
identidad, de su cultura, de su idioma. Algunos pequenos
incidentes dramatizan nuestro sentido de identidad propia.
Recuerdo como si fuera hoy, la ilusion y la an- y luego la
angustia cuando apenas tenia dieciseis anos, de las Olimpiadas
de Montreal por momentos, nuestro equipo de baloncesto parecia
que iba a triunfar sobre el de Estados Unidos, para despues
terminar derrotado. Recuerdo. . . Y se me aprieta el corazon. .
. Una noche aqui en San Juan, en los juegos Panamericanos de
1979, cuando un Puertorriqueno, nadando en el uniforme de los
Estados Unidos, gano una medalla de oro para los Estados
Unidos. Esa atleta saco de su uniforme una pequena bandera
Puertorriquena en senal clara que para el, aquella medalla
tambien era nuestra. Y recuerdo . . . [Applause] Y recuerdo . .
. [Applause] Y recuerdo como todo un estadio . . . Miles de
personas, nos pusimos de pie para entonar nuestro himno, La
Borinquena, en un reclamo de que aquella medalla era nuestra.
En mis treinta y cinco anos, he visto y vivido orgullo y
compromiso de este pueblo, con mantener su relacion con los
Estados Unidos y especialmente, su ciudadania Americana.
Recuerdo claramente. . . [Applause] Recuerdo claramente a
nuestros soldados, cumpliendo con su obligacion, partiendo
orgullosamente a defender los principios y derechos de los
Estados Unidos, con la bandera Americana adherida a su uniforme
militar y la bandera Puertorriquena en sus manos. Esa es la
realidad del Puertorriqueno de entrar al nuevo milenio. Esa es
la realidad que solo puede armonizar el Estado Libre Asociado.
Esa es la realidad . . . [Applause] Esa es la realidad. . . Que
este proyecto pretende no reconocer, pero aun, peor aun. . .
Pretende destruir. Ha quedado demostrado que este proyecto al
tratar de destruir el ELA, tendria el efecto de obligar a los
Puertorriquenos a escoger entre dos (2) soledades. La soledad
de perder su identidad, lenguaje y cultura a cambio de
preservar su ciudadania. . . O la soledad de perder su
ciudadania a cambio de preservar su identidad. El Estado Libre
Asociado . . . [Applause] El Estado Libre Asociado nos ha
liberado de esta soledad, al permitirnos armonizar ambos
tesoros. Hace treinta anos, el Premio Nobel de Literatura
Garcia Marquez escribio, ``Las estirpes condenadas a cien anos
de soledad. . . No tenian una segunda oportunidad sobre la
tierra.'' Senores Congresistas, no somos una estirpe, somos un
pueblo. Senores Congresistas, no condenen a Puerto Rico a
``cien anos de soledad.'' Tenemos derecho a una segunda
oportunidad y la estamos exigiendo. A nombre de mi pueblo, que
es y sigue siendo mayoritariamente estadolibrista, me reafirmo
en nuestro derecho, a entrar al nuevo milenio en harmonia con
ustedes. . . Y con nuestro inquebrantable espiritu y esencia
Puertorriqueno. Que el Senor los ilumine. Thank you.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vila follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.011
Mr. Young. Fernando, you are next.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FERNANDO MARTIN-GARCIA, DESIGNEE FOR THE
PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Martin-Garcia. Members of Committee, I will be
developing my testimony for the benefit of the people in Puerto
Rico, and for your benefit I have provided you with a
translation.
Mr. Young. We have read that, Fernando. Thank you.
Mr. Martin-Garcia. Senores miembros del Comite: Comparezco
ante ustedes en representacion de Ruben Dario Martinez,
Presidente del Partido Independista Puertorriqueno del cual soy
Vice-presidente. El Senador Berrios se encuentra hoy fuera de
este edificio, donde el Partido Independentista ha convocado
una manifestacion de respaldo a la independencia de Puerto
Rico. . . Y de rechazo a cualquier posible decision por parte
del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de reubicar en Puerto Rico,
al Comando Sur del Ejecito de los Estados Unidos. Las
manifestaciones tambien rechaza los planes de la Marina de
instalar en Puerto Rico el sistema de radar conocido como
``Sobre el Horizonte.''
Constituye una contradiccion, que mientras se plantea el
diseno de un vehiculo legislativo que aspira a descolonizar a
Puerto Rico, las fuerzas armadas de Estados Unidos pretendan
reforzar y ampliar su presencia en Puerto Rico. Hemos expresado
ya esta propuesta a la Casa Blanca y nos proponemos hacerlo de
manera formal proximamente.
Debo senalar ademas que hablemos de elevar nuestra denuncia
ante la comunidad internacional y en particular, ante el Comite
de Descolonizacion de Naciones Unidas.
El 31 de marzo, el Partido Independista envio al Comite la
definicion de la formula de independencia que proponemos sea
incluido en el proyecto de la Camara 856. Aunque la
independencia es una condicion politica claramente definida en
el Derecho Internacional, hemos elaborado una propuesta que
describe dicha condicion de forma sencilla y especifica. En
ella se precisa en primer lugar, el ambito pleno de soberania
del que quedaria investido un Puerto Rico independiente tanto
en sus asuntos internos como externos. Se afirma ademas, lo que
en otras circunstancias historicas seria innecesario, que los
Puertorriquenos tendran su propia ciudadania, es decir, la
ciudadania de la Republica de Puerto Rico.
Se Tambien lo relativo a los derechos individuales
adquiridos en el ambito economico, como lo serian las pensiones
del Gobierno Federal o bajo el Seguro Social y la Ley de
Veteranos, pues aunque la continuidad de esos pagos no podria
ser cuestionada y no mencionarlo especificamente pudiera
generar incertidumbre entre los sectores mas vulnerables de
nuestra sociedad.
Por ultimo, la propuesta incluye algunos de los temas
fundamentales, que inevitablemente habrian de ser incluidos en
un futuro Tratado de Amistad y Cooperacion entre ambas
naciones. Estos incluyen la transicion economica de la
dependencia actual a la interdependencia equilibrada, el
transito de bienes y personas entre Estados Unidos y Puerto
Rico, y nuestra insistencia en el derecho de Puerto Rico a su
eventual desmilitarizacion.
Debo expresarme ahora con respecto a las definiciones de
las demas forrmulas que al presente se incluyen en el proyecto
de ley, particularmente al status quo territorial, es decir el
ELA actual, y la alternativa de la estadidad. Al desenmascarar
la realidad colonial y territorial del Estado Libre Asociado,
el Comite le da la razon a las renuncias que el independentismo
Puertorriqueno ha venido haciendo consistentemente. . . Desde
1950 en todos los foros. Tiene ademas razon el Comite, al
partir de la premisa de que del Derecho Constitucional
Norteamericano, cualquier status que no sea la estadidad o la
soberania propia, ya sea esta en la independencia o en la libre
asociacion, tiene forzosamente que ser uno de caracter
territorial, colonial y temporero. Merece por ello, tambien
reconocimiento que el proyecto subraye la precariedad de la
actual condicion territorial, al requerir que en el caso de que
no las resultara en el apoyo mayoritario, el pueblo
Puertorriqueno debera volver a ser consultado a mediano plazo
hasta que logre superar por voluntad propia, el status
colonial.
La propuesta del nuevo ELA que tiene ustedes ahora ante su
consideracion, en nada modifica el caracter colonial del viejo
ELA. Aun si el Congreso aceptara el intento de cuadrar el
circulo constitucional que una vez mas ha propuesto el liderato
del partido popular, permaneceria Puerto Rico sujeto a la
aplicacion unilateral de la legislacion que los Estados Unidos
creyera necesaria, y permaneceria en nuestra Constitucion y
nuestras leyes, subordinadas a la Constitucion de los Estados
Unidos y a sus tribunales.
Estos vicios nada mas bastarian para condenar la definicion
del nuevo ELA al mismo safacon colonial de su predecesor.
[Applause] De la misma manera. . . De la misma manera que el
Comite ha hablado con claridad y franqueza sobre el ELA actual,
debe hacerlo tambien con respecto a este ultimo y desesperado
esfuerzo, de poner al dia el fraude que en 1950 se perpetro
contra nuestro pueblo. Con respecto a la estadidad [Applause] .
. . Con respecto a la estadidad, por otro lado, estamos
convencidos de que el enfoque del proyecto esta profundamente
equivocado. El realismo y el proposito de enmienda que el
proyecto muestra en la aceptacion del caracter colonial y
territorial del ELA, no estan presentes en la conceptualizacion
de la alternativa estadista.
Con respecto a la estadidad, el proyecto encubre los
criterios anticipables con que el Congreso evaluaria una
peticion de estadidad, que pudiera darse en un plebiscito de
Puerto Rico, como resultado del miedo y la dependencia generada
por el colonialismo. La raiz fundamental del problema, una que
el proyecto peligrosamente ignora, es que Puerto Rico es una
nacion distinta a los Estados Unidos. Nunca en su historia
[Applause] . . . Nunca en su historia se ha enfrentado los
Estados Unidos a una peticion de estadidad por parte de una
nacion diferente o por motivos tan perestres desesperados como
los que llevarian a muchos Puertorriquenos a votar por ella.
Constituye un profundo error de juicio el creer que el
problema politico principal de la nacion Puertorriquena es la
limitacion de su franquicia electoral en lo que respecta al
voto por el Presidente y el Congreso de los Estados Unidos. Eso
es igual a pensar que el problema Palestino encontraria
solucion con la extension de la franquicia electoral de Israel
a los Palestinos de Gaza o de la margen occidental. Es no
entender el por que la franquicia electoral Britanica no fue
suficiente para impedir la culminacion de la independencia de
Irlanda y la persistencia hoy dia de esa misma lucha en Irlanda
del Norte. O por que cada vez mas que Quebecuas aspiran a su
propia soberania, a pesar de tener igualdad de derechos
politicos con los demas ciudadanos del Canada. Los
Puertorriquenos no somos una minoria dispersa, desarticulada, o
asimilada. . . Dentro de los Estados Unidos. Somos una
nacionalidad Latinoamericana, hispano-parlante, que se ha
formado a traves de quinientos anos, orgullosa de su identidad,
y que tiene como asiento nacional un territorio Caribeno
geograficamente definido donde su cultura nacional es
indisputadamente dominante, en todas las manifestaciones de su
vida colectiva. En este sentido tan critico y tan
transcendental, Puerto Rico no es Tejas o Alaska, o ni siquiera
Hawai, donde los nativos de extraccion Hawaiana, para la fecha
de la estadidad en 1959, apenas constituian una pequena minoria
desplazada en su propia tierra, dominada por los anglos y
homogenizada cultural y linguisticamente a los Estados Unidos
desde hacia mucho tiempo.
oQue peso tiene para este Congreso, en lo que a la
estadidad se refiere, que la inmensa mayoria del pueblo
Puertorriqueno no esta dispuesto a negociar nuestra identidad
de pueblo y el prevenirlo de nuestro idioma vernaculo?
oQue peso tiene para este Congreso, que tanto el
independentismo Puertorriqueno como el derecho internacional,
insisten en la independencia como un derecho inalienable e
irrenunciable de los pueblos, y que por lo tanto, nuestra lucha
por la independencia continuaria como lucha por la secesion si
Puerto Rico fuera un estado?
oQue peso tiene para este Congreso, el que aun bajo las
premisas m s ilusorias de cualquier estadista, nunca habra en
Puerto Rico en el futuro predecible, nada que se aproxime a un
consenso sustancial con respecto a la estadidad?
oQue peso tiene para este Congreso el que la motivacion
fundamental de una gran parte de los estadistas, no sea el afan
de integrarse y asimilarse constructivamente a los Estados
Unidos y a su cultura sino a la inseguridad economica y la
dependencia que ha generado el colonialismo?
El Congreso debe buscar la forma de anticipar su juicio
sobre estos temas cruciales o correr el riesgo de que la
expresion electoral a favor de la estadidad sea una artificial
y basada en premisas erroneas. En todo caso, tarde o temprano
el Congreso tendria que enfrentar estos problemas.
Lo anterior no debe usarse como argumento para que no se
apruebe un proyecto de plebiscito. Ello seria condenar a Puerto
Rico al colonialismo por inaccion. Sino un argumento para que
el voto sea uno genuinamente informado a base de
consideraciones que son previsibles y que son conocidas.
Y a claro al sector estadista desde ahora, cuales son los
terminos y condiciones referentes a las preguntas que he
formulado y que este Congreso considera serian indispensables
para que la estadidad pudiera ser una posibilidad real. No
hacerlo solamente pospondra el problema para un momento futuro,
en el cual su manejo sera mas dificil y costoso para todas las
partes.
Por ultimo, quiero exhortar a los miembros de este Comite a
que ejerzan sus mejores oficios para que el Presidente Clinton
resuelva un asunto que tiene bajo su consideracion en este
momento y cuya adecuada resolucion constituiria un gesto de
buena fe que avalaria el compromiso del Gobierno de los Estados
Unidos con la libre determinacion. Se trata de la excarcelacion
de quince independentistas Puertorriquenos . . . [Applause] Que
cumplen condenas de carceles. . . De carceles. . . Carceles
Federales por casos vinculados a la lucha por la independencia.
La duracion de las sentencias es absolutamente desproporcionada
a los delitos por los cuales fueron convictos, y no cabe lugar
a dudas de que consideraciones politicas dictaminaron la
excesiva severidad de las sentencias. Les solicito que le
expresen al Presidente que por razones tanto humanitarias como
politicas, debe acceder a la conmutacion de estas sentencias,
asunto sobre el cual existe amplio apoyo en Puerto Rico, mas
alla de lineas partidistas.
Muchas gracias [Applause].
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin-Garcia follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.023
Mr. Young. I want to thank all three honorable gentlemen
for their testimony. And, Mr. Miller, I hope you were listening
to some of the gentlemen's testimony instead of some radio
station. Are you ready?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Young. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
When I joined Congressman Young in sending a letter to the
leaders of the three parties, it was with the belief that this
debate within Puerto Rico has a long and important and quietly
colorful history and part of the culture of Puerto Rico. And I
want to tell the three of you that you adequately confirm my
belief on that matter. I think it makes it all the more
important in terms of our deliberations.
If I might, I want to maybe raise a couple of points, and
please feel free, all of you, to respond.
First, I think it is important that we think of this
process as dealing with the future. I think it is very
important that we understand that, that whatever actions the
people of Puerto Rico take and the Congress of the United
States takes, it will be about dealing with the future and not
the past. That is part of the reason, again, that I sent the
letter along with Congressman Young.
There is no question that throughout this process one of
the parties will continue to characterize the other in the give
and take of the political dialog and in the testimony that we
have already received and will continue to receive.
I will say, however, that when I look at the definitions
that were submitted for a new Commonwealth for our
consideration when we get to the process of writing the
legislation, my reading of it is that there is not much there
that there is not some precedent for in previous actions within
the Congress of the United States with our treatment of our own
citizens or of our various relationships with territories under
the control of the United States.
So I do not find it a terribly foreign concept. It is very
similar to what this Committee reported in 1990, and it does
arrive at a suggestion for the relationship in the future.
Whether or not it can be represented as providing full
citizenship or not, I am not convinced that it does that.
But it does recognize that, as we have established
certainly in the past, there are certainly levels of
citizenship and there are levels of citizenship that cannot be
arbitrarily denied once granted under the Fifth Amendment. That
does not just go to people born in the United States, those
constitutional rights go with the responsibility of the
Government not to be arbitrary and to be rational in its
decisions.
Those would be my comments on that, and you are free to
comment on that.
Obviously, the definitions of ``statehood'' are various and
speak for and, in fact, probably do provide for the full body
of benefits of being a citizen of the United States and all of
the responsibilities, and go to the question that our colleague
has argued so very often in the Committees that I share with
him, about how do we continue to justify treating citizens of
the United States differently be-
cause of this status and how long can we continue to do that? I
think that is clearly drawn into issue.
Mr. Martin, with respect to the basic, fundamental,
ideological difference of those two positions and yours, again,
very, very well articulated, if I understand you, you would
suggest that statehood would not cleanse the stain of
colonialism, that this is a relationship that eventually would
erupt, would tear into the basic fabric of Puerto Rico.
Mr. Martin-Garcia. Congressman, what I believe very firmly
is that the right of self-determination of the Puerto Rican
people, Puerto Rico cannot self-determine itself out of the
right to self-determination. That is the right that assists us
as a people, and certainly this generation cannot take it away
from the next.
From my point of view, from the point of view of the
independence movement, the right to struggle for our national
independence would not in any way be hampered or impeded by the
possibility of statehood.
I think it would be a grave mistake on the part of the
United States to enter into such an unstable relationship when
there is no consensus in Puerto Rico about it, there never will
be, and when most people in Puerto Rico, who in my judgment are
statehooders, and I know a lot of them are basically for
reasons that have to do with insecurity, for reasons that have
to do with fear, and very little of the kinds of things that
have made people in the past join the union.
This would be the first time in history where a different
nation would be knocking at the doors of the United States, and
it would mean, I think, a terrible precedent for the United
States and one that it would have to think very clearly about.
The questions that I raised in my statement as to whether
Congress is willing to face a petition of statehood for Puerto
Rico, taking into account those matters, is one that I think
raises matters that have to be made at some point explicit by
the Congress; explicit, if through no other way, by some kind
of sense of the Congress resolution, maybe using the kind of
congressional policy statement that you have been using to
build with respect to the language issue.
Certainly Congress must transmit to the people of Puerto
Rico whether these issues are important issues. Is it important
for the Congress for the people of Puerto Rico to somehow show
a vocation and a willingness to assimilate into the mainstream
of the United States? Not as a constitutional requirement, I am
not talking about that, but as a political requirement, whether
at some point the United States would be willing to accept a
State in which a substantial minority of people are definitely
opposed to statehood--not merely cold toward the idea, but most
definitely opposed to this notion.
I do not know what is going to be done with the pro-
independence followers in the statehood. Maybe they will put us
in a reservation of some sort.
Mr. Miller. I would appreciate it if the audience, to some
extent, could listen to the chair, because now your applause is
now coming out of my time.
Mr. Young. Your time is up, by the way.
We will, if it is necessary, have a second round if you
would like, if you could make it short.
Mr. Miller. If they could just comment, if you do not mind.
Mr. Young. Yes, if you would like to, but make it short,
because then we have to go to the next one.
Mr. Vila. Well, I really appreciate your comments, and the
fact that our party even represented a definition of a ``New
Commonwealth'' is a direct consequence of the joint letter both
of you sent to us that, as I say in my testimony, we see as an
openness and a new approach that will allow us to participate.
In terms of looking to the future, that is one of the
problems we have with this bill, because it wants to make a
judgment that we cannot agree on the past. If we are going to
look to the future, let us look to the future.
And the definition of a ``New Commonwealth'' that we
presented is precisely--if someone has any doubts about what
happened back in 1950 and 1952, let us do it the right way now.
As you say, everything we have proposed, there is some
experience in the United States with our proposition.
I just want to make one comment with regard to citizenship.
As I see it, basically what you are meaning is that because we
are not a State, U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico perhaps
do not vote for a President and a Congressman, but it has
nothing to do directly with citizenship. That is a problem of
residence, if a U.S. citizen living outside the United States
is not entitled to vote because he is not a resident of one of
the 50 States.
We have heard a lot that we are second class citizens. In
Royer v. Bailey, a case before the Supreme Court in 1971, the
Supreme Court said, ``Neither we are persuaded that a condition
subsequent from this area impressed one with second class
citizenship.''
That cliche is too handy and too easy and, like most
cliches, can be misleading. And perhaps that is one of the
problems we have been having all this time; it is misleading.
Mr. Rodriquez. I agree with you, Congressman, the statehood
definition is a very clear definition. It is not a wishing
list. This is something we know occurs with those who become
full-fledged American citizens. How can we not see in as a
civil rights issue?
It was the other week in Birmingham, Alabama, that I went
to the Institute of Civil Rights and I saw there U.S. citizens
fighting to have equal rights, the same rights that we are
denied because we live in Puerto Rico, the same rights we are
denied because we cannot vote for the President, who can send
us to fly anyplace around the globe to fight for democracy and
for this Nation.
The fact that I really get my heart squeezed when I see a
Puerto Rican mother who cannot receive equal health benefits
because she is not living in one of the 50 States, although she
is an American citizen, it also breaks my heart when I see that
this lady could have probably had her son killed in action in
any of the battlefields, defending this Nation, but she is not
entitled to the same rights as other mothers who also gave
their children for this Nation in one of the 50 States.
I also have my heart squeezed when I see that our children
cannot receive the same education as other U.S. citizens who
live in the 50 States are entitled to receive.
I also get my heart squeezed when I see that Puerto Ricans
cannot have the same benefits as any other U.S. citizen who
lives in the 50 States.
And I really regret to see Puerto Ricans leaving our island
to go up to the mainland just to receive those benefits. Almost
3 million Puerto Ricans live on the mainland, and the reason
they have left is because they are denied the same rights that
other U.S. citizens have if they live in the 50 States.
So our position is very clear of what we want for Puerto
Rico. We want equality. It is a civil rights issue.
Mr. Young. I will remind everybody in the audience, I know
you are having a good time, you are doing what you want to do,
and I have been very lenient, but I am going to call this
meeting over at 3 o'clock. And that means that many of your
fellow men cannot testify before this Committee, because every
time you do what you have just done, you take the time away
from the members of the Committee that would like to ask
questions to solve a problem and from the witnesses, very
frankly, that want to testify. Is that understood?
Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to find out, under the definition
of ``New Commonwealth,'' exactly how the issue of sovereignty
would play out. Would the United States retain national
sovereignty, or would Puerto Rico have its own separate
sovereignty?
Mr. Vila. The concept of sovereignty has changed a lot
during the last 200 years. At one time the sovereign was the
key, and for many years it was even under the concept of
sovereignty that many acts of tyranny were done around the
world.
Today, who is sovereign is the people. And the first thing
that this Committee has to recognize is that if we enter into
this relationship we call the New Commonwealth, it is a
decision of the people of Puerto Rico; it is a sovereign
decision of the people of Puerto Rico.
Once we enter into this arrangement, the definition clearly
states that Puerto Rico will be sovereign over all matters
contained in our Constitution. So to me it is clear. It is a
two-step: First, that the decision, whether we stay in this
relationship, whether we change it, it is a decision that
belongs to the people of Puerto Rico. That is sovereignty.
Mr. Kennedy. So where would the United States retain any
sovereignty if the people were to remain United States
citizens? Over those citizens? How would that work?
Mr. Vila. The United States will have the powers that the
people of Puerto Rico have delegated to the United States
within this arrangement. That is nothing new for the United
States, neither for the entire world.
The fact that you can make a compact with what was in the
past called a territory is not only done by the United States,
it is around the world.
When the United States came to Puerto Rico in 1898, we had
a special arrangement with Spain. We were Spaniard citizens. We
had autonomy. The special charter could only be amended if the
people of Puerto Rico will accept it--in a sense, basically the
same concept we want right now to clarify.
Some people, I have heard, are telling the world that the
United States is less of a nation than Spain back in 1898. And,
to me, that is unbelievable.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, this is a good debate, because this
debate has been going on in our own United States history as to
what the role of the Constitution of the United States is. And
from what I hear you saying, you are saying you will be subject
to your own Puerto Rican Constitution and the United States
Constitution will not apply to the people of Puerto Rico.
Mr. Vila. No, we have not said that. I have not said that.
Mr. Kennedy. So you are saying that if the Constitution of
the United States says, the 14th Amendment, we want equal
protection for all, and we have had instances in our own
country's history where different locales have rejected--they
have said we want States rights or, as you well know, there is
an argument that we fought over, and Senator Rodriguez was
speaking about it, civil rights, and the notion that the United
States Constitution, which guarantees that people are treated
equally no matter where they live in the United States, that is
fundamental to United States citizenship.
If you want to be a citizen, you have to know that with
that you have to live in a country that respects equal
opportunity for all. And if the people of Puerto Rico are not
treated the same----
[Applause.]
I know the idea here is that if a person of United States
citizenship was not being treated under our Constitution with
respect and dignity for their rights, I would want to make sure
that the United States Constitution was enforced to make sure
that their rights were protected.
Now, how would that be done if the United States does not
have any sovereignty, if you will, when it comes to----
[Wild applause as someone enters.]
I would like to now ask Mr. Martin-Garcia----
Mr. Vila. So that was not a question? I thought it was a
question.
Mr. Kennedy. Please, your answer.
Mr. Vila. I did not know if you were making another
argument for statehood.
Mr. Kennedy. What is your answer?
Mr. Vila. The definition clearly states that a United
States citizen, persons born in Puerto Rico, will be guaranteed
and secure as provided by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States and equal to that of citizens born in the
several States.
With regard to sovereignty, as I said, it says that Puerto
Rico will be sovereign over matters covered by the Constitution
of Puerto Rico, which is exactly what the Supreme Court of the
United States has said many times. So I do not see what is your
concern.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, that was the----
Mr. Vila. I can understand that you might be in favor of
statehood, but that is not no reason----
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. The gentleman's time has expired, and again I
want to remind, every time this occurs, it is just that much
less time.
The gentleman from Guam.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I congratulate all three of you for excellent
statements.
I could not help but notice that as we got progressively
over to the right, we got more and more Spanish, and only
Fernando was able to inspire applause from people who were
wearing both blue shirts and red shirts. So maybe you are on
the crest of a tide there.
Mr. Martin-Garcia. A sign of things to come.
Mr. Underwood. It strikes me that the last time we were
here and we were discussing the issue, the question always
seemed to me that here everything becomes an indicator of your
political status choice. Everything, from the selection of a
color of a necktie to everything else, apparently seems to be
connected in some way or another of a political status option.
And in that discussion, the last time we were here, I was
concerned that it did not look like people wanted to move
toward a common process. And if we do not have a common
process, this kind of discussion will inevitably continue
forever.
I think we are moving beyond that, and I think, through the
leadership of the Committee, we have moved beyond that and we
are now at a point where we are trying to figure out what is an
appropriate definition.
Now, all of us are involved in politics, and I think it is
clear that a legal definition is different from a philosophy;
bedrock principle is different from a campaign commitment or
from a political party program. And in the process of making
these definitions, it seems to me that sometimes, obviously,
the statehood definition is a little bit more forthright,
although I think, obviously, it is written in a way that makes
it stand as the most favored option.
But coming back to that issue, it seems that everyone is
trying to now deal with the definitional issue as a way to not
merely define what option is being advertised but as a way to
campaign for it and at the same time articulate a program of
action.
I am wondering what your comments individually might be to
that point, that is there a way that we can arrive at a legal
definition which is shorn of aspirations? because the question
that is before the people is, what do you aspire to? and to try
to give as much as possible a legal definition to that.
And maybe we can start with you, Charlie.
Mr. Rodriquez. Congressman, the fact that our definition,
as you say, may be looked as a most favored option, it is
because it is the most favored option if you are a U.S. citizen
and you want U.S. citizenship. If you want that, you want to
have equal rights. If you want that, you want to have the same
benefits.
Now, you cannot come here and say, or anyone could come
here and say, listen, we want to have a relationship with the
United States whereas we retain the U.S. citizenship. Oh, but
we are going to determine what are those things that the
Federal Government that represents that national U.S.
citizenship can impose in Puerto Rico. Where is the sovereignty
on Puerto Rico?
What we want to do, basically, is give us a chance to vote.
If those Puerto Ricans who really believe in their U.S.
citizenship, the only way they can really guarantee that is by
voting for statehood. If that looks the most favored, let it
be. Let it be, because there is no right to tell a U.S. citizen
that he cannot aspire to be equal as any other U.S. citizen
right now on the mainland.
Every plebiscite has been in Puerto Rico, the last one back
in 1993.
The problem we have with this bill as written right now is
the Commonwealth, as we see it and believe in it, is not on the
ballot. The reason we presented this definition is not only
because we believe in that definition. It is also because it
was approved by the full House back in 1990 by this Committee,
and then it will make it easier for you guys to work with us if
there is a commitment to put in a definition in which we can
participate.
So what we are making is a claim of fairness. Believe me,
the people of Puerto Rico still believe in commonwealth. They
just want the opportunity to express themselves again.
Mr. Martin-Garcia. Well, Mr. Underwood, undoubtedly the
alternatives are different not only in terms of content but
also their nature. For example, to use the most glaring
example, independence is viewed internationally and universally
as a right. Nobody would dispute that, if that were the wish of
the people of Puerto Rico, the United States would be obligated
to grant independence.
In the case of statehood, for example, independently of its
merits, it is obviously viewed that statehood is a political
decision that the Congress will have to make if it gets a
petition; and that in entertaining that petition it can use
whatever criteria is politically feasible for the Congress. It
may want statehood or may not want statehood for good reasons
or bad ones. It is not a right. It is a petition to be made.
For example, in that sense, it is important that the
definitions of the alternatives somehow make clear that they
represent decisions of a different nature. For example, I think
it would be really dangerous to imply by inaction or silence
that somehow statehood is a right and that if people in Puerto
Rico vote for it, 50 plus 1, it is there for the having.
On the other hand, for example, in the case of
independence, although from a strictly legal point of view it
is a very straightforward definition, it means the wholesale
transfer of any sovereignty the U.S. has over Puerto Rico it is
passed over to the people of Puerto Rico. It is a very simple
proposition.
Why is it more complex in our proposal? Because
independence requires a disengagement process, and that
disengagement process has to be fleshed out in some way so it
doesn't appear to people as if Puerto Rico is sort of jumping
off the eighth floor without a parachute.
So if the ballot is going to be meaningful and the offer is
going to be made in good faith, it has to have something in
addition to the purely legal question so that it remains or
becomes a politically feasible and reasonable alternative that
somehow shows good faith.
In the case of the Popularist definition, that involves all
sorts of constitutional and political complexities. The issue
of sovereignty may seem a purely academic one, but I think it
is absolutely the most fundamental question that this bill is
facing; and at some point the Popularists are going to have to
make a tough decision, which I fear they haven't made yet, of
what their priorities are.
If their priority is sovereignty for Puerto Rico, they are
going to have to be willing to enter into a relationship of
free association which, after all, the bill does offer. For
them, if the question of citizenship is the priority one, well,
then, perhaps they will have to conform themselves to continue
to being a territory another 100 years.
Mr. Young. My time has expired.
The Resident Commissioner, Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that line that Mr. Martin was developing and
talking about, the citizenship of the people of Puerto Rico,
Mr. Acevedo, what is more important for you and the party you
represent--citizenship or sovereignty?
Mr. Vila. For the party that I represent, we believe in a
relationship that recognizes the dignity of the people of
Puerto Rico and a relationship where we can have our U.S.
citizenship and, at the same time, our identity.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. If Congress were to tell you, you
cannot have both things, you can only have one----
Mr. Vila. I would say that is a very narrow-minded view;
and there will be an assumption, maybe, just to put into this
bill all the elements to tilt the process in favor of
statehood.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Your party got a letter signed by
Chairman Young. It was signed by Chairman Gallegly of the
subcommittee. It was also signed by Mr. Gilman, the Chairman
then of the Committee on International Affairs, and by Dan
Burton, the Chairman of the Subcommittee of the Western
Hemisphere, which indicated in that letter that you couldn't
have your sovereignty with your citizenship.
If this Committee were to decide in the markup that you
could not have your citizenship with your sovereignty, now what
would you say? Would you just not have anything, or would you
make a choice? We are asking, if you were told you could not
have both things, what would you do?
If you don't want to answer, that is all right. I cannot
force you to answer. But I think the people of Puerto Rico
deserve an answer. They should know what it is. And the people
of the Congress, the people in Congress and in the United
States also should have an answer, because they also have to
make a decision.
Mr. Vila. In the Corletto v. Persona case from the United
States back in 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court said Puerto Rico is
to be deemed sovereign over matters not ruled by the United
States Constitution.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. That is case law. That is what the
court says. I am asking, what do you say? What do you say if
you were given a choice and told you could not have your cake
and eat it, too?
Mr. Vila. No, I am telling you that a special relationship
of autonomy based on the will of the people to enter into this
relationship with U.S. citizenship was part of the initial
concept when the U.S. citizenship was granted to the people of
Puerto Rico. It is possible to have it, and we want it.
Back in 1912, when President Taft----
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. If you don't want to answer, that is
OK.
Let me ask you another question. Here you say, in the new
commonwealth, you are saying that Puerto Rico would be entitled
to receive benefits under Federal social programs equally with
residents of several States, contingent on equitable
contributions from Puerto Rico as provided by law.
I want to ask you, honestly, sincerely, how do you think
that the people in the State of Alaska, the people in the State
of California, where Congressman George Miller is from, the
people in the State of Rhode Island, where Congressman Patrick
Kennedy is from, the people in Florida, the people in New York,
the people in Pennsylvania, in Kansas, would feel about having
to pay Federal income taxes so that Puerto Rico could have SSI,
so it could have earned income tax credit, so it can have
Medicaid and have full participation in Fed programs? But then
you say, don't put your hands in our pockets; just give us the
money.
Doesn't that demean us as a people? Doesn't that put us in
a reflection with our hands out? All we want from U.S.
citizenship is the money? We don't want anything else? Is that
what you want to say?
Mr. Vila. Mr. Commissioner, you read the definition, yes,
and it says contingent on equitable contributions from Puerto
Rico. This is a special deal that went through the Finance
Committee back in 1990, and it came out of the Finance
Committee in the Senate back in 1990 with a way of how to give
this to the people of Puerto Rico and equitable contributions
from the government of Puerto Rico to the U.S. Treasury.
The last time I heard someone here in Puerto Rico asking
the people of Puerto Rico for a change of status based on how
much money we will get from the Federal Government was back in
1993 when the Pro-State Party was telling the people of Puerto
Rico how much money we will get from the U.S. Government.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. So was the Popular Party.
Mr. Vila. If you want, we can show----
Mr. Young. Gentlemen, gentlemen, the time has expired.
I am going to make a suggestion, because we have now had
these three people----
All right, in all due respect, I can suggest to everybody
in this audience and all sides of the aisle, you don't really
make much of an impression on the deliberations on this
problem. I understand what you are doing, but keep in mind we
are here trying to hear from each side of the aisle and the
middle and to try to make the right decision. Because we are
going to make decisions. It is that simple.
I am going to suggest to each one of the gentlemen, I do
admire your testimony. I am very, very interested in what has
been said. But I want everybody to understand it is the
Congress, the Congress--whether it is me or someone else--who
will make the decisions, along with the Puerto Rican people.
But we are going forward with this process.
Gentlemen, I thank you. You are excused.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, if we could submit a couple of
questions to you in writing. I have some concerns about the
time line in the legislation, about how we might condense
those. I would like to submit those to you for response.
Mr. Young. For the gentleman, every witness that appears
before us today, if there is a followup question, we expect a
response from them.
You are excused. Thank you.
As I said in the beginning of the hearing, the first three
witnesses were extended a great courtesy and extension of time,
including the audience. These gentleman and ladies will be, in
fact, limited to 5 minutes.
I am going to ask the Resident Commissioner now, Mr.
Romero-Barcelo, to chair the second panel; and I will have one
of the other members chair the third panel and the fourth
panel. This is a bipartisan effort to try to get some input
from each one of them. I will be in and out of the meetings.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. [Presiding.] Thank you. I would
appreciate your cooperation so that we can listen to the
witnesses. We would like to conclude with everybody on the list
having time to testify.
We will now call the second panel. We will have the former
Governor, Rafael Hernandez Colon; Eduardo Bhatia; the Mayor of
Caguas, William Miranda-Marin; Carlos Vizcarrondo Irizarry;
Margarita Benitez; and Juan Antonio Agostini.
The first witness will be the former Governor, Rafael
Hernandez Colon.
STATEMENT OF RAFAEL HERNANDEZ COLON, FORMER GOVERNOR OF PUERTO
RICO, PONCE, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Colon. Honorable Chairman, members, you come--100 years
after the military occupation of Puerto Rico--in order to offer
us full self-government. In order to achieve this objective, we
do not start from zero. In 1952, we created our Constitution
wherein it was stated and Congress approved as a compact that:
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby constituted. Its
political power emanates from the people and shall be exercised
in accordance with their will, within the terms of the compact
agreed upon between the people of Puerto Rico and the United
States of America.
We consider as determining factors in our life our
citizenship of the United States of America and our aspiration
continually to enrich our democratic heritage in the individual
and collective enjoyments of its rights and privileges.
These are the words of compact between the people of Puerto
Rico and the Congress, a compact the Congress proposed to rid
the United States of the shame of colonialism before the
international community, recognizing that governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The commonwealth option framed by this bill would violate
this compact by placing Puerto Rico under the absolute powers
of Congress as it was before 1952. The definition presented to
the Committee by the Popular Party would straighten the course
of history.
We can hardly believe that this bill sustains the
proposition that Congress can strip away American citizenship
from the Puerto Rican people. We can hardly believe that it
ignores all judicial precedent upholding the compact between
the U.S. and Puerto Rico. We can scarcely believe that it sides
with the charges of colo-
nialism in Puerto Rico annually leveled at the U.N. against the
United States by Fidel Castro.
When, on July 4th, 1776, the 13 colonies proclaimed their
independence from the British king, the men assembled in
Philadelphia, stated unto the world that they held these truths
to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal.
That they are endowed by their creator with certain
inalienable rights, amongst which are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
We Puerto Ricans subscribe to these beliefs. We also
believe that we have been created equal, no less and no more
than you who visit us. And we believe that we are also endowed
by our creator with the same inalienable rights to life and to
exercise our liberty in whatever way we deem appropriate in
order to pursue our happiness.
Deciding the political institutions under which a people
will live is the supreme act of liberty. In this choice rests
our opportunities to mold a future for our integral
development, economic, social, culture, political and
spiritual.
But the bill's preconceptions as to commonwealth leave
little room for democracy. It is framed in concrete from
prejudiced legal opinions presented as unbreakable limits to
policy.
With regards to our political freedom, the opinions are
equivalent to the arguments invoked by Justice Taney to deny
Dred Scott's personal freedom the protection of the Federal
judicial power.
The time for colonial paternalism is long past. If the
Puerto Rican people wish to freely join the Union, so be it.
But do not impose this choice upon us by stonewalling your
judgment with one-sided legal memoranda against a new
commonwealth.
The only real possibilities of achieving full self-
government lie in statehood or in full autonomy as a new
commonwealth.
The choice between sending Senators and Congressmen to
Washington or broadening our autonomy to govern ourselves
through our elected representatives here in San Juan is for us
to make. You, of course, have the right to say no. If you do
not want us as a state, it is a political, not a legal
decision. The same with the broader autonomy we seek.
Gentleman, do not patronize us with a process that stifles
our liberty and your creativity.
Including all the desired options is up to your political
will. Give all the people a chance to participate in this
plebescite, and let's get on with it.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Colon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.078
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Senator Bhatia?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDUARDO BHATIA, DESIGNEE FOR THE
MINORITY LEADER OF THE SENATE-POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, SENATE
OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Bhatia. Good morning. Before I start my remarks, I
would like to make two brief comments.
First, the Mayor of San Juan, who could not be here today
with us, asked me personally to come over to warmly welcome you
to Puerto Rico and especially to the city of San Juan. So
welcome on behalf of the Mayor of San Juan.
Second, I would have preferred to have Mr. Young hear the
Governor's statement and Mr. Young here today. We are dealing
with Mr. Young's bill. I would have much rather preferred Mr.
Young to be here.
Let me start my remarks by stating in clear terms that my
only concern in this process is the well-being of the people of
Puerto Rico. I care more about Don Juan Alejandro and Dona
Lucia Chevres, who live in Barrio Guadiana in Naranjito; about
Virginia Santos and her four children from Cidra; about Mrs.
Paulita Colon from Bayamon; and about so many others like them
than about attempting to conform the collective lives of Puerto
Ricans to the selfish thoughts and insecurities of an
ideological nature.
Theirs is a life of constant improvement and success under
commonwealth status. I have little respect for empty legalisms
and terms which mean nothing to real people who must struggle
daily to make ends meet.
At this juncture, it is fundamental to ask the most basic
question which, for some unknown reason, this Committee has
somehow eluded over the last 2 years. That is, under which
political status, under which political relationship with the
United States is Puerto Rico better positioned to compete and
succeed in the emerging world of the 21st century?
The flexibility and dynamism of commonwealth status has
given Puerto Rico the tools to achieve dramatic economic and
social progress. Our association with the United States has
given us the ability and access to the largest market in the
world. Our fiscal autonomy has allowed us to attract industry
to the island through low, effective tax rates.
The results have been truly staggering. Puerto Rico has set
an example of how a small, poor, agrarian and densely populated
island with limited exploitable natural resources can emerge as
a bustling and industrious society. Once considered a stricken
land, the poorest of the poor countries in the hemisphere,
Puerto Rico today enjoys the highest standard of living in
Latin America.
Our exports have boomed from $235 million in 1950 to $22.9
billion in 1996. In terms of imports, Puerto Rico purchases
over $12 billion annually from the United States, ranking among
the top 10 world customers. Perhaps most impressive of all, in
a region plagued by political instability, all of these changes
have occurred in Puerto Rico without social unrest and under a
strong democratic regime.
The productive economic vitality enjoyed by Puerto Rico
under commonwealth is impossible under statehood. Statehood
requires the imposition of Federal income taxes, individual and
corporate, which would destroy Puerto Rico's continued economic
prosperity.
Manufacturing presently accounts for 44.5 percent of Puerto
Rico's GNP, and it is critically contingent upon the fiscal
autonomy that Puerto Rico would lose under statehood. Close to
300,000 direct and indirect jobs are attributable to Puerto
Rico's fiscal autonomy. This is one-third of Puerto Rico's
total labor force.
Every single study conducted on this issue has established
that the elimination of Puerto Rico's fiscal autonomy would
entail massive capital flight and job loss.
Statehood would destroy the most productive sectors of our
economy, precipitating us into an economic catastrophe of
unimaginable proportions, shattering the social solidarity and
threatening the stability of our prosperous society. This
spiraling decline would destroy our self-sufficiency, demanding
ever increasing Federal outlays and creating a state of true
and inescapable dependency.
Thus, to put the economic consequences of statehood into
perspective, if Puerto Rico chose to lower tax rates to U.S.
level as it would under statehood, the government would have to
lay off about 90,000 public employees, or two out of five
government employees. The question would immediately emerge,
how many public schoolteachers would have to be laid off to pay
for statehood? How many police officers?
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we in Puerto Rico have come a
long way to liberate our people from the chains of poverty and
misery. We are now successfully competing with the great
economic powers, with skilled workers and attractive incentives
that generate jobs. Let us join efforts and energies in
building a better Puerto Rico, a prosperous society and a land
of true freedom, where our children will be anxious to seize
the opportunities that await for them. Let us put people's
needs first.
Mr. Bhatia. Let us use this opportunity not to destroy the
estado libre asociado, but to strengthen it; not to divide our
people, but to unite them; not to stop progress, but to
accelerate it.
The Estado Libre Asociado is eager and ready to face the
challenges of the 21st century. We are on the move. Don't
derail us with this bill.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bhatia follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.082
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The Chairman asked that you try to
limit yourself to 5 minutes. I have allowed both the proponents
to try to limit themselves. The lights: The yellow means it is
approaching the 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CARLOS VIZCARRONDO IRIZARRY, POPULAR
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN
JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Irizarry. Bueno. . . Bueno. . . Buenas tardes, senor
Presidente, distinguidos miembros del Comite. . . [English
voice] Que tenga unas buenas tardes el senor Presidente y
distinguidos miembros de este Comite. Habre de dirigirme en el
idioma vernaculo de mi nacion Puertorriquena que es el Espanol.
[Applause] Comparezco ante ustedes en mi caracter de
representante electo del pueblo de Puerto Rico bajo la insignia
del Partido Popular Democratico y como Puertorriqueno orgulloso
de su herencia y de su cultura, de su. . . De su personalidad
del pueblo Caribeno y Latinoamericano que mira a su socio en
esta comunidad de valores que representa la asociacion entre
Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos al mismo nivel, aspirando a
ensanchar y enriquecer esta relacion. La base de cualquier
relacion es respeto mutuo.
Comparezco aqui a reivindicar el derecho de mi nacion
Puertorriquena a ser respetada como supremo arbitro de su
destino final. El proyecto que estamos considerando en el dia
de hoy se aleja de lo que ha sido la realidad de la relacion,
de afecto y respeto, que ha existido durante los pasados
noventa y nueve anos entre Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos. El
insulto y la degradacion no puede ser base para un dialogo de
pueblo a pueblo. Para asegurar la defensa de sus mutuos
intereses por lo cual concordaban plenamente, con la posicion
expresada por el representante de la administracion Clinton
ante este. El pasado 19 de marzo, ha senalado que el proyecto
contiene interpretaciones y representaciones del pasado
constitucional que en nada ayudan al desarrollo de la presente
condicion politica de Estado Libre Asociado hacia una mayor
autonomia u otra forma de relacion entre nuestros pueblos.
Puerto Rico esta orgulloso del paso afirmativo que dio en la
afirmacion del pleno gobierno propio. Entre 1950 y 52 una
relacion de asociacion digna, con los Estados Unidos, mediante
el Estado Libre Asociado. Relacion que su gobierno, el gobierno
de Estados Unidos, presento al mundo como una relacion que
terminaba, no que reafirmaba, como senala este proyecto, la
condicion colonial de Puerto Rico. Nuestro pais necesita y
merece la verdad. La de ustedes y la nuestra. Si ustedes
entienden que Puerto Rico es una colonia, un me- un mero
territorio de los Estados Unidos, sepan senores Congresistas
que este pueblo no acepto ser colonia en 1952 ni lo acepta
ahora. Este pueblo construyo una relacion digna, libre de
mancha colonial, al consentir la creacion del Estado Libre
Asociado. Si las premisas es para ustedes han cambiado, para
nosotros no.
Como bien senalo don Luis Munoz Marin, ante un intento
similar a este en el 1962, si Puerto Rico es una colonia de los
Estados Unidos, debe dejar de serlo inmediatamente por el buen
nombre de los Estados Unidos y el honor y la dignidad del
pueblo de Puerto Rico. [Applause] Para aclarar cualquier duda
que pueda existir, por fundada o infundada que sea esta, el
Partido Popular Democratico ha presentado la definicion de
Nuevo Estado Libre Asociado ante esta comision, enraizada en
los principios que aspiramos concretizar desde 1952. Autonomia
con soberania, consagrada en una asociacion que garantice a la
comunidad de intereses entre Estados Unidos y Puerto Rico en
las areas de la moneda, la defensa, la ciudadania y el mercado.
Esa definicion, producto del dialogo y del consenso, del
autonomismo Puertorriqueno, recoge los puntos minimos
aceptables para nuestra colectividad, basado en documentos
adoptados por nuestro partido como la Declaracion de la
Juventud del Partido Popular Democratico del 15 de marzo de
1997 y la resolucion del Consejo del General del Partido
Popular Democratico del 17 de noviembre de 1990. Pero no solo
es el Estado Libre Asociado que merece que se le diga la
verdad.
Cientos de miles de buenos Puertorriquenos que han creido
de buena fe en la eminencia de una estadidad que representa una
lluvia de millones de dolares en fondos Federales con garantias
plenas de nuestra nacionalidad, cultura e idioma, tambien
merecen que se diga la verdad. Queremos saber si eso es
posible.
oCual es el costo que ustedes estan dispuestos a pagar para
admitir a la union como estado? A una comunidad de 3.5 millones
de ciudadanos norteamericanos cuyo idioma es el Espanol y que
de acuerdo al Censo de los Estados Unidos del 1990, el ochenta
y tres por ciento de sus habitantes ni habla, ni entiende, ni
escribe el idioma Ingles. Donde mas del sesenta por ciento de
las familias vivirian en la dadiva Federal.
oEstan ustedes dispuestos a retirar de nuestro pais las
bases militares que actualmente existen en Puerto Rico como
exige la definicion de independencia?
Si este proyecto se aprueba tal y como esta, cientos de
miles de Puertorriquenos que atesoran su ciudadania americana
tendrian que votar por un espejismo, por una formula que no es
posible, como es la estadidad o cortar totalmente los lazos de
asociacion entre Puerto Rico y los Estados Unidos, como seria
la independencia.
Senores Congresistas, llego la hora de hablar con la
verdad. Ay, oque ustedes quieren? [Applause] Nos llego la hora
a ustedes y a nosotros. La hora de la mutua determinacion.
Puerto Rico y los autonomistas Puertorriquenos estamos
preparados. Muchas gracias. [Applause].
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. That is precisely what the Committee
and the Congress intend to do, to tell the truth, but
apparently you don't want to listen.
Ms. Benitez.
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR MARGARITA BENITEZ, AFELA, SAN JUAN,
PUERTO RICO
Ms. Benitez. Represento a AFELA, una agrupacion
independiente de mujeres de filiacion autonomista. Hemos
analizado este proyecto como historiadoras, abogadas,
cientificas sociales, educadoras y servidoras publicas que
somos. Documentamos sus imprecisiones, omisiones y exclusiones
que se extienden desde la seccion inicial de hallazgos hasta la
seccion final que dispone de fondos que por ley corresponden al
Gobierno de Puerto Rico.
El trabajo de la AFELA esta a la disposicion de ustedes y
del pueblo de Puerto Rico. Mintervencion es el primer resquicio
que se abre en estas vistas para representantes de la sociedad
civil, si bien se abre bajo condiciones francamente onerosas.
Las mujeres de la AFELA venimos a decir que como mujeres y
puertorriquenas conocemos de sobra la exclusion. Por eso
repudiamos que este proyecto excluya a sectores vitales de
nuestra sociedad y distorsione la trayectoria historica,
juridica, cultural y linguistica de la nacion puertorriquena.
Este proyecto pretende excluir la formula de status preferida
por los puertorriquenos por mas de cuatro decadas. La omitio
totalmente en su version original y sigue estando ausente de su
version actual. No hay un solo creyente en el Estado Libre
Asociado, no hay un solo votante de los que hemos ganado todos
los plebiscitos celebrados aqui desde 1952 que reconozca al ELA
en los terminos del Proyecto Young.
El Estado Libre Asociado es una formula descolonizadora,
asi reconocida desde el momento de su formulacion por los
maximos representantes de los poderes estadounidenses. Es la
unica formula descolonizadora alcanzada con exito en la
historia de Puerto Rico. Es ademas, como revolucion pacifica,
la mas dramatica de todas las luchas llevadas a cabo por
nuestro pueblo. Ha hecho posible la democratizacion politica,
el desarrollo economico y la afirmacion cultural de los
puertorriquenos, ingredientes esenciales de todo proceso
autentico de descolonizacion. Porque la descolonizacion es un
proceso, no una condicion. Quien niegue el proceso
descolonizador puesto en marcha por el Estado Libre Asociado en
Puerto Rico desconoce o falsea nuestra historia y nuestra
realidad.
La determinacion de los puertorriquenos [Applause] . . .
expresada reiteradamente en las urnas, ha sido continuar la
trayectoria innovadora iniciada en los anos cincuenta. Seguir
haciendo historia y dando ejemplo al mundo de las formas
posibles de colaboracion y convivencia entre una nacion grande
y una nacion pequena. Pero el Proyecto Young pasa por alto esta
historia que honra no solo a Puerto Rico, sino a Estados
Unidos. Por eso es que su supuesta gestion descolonizadora es
en verdad un acto colonial y retrogrado: porque no reconoce la
libre determinacion de los puertorriquenos manifiesta en sus
tres plebiscitos ni tampoco los logros alcanzados por nuestros
dos paises desde 1952.
Excluido tambien de este proyecto esta el reconocimiento
del espanol, nuestra lengua vernacula, como la lengua propia de
los puertorriquenos. Pretender que ingles y espanol se han
hablado a la par en Puerto Rico es desconocer o falsear nuestra
historia y realidad linguistica. Reclamar . . . [Applause] que
el ingles es talisman de todos los poderes, como hace este
proyecto, que lo convierte en lengua del gobierno estatal, los
tribunales y el sistema educativo bajo la estadidad, seria
hacer de la gran mayoria de los puertorriquenos una minoria en
su propia tierra. Recuerde esta comision congresional la
resistencia del pueblo de Puerto Rico durante la primera mitad
de este siglo ante tal pretension.
Con motivo de las vistas congresionales celebradas aqui en
marzo de 1990, un nutrido grupo de lideres puertorriquenos
publico una carta abierta titulada, ``Spanish is Not
Negotiable,'' donde se afirma que para el pueblo puertorriqueno
el idioma espanol no es negociable, bajo ninguna circunstancia
ni formula de status. Entre los firmantes de esa declaracion
esta el actual Gobernador de Puerto Rico y la National
Committee Woman del Partido Republicano de Puerto Rico.
[Applause].
Es necesario . . . reconocer que hace tiempo ya que la
nacion puertorriquena rebaso sus fronteras islenas. Un millon
de puertorriquenos emigro a los Estados Unidos entre 1945 y
1965. En veinte anos, una tercera parte de nuestra poblacion.
Una de las migraciones mas grandes en la historia de la
humanidad. Este movimiento migratorio entre Puerto Rico y
Estados Unidos es constante, circular y multitudinario.
Actualmente hay 3.5 millones de Puertorriquenos en la isla de
Puerto Rico y 2.7 en los Estados Unidos, identificados como
tales por ellos mismos en----
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Ms. Benitez, do you have much more to
go?
Ms. Benitez. No.
Todo el mundo sabe, que identificarse como puertorriqueno
en Estados Unidos es exponerse a maltrato y prejuicio. Hay que
vivir alla para saber lo que es ser minoria en Estados Unidos.
AFELA sostiene que no se puede excluir de un plebiscito
puertorriqueno a quienes afirman su puertorriquenidad, no
cuando les conviene, sino cuando les cuesta. A quienes ya han
vivido la estadidad en carne propia, con todas sus ventajas y
con sus desventajas y optan por afirmarse como puertorriquenos.
Los acuerdos y logros principales de nuestro pueblo solo han
sido posibles cuando ha habido consenso.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mrs. Benitez, I'm sorry. Time for the
rest. Would you finish up?
Ms. Benitez. OK. [Applause--noise] AFELA les invita a que
tengan presente que el consenso no se impone, se alcanza. Hay
que convencer a los puertorriquenos de la validez y justicia de
este plebiscito. Esto aun no ha ocurrido pero puede ocurrir.
Por eso exhortamos a esta Comisio a modificar sus actuales
actitudes autoritarias, a comprometerse a respetar y cumplir la
libre determinacion de los puertorriquenos y a propiciar la
busqueda de acuerdos, tanto procesales como de principios,
entre los verdaderos protagonistas de esta historia, que somos
nosotros, las puertorriquenas y los puertorriquenos de las dos
orillas de una nacion llamada Puerto Rico, estrechamente
vinculada a ustedes, mas con su indisoluble y propia identidad.
Muchas gracias. [Applause]
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. We do not have time for you to read
your full statement. I expect that you have submitted a full
statement for the record, have you not?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM MIRANDA-MARIN, THE MAYOR OF
CAGUAS, CAGUAS, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Miranda-Marin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members
of this Committee. I submitted my remarks in English. Now I
will be reading them in Spanish.
Soy William Miranda Marin. Comparezco a esta vista con
relacion al Proyecto H.R. 856 en calidad de Presidente de la
Comision de Estatus del Partido Popular Democratico y como
Alcalde de Caguas, la quinta ciudad de mi pais. [Applause].
Comparezco ademas como puertorriqueno que ama y venera a su
patria y a su nacionalidad, y que a la vez--y sin que exista
conflicto alguno entre lo uno y lo otro--defiende y vive
profundamente orgulloso de su ciudadania americana. Como buen
puertorriqueno que soy, he dedicado la mayor parte de mi vida
al servicio publico, alcanzando cargos importantes en el
gobierno de mi pais y mi ciudad. Como buen ciudadano americano
que soy dedique treinta y cuatro anos a las fuerzas armadas de
Estados Unidos, ostentando el cargo de suprema responsabilidad
en la Guardia Nacional, el de Ayudante General y retirandome
con el rango de General de Division. Como buen puertorriqueno y
buen ciudadano Americano que soy, quisiera poder decirles hoy
que confio plenamente en que esta Comision habra de subsanar la
enorme injusticia que se cometeria con este proyecto, de
autoria del Presidente de la Comision. De ese proyecto, que tal
y como esta redactado, constituye una bofetada en el rostro de
todos los puertorriquenos y que merece el repudio de cada uno
de los hijos de Borinquen que nos preciamos de tener amor
propio y orgullo patrio. Quisiera poder decirles, senor
Presidente y miembros de la Comision, que confio plenamente en
ustedes, pero si les dijera esto les estaria mintiendo. Creo
que la Comision probablemente aprobara el proyecto con alguna
que otra enmienda cosmetica. Creo que los puertorriquenos que
tenemos amor propio y orgullo patrio, nos veremos obligados a
recurrir a otros foros en el Congreso y la Rama Ejecutiva
Federal, quizas aun a los tribunales, en defensa de nuestra
dignidad y de nuestra patria. [Applause].
El Proyecto Young tal y como est redactado, desposa.
A Puerto Rico de su esencia autonomica, en flagrante
desafio a la voluntad democratica de los puertorriquenos que
creamos el Estado Libre Asociado entre 1950 y 1952 y lo
refrendamos en los plebiscitos de 1967 y 1993. Privaria a los
puertorriquenos del derecho de votar por la condicion politica
que han favorecido en tres ocasiones. Ofreceria al pueblo todas
las opciones de estatus posibles, excepto la opcion que
favorecemos los puertorriquenos. El Estado Libre Asociado no es
ni territorio ni colonia, Senor Presidente y miembros de la
Comision. El Estado Libre Asociado es soberania, autonomia, con
union permanente y ciudadania americana. Ciudadania . . .
[Applause] Ciudadania . . . [Voices in the background]
Ciudadania que nos hemos ganado con mucha sangre, sudor y
lagrimas.
Mas que ironico, resulta doloroso el hecho de que sea
precisamente este ano, al cumplirse los cien anos de la Carta
Autonomica, cuando los extremistas ineologicos obtener
puertorriquenos y su aliado en el Congreso, pretenden
arrebatarnos lo que Baldirioty y otros patriotas lograron hacer
una nacion mucho menos democratica de la que ustedes dicen
representar.
oPor que se empenan ustedes, Senor Presidente y miembros de
la Comision, en tratar de destruir al Estado Libre Asociado?
oEs que no comprenden, que politica y economicamente el Estado
Libre Asociado es el estatus mas beneficioso para Puerto Rico y
los Estados Unidos? oEs que no conocen como Puerto Rico ha
logrado un crecimiento economico extraordinario en los ultimos
cuarenta y cinco anos, gracias principalmente a la autonomia
fiscal que desapareceria bajo la estadidad?
Si se privara a Puerto Rico de este instrumento vital de
crecimiento y ademas se le impusiera la carga de la tributacion
Federal, se estaria condenando al desempleo y a la miseria a
centenares de miles de puertorriquenos, obligando a muchos de
ellos a emigrar a Estados Unidos en busca de mejores
oportunidades economicas. Tambien muchos puertorriquenos que
hoy forman parte del sector productivo del pais, y que
representan una tercera parte de la poblacion, se mancharian
ante el peso de una nueva carga contributiva sin que mejorase
significativamente la calidad de vida. Como resultado de esto
veriamos convertido en realidad el titulo de un libro escrito
por un miembro de esta Comision, que alegaba que la estadidad
seria para los pobres. Lo que ocurriria es que bajo la
estadidad la pobreza arroparia a todos los puertorriquenos
Sufririamos un incremento en la dependencia en las ayudas
publicas.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Miranda, do you have much more to
go?
Mr. Miranda-Marin. One minute, 1 minute.
[Applause.]
Con la correspondiente. Erosion de la autoestima de los que
viven de su trabajo sin necesidad de depender de prebendas.
De darse este escenario tan tetrico, tendriamos que
decirle, Senor Presidente y miembros de la Comision, a aquellos
que alegan que Puerto Rico gozaria de mas soberania baso la
estadidad, que ellos tienen la razon, pero solo en una cosa. t
Seriamos el estado soberano del mantengo.!
El Partido Popular. . . Democratico esta presto a
participar en una consulta plebiscitaria justa, cuya ley
habilitadora este fundamentada en el consenso amplio. En una
consulta en que el Congreso se comprometa de antemano y de
buena fe en implantar la alternativa ganadora. En manos de
usted esta, Senor Presidente y miembros de la Comision, la
opcion de brindarnos a todos los puertorriquenos, la
oportunidad de participar en un proceso serio y con
perspectivas reales de resolver los problemas del estatus. Esto
se puede lograr rechazando las premisas fundamentales de esta
medida con relacion al Estado Libre Asociado y adoptando la
definicion de este status que hemos sometido. En manos de
ustedes, y de otros en el Congreso y de la Bama Esecutiva
Federal esta esta opcion, como tambien la de privarle de su
franquicia electoral, de un plumazo, a mas de un millon de
puertorriquenos.
Como buen puertorriqueno y buen ciudadano americano que
soy, ruego a Dios que nunca se llegue a esa encrucijada. Como
buen puertorriqueno y buen ciudadano americano que soy, los
exhorto, Senor Presidente y miembros de la Comision a ser
justos y respetuosos con Puerto Rico. Los exhorto a abandonar
esta intentona por imponernos la estadidad. t No nos hagan
perder nuestra fe en la democracia Americana! Muchas gracias.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Agostini.
STATEMENT OF JUAN ANTONIO AGOSTINI, PRESIDENT, PAX CHRISTI-
PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Agostini. Buenos dias. . . Mi nombre es Juan Antonio
Agostini. Vengo en representacion del Movimiento Pax Cristi y
su seccion de Puerto Rico, que es un movimiento Catolico por la
paz a nivel internacional.
Distinguidos visitantes, bienvenidos a nuestro pais. Que la
paz . . . [Applause] basada en la justicia, sea el resultado
final de este proceso de dialogo que hoy nos reune y nos
enfrenta. La Iglesia San Jose data del ano 1537. Es la mas
antigua de Puerto Rico. Hoy, al trabajar por la
autodeterminacion para nuestro pais, miremosla como un simbolo
del impacto que sobre la vida de nuestra gente ha tenido la
intervencion de Estados Unidos en nuestra tierra. Hasta 1898,
esta historica capilla habia sido testigo de como se habia
plasmado durante siglos una nacionalidad distinta, consciente y
orgullosa de si misma, la nacionalidad puertorriquena. Pero el
12 de mayo de aquel ano, esa misma iglesia fue tambien testigo
de como once barcos de guerra del Escuadron del Atlantico Norte
de Estados Unidos bombardearon por mas de tres horas nuestra
ciudad de San Juan. Mas de 1,300 canonazos erraticos,
ocasionaron pocas muertes pero causaron dano considerable a
bastantes edificaciones. Una de ellas, fue la Iglesia San Jose,
alcanzada y penetrada por balas de mortero, que abrieron un
enorme boquete en su fachada. Poco despues, el 25 de julio, nos
invadieron por Guanica. No fue un plebiscito, ni un referendum,
ni una ley de Congreso, ni un pacto bilateral, ni un
malentendido. Bombardeo e invasion fueron el primer impacto de
la intervencion de Estados Unidos en nuestra tierra. Hoy, al
repensar este siglo, queda claro que la razon principal de
Estados Unidos para su intervencion y permanencia aqui ha sido
el militarismo. Hasta cambios que se anunciaron como pasos de
desarrollo politico, independientemente de cualquier beneficio
que trajeran en el momento, se dieron en funcion de los
intereses militares norteamericanos. Dos ejemplos: En 1917, con
la ciudadania Americana, tambien nos llego el reclutamiento
militar y el envio de nuestros jovenes a la Primera Guerra
Mundial y por supuesto, a las demas guerras. En 1952, se
proclama el Estado Libre Asociado como el fin del colonialismo
que hoy seguimos discutiendo aqui. Y amparado en eso, Estados
Unidos pide a las Naciones Unidos que saquen a Puerto Rico de
la lista de territorios coloniales y los eximan a ellos de
rendir informes sobre su administracion del territorio. Si
recordamos que para esos mismos anos, Estados Unidos realizaba
una gigantesca expansion militar en Puerto Rico, caemos en
cuenta de que lo principal no era descolonizar, que no se hizo,
sino evitar, que si se evito, dar informes a la ONU, que
llegaran a manos de la Union Sovietica y de China, sus
contrapartes en la Guerra Fria. Pero no es solo el militarismo.
Toda la vida puertorriquena esta impactada con la presencia e
influencia del poderio norteamericano, con el Congreso Congreso
Congreso, Casa Blanca, Justicia, el Pentagono y sus respectivas
ramificaciones reteniendo sin nuestra participacion ni
consentimiento, la suprema autoridad sobre el comercio,
industria, banca, asuntos laborales, transportacion,
comunicaciones, la forma de relacionarnos con otros paises y
otros aspectos de nuestra vida de pueblo. Esto no es justo.
La historia tiene prisa. Es hora de que los Estados Unidos
asuman la responsabilidad historica que contrajeron cuando nos
invadieron, nos militarizaron, nos dividieron hasta el tuetano
(como vemos hoy aqui) y trastornaron nuestra vision de nosotros
mismos. Pero la solucion no esta en imponernos un plebiscito
mas sin darle al pais las herramientas de soberania y de
consenso para entender mejor sus opciones y ejercer mas
libremente su derecho.
Cualquier futura consulta de status, debe estar precedida
por un proceso de dialogo abierto, entre los poderes oficiales
de Estados Unidos y los sectores de opinion en Puerto Rico,
incluyendo pero no limitandose a los partidos politicos. Y hay
que senalar claramente, desde ya.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The testimonies that were given here,
this panel, are to be translated into English, all of them, and
put forth before the Nation, the United States, in all of the
50 States.
It would seem that, to me, the people residing in those
United States would ask, why do they really want U.S.
citizenship, in Puerto Rico? They underline, in between the
lines, it seems it is a rejection to the United States. And yet
you also claim you want U.S. citizenship.
How can you explain that to the people that elect the
Congressmen and the Senators? How can you explain that, to
anyone: How do you expect the U.S. to accept Puerto Rico and
give Puerto Rico U.S. citizenship when the underlying
statements of those under the so-called New Commonwealth are
rejecting the United States in the way they speak?
The way you have spoken here, in this panel, it comes
across like a dislike for the United States, like you want to
be separate, a different nation, a different nationality. Why
then do you want the citizenship of the United States? Explain
it.
Sr. Agostini, oya--pasaron cinco minutos?
Mr. Agostini. Yo no terminado. Y ha habido tiempo para la
griteria. [Applause.] Yo le digo que habre de terminar en
breve.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Can you finish it up----
Mr. Agostini. [continuing] y hay que senalar claramente
desde ya, que en un asunto tan fundamental como determinar
nuestro destino de pueblo, sean solamente los que se juegan su
vida, su hacienda y sus suenos con este terruno y con ningun
otro quienes participen y decidan lo que somos y lo que
seremos. Somos todavia una familia dividida e indecisa sobre
nuestro destino. Pero si en algo estamos todos los
puertorriquenos profundamente de acuerdo, es en que somos un
pais, somos un pueblo. Y nos une la firme e inderrotable
voluntad de sobrevivir y de jamas entregar o diluir nuestra
propia identidad. Quiera Dios que este proceso nos sirva para
encontrarnos a nosotros mismos y para cultivar una nueva y sana
relacion de amistad permanente con Estados Unidos, al igual que
con otros pueblos. Con la ayuda de Dios, lo lograremos. Muchas
gracias.
[Applause.]
Honorable compatriota--[Applause] Honorable compatriota
[Applause] Don Carlos Romero, quiero pedirle algo en animo de
que nuestro pueblo que esta viendo estas vistas--seguramente
mas de un millon de personas nos esta viendo. De ese millon de
personas, la inmensa mayoria de ellos no ha entendido lo que
usted ha dicho. [Applause] Al congresista Young yo no le
puedopedir aqui que hable espanol pero a usted si. Yo le
pediria a usted que hable espanol que nuestro pueblo entienda.
(Applause)
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Con muchisimo gusto.
Mr. Agostini. Sera en beneficio de todos.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Con muchisimo gusto, con mucho gusto.
[Applause continues]. Yo quiero. . . Le pregunto. . . Le
pregunto al panel que como les podemos explicar si lo que han
dicho en Espanol aqui . . . se tradujera para toda la nacion,
para todos los ciudadanos de los cincuenta estados alla . . .
si en la forma de la entrepalabra se siente en las expresiones
de este panel, un gran rechazo, un rechazo a la nacion de los
Estados Unidos, porque quieren una nacion separada. [Response
from the public] (Por que entonces, como se les puede explicar
ante ese rechazo que hay, como que no les gusta lo que es lo
Americano, por que quieren la ciudadania americana. (Como les
vamos a poder decir a los ciudadanos de alla, de los estados de
la union [Response from the public] La union [inaudible] . . .
oquien. . . Quien me da la palabra? Los que le van a hablar . .
. ocomo se les va a decir a los ciudadanos que eligen. . . Como
se les va a decir a los ciudadanos que eligen a los
congresistas y a los senadores, que se va a darle seria
consideracion a una relacion con unos que estan pidiendo la
ciudadania americana pero al mismo tiempo rechazan ser
americanos? Y que quieren igualdad en los beneficios, pero no
quieren pagar contribuciones sobre ingresos. Yo no estoy en
[inaudible] [Response from the public] oComo se le explica alla
a los que votan por los congresistas de los?
Mr. Agostini. Senor Comisionado, si nos permite, estamos
interesados en contestar.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Vamos a escuchar, vamos a [inaudible]
[Response from the public continues].
Mr. Vizcarrondo. Tiene que [inaudible] . . .
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Vamos a escuchar . . .
Mr. Vizcarrondo. Si, primero muchas gracias senor
Comisionado para. . . Porque haya considerado y respondido a
una peticion del companero Agostini de que se dirigiera en
espanol porque es importante . . . para el futuro del pueblo de
Puerto Rico que esta mirando estas vistas, que nos entendamos.
Yo creo que eso es el proposito. En esa direccion, es bien
importante para que podamos entender nos, que los hermanos
puertorriquenos de todos los partidos nos permita entendernos.
Yo le respondo con el mayor de los respetos, que su
preocupacion parte de una premisa prejuzgada, o sea, parte de
la premisa de que nosotros los puertorriquenos no estamos
ostentando una relacion de asociacion entre Puerto Rico y los
Estados Unidos, digna desde 1952 y que no somos ciudadanos
norteamericanos. Es que si lo somos. O sea, no estamos viniendo
aqui en esta manana, a plantear una cosa que es nueva y que
usted escucha por primera vez. Desde 1952, hemos vivido eso
bajo el Estado Libre Asociado y en 1953, los representantes de
la nacion Norteamericana fueron a decirle al mundo que esa
relacion que se habia establecido en 1952, era una relacion
digna. Faltaba el ejercicio de la soberania que esto solo para
decidirse por todo, y que debia ser reconocida
internacionalmente, de manera que el hecho de que estemos
reafirmando nuestra condicion de ser ciudada-ciudadanos
puertorriquenos, orgullosos de nuestra cultura, de nuestro
idioma vernaculo Espanol. Eso en medida alguna, implica que
nosotro- que nosotros estamos rechazando la ciudadania
Norteamericana que nosotros hemos tenido desde 1917 por un acto
unilateral del Gobierno de Estados Unidos, pero que esto el
pueblo de Puerto Rico tuvo la oportunidad de rechazar y sin
embargo, lo puso como una parte fundamental de su constitucion.
Finales, cuando la derogo en 1952. [Applause] Se me acabo el. .
. Se me acabo el tiempo en esta ronda, pero para el record
dejeme aclarar que cuando fueron a las Naciones Unidas, los
Estados Unidos le mintio a las Naciones Unidas y al mundo
entero, en confabulacion con el Gobierno de Puerto Rico.
[Response from the public]. Senor Comisionado. . ., senor
Comisionado . . .
Mr. Vizcarrondo. Senor Comisionado.
Mr. Bhatia. [English] Mr. Chairman, Mr. Young.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Young, now, please.
Mr. Young. In this profession, we are to be honorable. That
is two things that we have to keep in mind. And I run a much
different Committee in Congress than you may run in your
legislative body. I made my decision that I would let each
member chair a panel. I was here to hear your testimony. Never
impinge my motives.
One of the things I think you have to keep in mind that
concerns me a great deal is, if the Puerto Ricans are deciding
which status they would take, be it an independent Nation or be
it Commonwealth, or be it a State, I think it has to be defined
what each one can and cannot do, the good and the bad.
Now, I am from what was a native territory, and we became
the 49th State. We do pass our economic laws. We do offer tax-
free investment. We do not have an income tax. We do this
because we are a State and we have that authority.
What I am trying to stress here: Do not convey a message of
what one side can or cannot do.
What concerns me the most and the reason I got interested
in this 5 years ago is, we see coming down the pike this year,
this month in Congress, eliminating your--because you have been
extended through the will of Congress certain tax ability, no
taxes, tax incentives, contracting, that is being taken away
from.
Question, if the Congress has the ability to take that away
from you and you don't have the ability under Commonwealth to
impose incentives, which you have to go through the Congress to
do so, how are you going to benefit the people of Puerto Rico?
The people in the audience may not realize, I am trying to
find out answers, listening to this program. I just want to
find out how----
Mr. Bhatia. If I may, Congressman.
First, Mr. Chairman, you have raised three different
points, and I would like to address each one of them.
Mr. Young. Within my timeframe.
Mr. Bhatia. Yes, very briefly.
First, we have been discussing in Puerto Rico something
called the Young bill, which you yourself wrote, or someone on
your Committee, but you are the author of the bill. And it just
strikes us that whenever someone from the Commonwealth side is
speaking, in Washington or here, you are not here to preside.
And what we are saying is, we are not here to address--with all
due respect to the other members, we would like to have a frank
and honest discussion with you. You are the author of the bill.
Mr. Young. And we are having that discussion. And by the
way, when you are testifying, we cannot discuss it. It makes no
difference who is sitting in the chair. I have made this
promise, and I am working with my people, and I am going to
continue to do that.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Vamos a tener--vamos a demostrar--una
demostracion de como se comporta el pueblo de Puerto Rico.
Vamos--estos es unas vistas congresionales--quizas hay
congresistas que han venido aqui a----
Mr. Young. My time is running out. Let him finish with the
question.
Mr. Bhatia. My point is, you don't pay income tax in Alaska
for a very good reason, because of your natural resource.
Mr. Young. We did not have a natural resource at that time.
Mr. Bhatia. You have natural gas, something we don't have
in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Young. But if the Congress is taking away your tax
benefits today, and which they are going to do in the Ways and
Means Committee, how can you provide the economic base which
you have had in the past? You are losing that.
Mr. Bhatia. Again, with all due respect, I don't think you
understand the tax structure of Puerto Rico. Congress cannot
take away the tax incentives of Puerto Rico. The local tax
incentives cannot be taken away, the local tax incentives in
Puerto Rico.
What Congress can do, and did with its support of the
administration in Puerto Rico, was take away an incentive
called 936, which was not a Puerto Rican incentive, it was a
U.S. incentive which deals with the money repatriated back to
the U.S.
We in Puerto Rico, as a result of our autonomy, we rule in
terms of our taxes in Puerto Rico. We give tax credits to all
corporations in Puerto Rico that we wish. It has nothing to do
with the U.S. Congress. In fact, I invite you or any Member of
Congress who wants to change the law in terms of local--local--
authority over tax matters to go ahead and do it. The next day,
we will file a suit in court.
Mr. Young. And what Puerto Rico and Alaska have in common
is a lot of lawyers.
Mr. Bhatia. That is right.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am not sure this forum is turning out to be the best way
for us to transmit information back and forth, and so I, too,
would like to submit questions in writing.
But I would also say that, again, I have a very strong
belief that the three principal parties, if you will, and the
people who support those parties have a very strong right to
define that relationship which they support with respect to the
United States. The question will then be whether or not the
Congress will go along with that or not go along with that in
terms of approving the plebiscite and then later the responses
to that plebiscite. But that is in the natural of the give and
take.
I think it is very important that as we start this process,
that the Congress not be like the butcher who has his thumb on
the scale, here, to get the results that we want.
I think what it ought to be is that this is a long,
historical, political debate within Puerto Rico, and it ought
to manifest itself on the ballot if the plebiscite is to be
real. And then, there is an old saying, be careful what you
wish for, because you may get it. And then the Congress will
decide, and the Congress may, in fact, not go along.
I think we all know that this is a situation where we feel
more optimistic than ever that the Congress would agree to
sanctioning a plebiscite and, in its name, offering that
opportunity to Puerto Rico. But it is not a done deal in terms
of the final results.
We can argue forever about these definitions, but
eventually, we, as members of the Committee, and later the
House and the Senate, will make the final determinations
because it will be about whether we are able to secure the
votes to move the plebiscite forward or not.
But at the outset, I believe the definition that you, the
various parties, agree to, you put them in the bill and you see
where that takes you.
But that does not--that is not a suggestion that the
Congress will not work its will, whether they stay in the bill
or not, because I think clearly the Congress will have some
concerns that have been expressed here today with some of the
provisions in the various definitions. But again, at least the
process started out with the people who are, you know, the
parties of interest getting to define the basis on which they
want to proceed. I think that is the most important thing that
can be done here.
I have some questions I am concerned about. Again, I have
spoken to some of you before. I am very concerned about this
process being stretched out for such a long period of time that
the Congress--and I am more worried about the Congress than I
am about the people of Puerto Rico, but the Congress loses its
commitment. We could go through a series of elections, new
reapportionment in the Congress that could change the dynamics,
and I am worried, if the period of that is too long, nothing
will come of this.
But again, I would like to articulate that in writing and
ask for your various responses about that.
I am also concerned about the participation. Mr. Serrano
has raised concerns about the participation of people residing
in the United States and--but I will put those forth in a
written statement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
Mr. Colon. Congressman, we are fully supportive of your
positions, all of them, that you have stated here.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My feeling is that what is happening now in the current
Commonwealth status is unfair, the status quo is unfair to the
people of Puerto Rico, because the President can call them up
to fight in our wars and yet they can't choose to have--they
cannot choose who they want as their commander in chief. They
have--we in the Congress and on this Committee decide whether
you are going to have a referendum or not to decide your own
future, and not you. And I don't think that is fair. And that
is the nature of the territorial clause that Puerto Rico
currently is governed under, and that is the reason why this
Committee is set up the way it is.
What seems to be taking place here is the misunderstanding
of what happened in the past.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Excuse me. Voy a pedirle que por favor
se--aquellos tres jovenes que estan alla, que por favor manten-
dejen de estar chistando entre ustedes y--vamos a escuchar, que
todo el mundo tambien quiere escuchar lo que tiene que decir el
Congresista Kennedy y escuchar lo que van a decir los paneles.
[Applause.]
Mr. Kennedy. So the question is, how do we get out from
underneath? You might be U.S. citizens in some respects, but
you are severely limited in the full definition of what a
United States citizen is, and that is what needs to be changed.
That is why I believe that you ought to have the full rights
and privileges of United States citizenship.
But in the history of this relationship between Puerto Rico
and the United States, it has gotten confused, because what
happened in 1917 was, you were given full United States
citizenship, but in 1922 the Supreme Court defined that as
limited only to the fundamental protections. OK, but it not
applying to commerce and trade, and that is why you have that
kind of unique status. But it was never changed by the
Congress, so you were limited according to that Supreme Court
decision.
And in 1953, which is what we keep hearing reference to,
that was never--whatever was decided, the Congress never
changed the position of Puerto Rico under the territorial
clause, and I know that is where the rub is.
The rub is in 1953, because it was understood by the people
of Puerto Rico that the colonialism had ended, that the
situation was that it was gone. But it wasn't until 1960 that
the definition of ``anticolonialism'' was put forth by the
United Nations. And guess what, the estado libre asociado was
not defined under the United Nations as ending colonialism.
They had three definitions.
I really, honestly want--I really feel--I really, really
feel for the dilemma that you are in. The debate that is taking
place right now, I really feel for it. The United Nations has
given--this is the United Nations, this isn't the United
States, this is the United Nations--has defined the end of
colonialism in three ways, and those three ways that are
defined by the United Nations are contained in this bill.
Now, that is why I am not--you know, Chairman Young didn't
make this up; no one made this up. This is what the United
Nations said is the way in which you end colonialism. Now, if
that is the way United Nations defined it, then you need to
take your case to the United Nations to say, wait a second,
there is something else called estado libre asociado. But until
the United Nations recognizes estado libre asociado, it is not
an end to colonialism.
Now, if you could tell me what the difference is, please,
please, give me some feedback, because I really want to do what
is right for Puerto Rico. This is what the United Nations said
is the way to end colonialism.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Los aplausos--lo que hacen es eliminar,
reducir el tiempo y no nos permite a los Congresistas, escuchar
lo que digan los panelistas o darles el tiempo aun suficiente a
los panelistas para que puedan tambien hablar m s extensamente
sobre el asunto que se le ha preguntado. Vamos a pedir su
cooperacion para que se pueda aprovechar ese--el tiempo.
Mr. Colon. Congressman, the relationship between Puerto
Rico and the United States was submitted to the U.N. in 1953.
It was approved by the U.N. at that time under Resolution 748.
There was a list of factors that the U.N. applied to the Puerto
Rican case at that time.
Basically, the changes since 1960 have not been that many,
and from 1960 on, we have had a motion by Cuba, an annual
motion by Cuba, to declare the relationship between Puerto Rico
and the United States a colonial relationship, and to this date
Resolution 748 stands.
That is, in spite of the fact that the decolonization
Committee has heard the case of Puerto Rico throughout the
years, it has never gotten the General Assembly to reverse
Resolution 748 recognizing that the relationship we have with
the United States is a noncolonial relationship. So that is the
law at the present moment.
However, I would like to say in that resolution there is a
very important paragraph, which is the last paragraph, which
said that the U.N. expected that this relationship could evolve
and changes could be made in the future. And the supporters of
Commonwealth believe that the compact, although it is valid,
needs changing and needs adapting to the current times.
So this is why we propose a new Commonwealth, in order to
solve the problems that you see. But we try to solve them
within the context of autonomy, which is gaining power for
Puerto Rico, empowering Puerto Rico to deal with its problems
itself, through its own democratic processes here, while it
maintains the link through citizenship with the United States.
In that sense, I would like to say that we do not shrink
from our responsibilities as to citizenship. When we speak
about Puerto Ricans going to war, we don't speak of
statehooders as going to war, we speak about all Puerto Ricans
who are American citizens. And so what we are trying to do is
work out a relationship that will be adjusted to the current
times and which will allow us to maintain our citizenship and
at the same time to govern ourselves under a broader autonomy
here in Puerto Rico in ways consistent with our culture and our
particular nationality. That is it.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Kennedy. I just want to say, for that to be worked out,
it has to be a bilateral, liberal relationship, understand. But
under the current relationship, it is a unilateral
relationship, because the mechanism in the United States
Constitution through which we deal with unincorporated
territories is the Territorial Clause, and that wasn't changed
in 1953 after the United Nations didn't take on the language
that you said.
If you go back and look at the Congressional Record, as
much as there may have been an understanding that the United
States bargained and said, OK, we will have an equal
relationship here, no one could misunderstand what was really
happening in the Congress at that time, because in the Congress
at that time everyone understood Puerto Rico as a territory.
And now, I don't agree with that notion, but that is the way it
was legally decided at the time.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. We have to go to the next panel member.
I will give you time. Mr. Underwood can give you time.
Mr. Underwood. Let me contextualize my question; and we
will give you an opportunity to respond to the general issue,
which is--I assume the general issue is, does the territorial
clause apply to Puerto Rico?
And my question, which, obviously, has implications for
me--but, as I understand it, we normally talk about colonies
and then we talk about the process of decolonization, and in
the United Nations prescription that process of decolonization
calls for either full integration, which is statehood, and free
association and outright independence.
Now the discussion has always focused, when I hear
statements from representatives of the political party that you
represent, Governor, that Puerto Rico is in a noncolonial
status. We think of it as bipolar opposites. We are either a
slave or we are free. We are either a colony or we are in a
state of freedom. But it seems like we are in a midpoint here,
something that we call noncolonial.
Is it your understanding--and just be as clear as you can.
Is it your understanding that the territorial clause applies to
Puerto Rico? And, as a followup to that, the president of your
party in the earlier panel listed out a series of things as
part of the definition for the PDP's contribution to the
ballot, and he listed them as aspirations. Is it your
impression or is it your understanding that the application of
the territorial clause is not elastic enough to accommodate the
aspirations of the political plan that is implicit in that
definition?
Mr. Colon. I think the Committee is allowing itself to get
into a legalistic, semantic trap under this whole discussion
regarding the territorial clause.
I believe that the matter of governing Puerto Rico goes
beyond the territorial clause, and it relates to the inherent
powers of the United States to govern a territory which it
acquired through military occupation, through the invasion of
Puerto Rico in 1989.
It is a power, which if it were not in that clause, it
would attain to the Federal Government anyway; and it has been
recognized as an inherent power of government by the Supreme
Court of the United States. It is a power that the United
States would have to exercise in order to comply with
international treaties, such as the treaty of the United
Nations, where the United States committed itself to govern
Puerto Rico in a way as to bring it to full self-government.
What I am basically saying is that the relationship between
the United States and Puerto Rico stems from a power that is
much broader than the restrictive meaning of the territorial
power and the absolute powers of Congress to deal with
territories under that particular clause. And under these
broader powers a satisfactory democratic arrangement can be
worked out for the benefit of both Puerto Rico and the United
States.
Mr. Underwood. Now, in terms of the specific plan listed as
a definition of commonwealth, or as a position, aspirations--
actually, the term used was aspirations--then you are saying
that you agree with the assumption that is given here inside
the legislation that the territorial clause is not elastic
enough to accommodate that plan.
Mr. Colon. I am saying that the Congress has the power to
accommodate that plan; and if we want to go to the territorial
clause and apply it in a restrictive way, you might come to the
conclusion that it is not elastic enough. But what I am saying
is get out from under the territorial clause.
Mr. Underwood. I understand that point.
One last point. I just wanted to confirm your answers to
Mr. Miller's earlier question. You agree with the notion that
you are free to describe commonwealth in the ballot and
understand that Congress could work its will in terms of that
definition.
In other words, in the long haul, in the political
processes of Congress, that definition and the aspirations that
are part of that definition may not come to pass.
Mr. Colon. Basically, we are saying that we have put
forward a definition which meets all of our aspirations. Now we
realize that we are engaged in a political process and that at
some point the Congress might not agree with us fully on
everything that is in that definition. Now what we say is, if
that comes about, it will be because of a political decision of
the Congress, not because of legal constraints to the Congress,
that impede the Congress from coming to this agreement that we
want.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you very much.
Now we have the next panel.
Mr. Underwood. [Presiding.] I would like to call the next
panel up, please.
The Honorable Manuel Rodriguez-Orellana, the Honorable
Damaris Mangual Velez, Professor Edwin Irizarry-Mora, Mr.
Emilio A. Soler Mari, Mr. Eduardo Morales-Coll, and Mr. Manuel
Fermin Arraiza.
Due to the limitations on time and because we want to make
sure that everybody gets their opportunity not only to express
themselves but a full opportunity for members of the Committee
to address important questions, we will try to adhere to the 5-
minute rule as much as possible.
Mr. Underwood. I will begin with the Honorable Manuel
Rodriguez-Orellana.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MANUEL RODRIGUEZ-ORELLANA, DESIGNEE
FOR THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE SENATE-PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE
PARTY, SENATE OF PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Rodriguez-Orellana. Senor Presidente y senores miembros
de esta Comision, ustedes tienen una version al Ingles del
texto de mi ponencia eh. . . Para el beneficio de mis
compatriotas, lo voy a leer en Espanol.
Soy Manuel Rodriguez Orellana y comparezco ante ustedes en
representacion del Senador Ruben Berrios Martinez, quien senalo
el mes pasado, unas areas en que el proyecto que esta bajo
vuestra consideracion deberia modificarse para hacerlo mas
justo y mas balanceado.
Mi objetivo en esta intervencion sera elaborar la posicion
del Partido Independentista Puertorriqueno traida por el
Senador Berrios en torno a la reduccion del plazo de tiempo
para la implantacion de las diversas opciones que se
consideran.
El proyecto como esta, dispone que los Puertorriquenos
esperemos diez o quince anos para implantar la independencia o
la estadidad, despues de un voto mayoritario. En aras de una
supuesta simetria, cuya funcion es meramente decorativa, se
pretende tratar a la independencia y a la estadidad como si
fueran iguales, cuando no lo son. Propongo por tanto que los
puertorriquenos, no tengamos que esperar mas que lo demasiado
que ya hemos esperado para la disfrutar de la independencia,
para la que de conformidad con el derecho internacional tenemos
un derecho inalienable. Tan pronto nuestro pueblo reclame su
derecho a la independencia, no debe colocarsele obstaculo
alguno al libre ejercicio de su libertad nacional y tras la
consulta que este proyecto propone para el proximo ano, se debe
implantar a traves de una asamblea constituyente, la
proclamacion de nuestra soberania antes de las proximas
elecciones generales del ano 2000. La transicion economica,
desde luego, debe ocurrir entonces bajo la independencia.
Puerto Rico ya ha padecido noventa y nueve anos de colonialismo
estadounidense.
Por fin, un organismo oficial del Congreso de Estados
Unidos, ustedes en esta Comision, admitieron hace un ano lo que
el Partido Independentista Puertorriqueno ha venido diciendo
por los ultimos cuarenta y cinco, que nuestra condicion es
colonial y que Estados Unidos no ha cumplido con su obligacion
de descolonizar ni bajo el derecho internacional ni bajo el
derecho domestico constitucional de los Estados Unidos.
Pero todavia hay otros, hay otros sobre todo aqui en Puerto
Rico, que pretenden justificar nuestro status territorial bajo
la Constitucion de Estados Unidos alegando consentimiento, t
Como si la esclavitud por consentimiento dejara de ser
esclavitud! La condicion colonial de Puerto Rico no deja de ser
coloniaje y la obligacion de descolonizar subsiste aun con el
consentimiento.
Pero yo quiero apartarme un momento del texto para hacer un
comentario aqui. Y es que no veo--y no tiene ningun sentido, y
desvirtua por completo el objetivo de esta legislacion--que la
misma insista en incluir un Estado Libre Asociado colonial y
territorial como el que tenemos, como opcion en el propuesto
plebiscito, aunque sea por un tiempo limitado, aunque sea con
plebiscitos periodicos. La afirmacion del coloniaje lo que hace
es que mantiene el coloniaje. El problema no puede ser la
solucion.
Por otro lado, el caso de la estadidad es diferente al de
la independencia. La independencia de Puerto Rico es como
senale anteriormente, un derecho inalienable. Pero la estadidad
no. Por eso ustedes en el Congreso pueden imponer las
condiciones que ustedes estimen pertinentes en el caso de la
estadidad, a base de las expectativas que ustedes tengan.
Ustedes deben decir como debe ser Puerto Rico como estado, en
que idioma o en que idiomas, cuanto deben aportar, y como va a
contribuir esto a la paz social de los Estados Unidos. Por lo
tanto, aunque parezcan duros o antipaticos para algunos los
terminos y condiciones de transicion o implantacion de la
estadidad que ustedes impongan, estos deben reflejar claramente
sus expectativas.
Hace siete anos, el Senador Moynihan explico clara y
diafanamente las suyas, en el contexto de los proyectos que se
presentaban entonces. Dijo, y cito en ingles: ``In the end, the
great issues involved here are civic, not economic. Do the
people of Puerto Rico wish to become Americans? For that is
what statehood ineluctably implies. That is what statehood
brings.''
Evidentemente, la aceptacion o rechazo de una posible
peticion de estadidad no tendria ni que esperar ser presentada.
Pero para que no se fomenten falsas ilusiones ni se juegue con
las aspiraciones de la inmensa mayoria de los puertorriquenos,
que todos quieren seguir siendo puertorriquenos, la
contestacion si algun dia se plantea la pregunta, debe ser
rapida y debe ser lo menos dolorosa posible.
Por eso, cualquier rechazo congresional, en cualquier
etapa, a cualquier propuesta de transicion o de implantacion de
la estadidad, debe considerarse inmediatamente como una
denegatoria, porque si despues de un siglo todavia ustedes o
nosotros tenemos alguna duda de si una nacion latinoamericana,
caribena, que habla espanol y quiere retener su identidad e
integridad cultural cabe dentro de la union americana como
estado o no, no debemos seguir perdiendo el tiempo. No debemos
seguir alargando la incertidumbre. Vamos a pasar ahora a cosas
mejores, a un futuro mejor y no mas colonia.
Estoy, desde luego, en la mejor disposicion de trabajar con
ustedes de inmediato para buscar el lenguaje legislativo
apropiado que refleje los objetivos que he mencionado en esta
ponencia. Muchas gracias.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez-Orellana follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.086
Mr. Underwood. Madam Damaris.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAMARIS MANGUAL VELEZ, DESIGNEE FOR
THE HOUSE MINORITY LEADER-PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY,
PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Ms. Mangual Velez. Buenas tardes senores miembros de esta
Comision. Comparece ante ustedes Damaris/Mangual Velez,
Comisionada Electoral del Partido Independentista
Puertorriqueno. En la tarde de hoy discutire el tema de quienes
deben votar en el plebiscito y los mecanismos electorales que
son necesarios para instrumentar la ley que se apruebe. Solo
los Puertorriquenos tenemos el derecho a decidir el destino
politico de nuestro pais. Es evidente que solo los nacionales
pueden votar para ejercer ese derecho a la autodeterminacion.
El pueblo que participe en el plebiscito tiene que ser un
pueblo diferente al pueblo que participa en las elecciones cada
cuatro anos porque es una eleccion diferente. Es parte de la
autodeterminacion de un pueblo. Y si participan los que no son
de ese pueblo, entonces no es autodeterminacion.
Entre los nacionales de Puerto Rico se cuentan los nacidos
en Puerto Rico y aquellos cuyos padres hayan nacido en Puerto
Rico, aunque residan fuera de Puerto Rico, pero manifiesten su
deseo de regresar.
En la ley del plebiscito que se apruebe, la nacionalidad
debe ser el requisito esencial para votar. El Congreso puede
establecer estos parametros a tenor con la responsabilidad que
le impone la clausula territorial para reglamentar y disponer
del territorio.
En cuanto a los puertorriquenos que residen en el exterior,
algunos alegan que desde el punto de vista administrativo, es
imposible formalizar dicho voto. Sin embargo, los electores
facilmente pueden llenar una solicitud de participacion en las
oficinas de correos y devolverlas a la Comision Estatal de
Elecciones, donde seria cualificada con la correspondiente
prueba de nacimiento del elector solicitante. Luego, la propia
Comision le enviaria directamente al elector la papeleta de
votacion.
En el caso de los nacionales residentes en otros paises,
las embajadas y los consulados de los Estados Unidos servirian
para el tramite de rigor.
Es importante que ustedes entiendan que este mecanismo que
propongo no es nuevo. La Comision Estatal de Elecciones de
Puerto Rico tiene experiencia en pequena escala con este tipo
de votacion que denominamos voto ausente. Ademas, la
celebracion de este evento electoral es el mejor momento para
implantar el sistema mecanizado de votacion y escrutinio en
nuestra isla. La Comision Estatal de Elecciones tiene la
capacidad y experiencia necesaria para administrar este
proceso.
Finalmente, este proceso plebiscitario requiere que las
formulas de status esten en igualdad de condiciones en cuanto
al financiamiento para la promocion del voto y la educacion del
elector. Es una buena oportunidad para ensayar las reformas de
campana, de las cuales ustedes hablan [Another U/I voice] En su
pais. Debe asignarse una cantidad suficiente de fondos para
cada formula y una vez sus proponentes se acojan al esquema de
financiamiento provisto, no podran aceptar aportaciones
privadas, lo que incluye la prohibicion de los comites de
accion politica.
Estoy a su disposicion para trabajar con su equipo de
tecnicos electorales y cualquier legislacion que se tenga a
bien aprobar.
Muchas gracias.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mangual Velez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.090
Mr. Underwood. And now Professor Edwin Irizarry-Mora.
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR EDWIN IRIZARRY-MORA, ECONOMIC ADVISOR,
PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY, PUERTO NUEVO, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Edwin Irizarry-Mora. Buenas tardes. Buenas tardes senor
Presidente y miembros de la Comision de Recursos. Se dirige
ante ustedes Edwin Irizarry-Mora, Asesor Economico del Partido
Independentista puertorriqueno y Profesor de Economia de la
Universidad de Puerto Rico.
Durante los pasados cuarenta y cinco anos, desde que se
fundo el Estado Libre Asociado, Puerto Rico ha ido acentuando
su dependencia economica con respecto a los Estados Unidos. La
dependencia se manifiesta en el sostenimiento de una estructura
de produccion industrial amparada en las leyes contributivas
Norteamericanas, sus relaciones de comercio exterior casi
exclusivas con los Estados Unidos.
Las consecuencias socioeconomicas de la dependencia son aun
mas profundas. Segun datos oficiales, sobre el cincuenta por
ciento de las familias de Puerto Rico dependen de manera
directa de algun tipo de programa de beneficencia subsidiado
por el Gobierno Federal. A este hecho contundente, se anade un
problema cada vez mas critico de desempleo, que al considerar
la baja tasa de participacion laboral, se proyecta a niveles
reales entre treinta y treinta y cinco por ciento de la fuerza
obrera. Frente a esta realidad, se ha desarrollado en Puerto
Rico un gigantesco sector de economia subteranea, buena parte
del mismo basado en el trasiego de drogas y en el crimen
organizado.
Para completar el cuadro anterior, no debemos perder de
perspectiva que Puerto Rico tiene un ingreso per capita
equivalente a una tercera parte del ingreso de los Estados
Unidos y a menos de la mitad del ingreso per capita del estado
mas pobre de la union Norteamericana.
Ciertamente el modelo economico del Estado Libre Asociado
amparado en la dependencia da senales de un agotamiento
irreversible. La eliminacion de la Seccion 936 representa sin
duda, el punto culminante en la historia del desarrollo
dependiente de Puerto Rico. Como resultado de este escenario,
invertir en Puerto Rico no representa ventajas economicas lo
suficientemente grandes como para impulsar un aumento en la
acumulacion de capital y por ende, en la produccion.
La situacion de crisis economica del Estado Libre Asociado
es el marco de referencia obligado para proyectar lo que
significaria la transicion hacia la estadidad. Dicho en
terminos muy concretos, la estadidad para Puerto Rico
representaria la multiplicacion de la dependencia.
El Congreso y el Tesoro reconocen, que lo que se embolsa
entre el Gobierno Federal a Puerto Rico, bajo las condiciones
socioeconomicas de [uninteligible] Aumentarian sustancialmente
tan pronto [uninteligible] La estadidad. Evidentemente, el
aumento de gastos Federales en Puerto Rico contrastaria
irreconciala- irreconciliablemente con el objetivo trazado por
el Congreso, de nivelar el presupuesto Federal para los
primeros anos de la proxima decada.
De otra parte, la capacidad de aportacion de los sectores
que en Puerto Rico podrian contribuir con el pago de impuestos
Federales, ironicamente frenaria cualquier posibilidad de
iniciar un proceso de crecimiento local en un estado
puertorriqueno entre comillas, ya que la ventaja competitiva
del estado seria nula con respecto a otras jurisdicciones en el
hemisferio. En otras palabras, la estadidad, en vez de promover
el crecimiento economico y de contribuir a solucionar los
problemas fiscales de los Estados Unidos, provocaria un aumento
en el deficit presupuestal y Federal y abriria el camino para
perpetuar la condicion de dependencia. Por esa razon, sostengo
que la estadidad no representa una opcion viable para los
Estados Unidos en el caso de Puerto Rico.
De otro lado, los acontecimientos de las pasadas dos
decadas demuestran que la independencia ha sido el camino que
han tomado los paises con economias similares a la de Puerto
Rico. Las ventajas de la independencia en nuestro caso, en
nuestro caso son obvias. Amplia experiencia en la produccion
manufacturera, la existencia de una infraestructura muy
superior a la de la mayoria de los paises vecinos, dominio y
conocimiento tecnologico representado por la fuerza obrera y
una clase profesional de primer orden y un sistema educativo
con caracteristicas similares a los de paises industriales
entre otras variables estrategicas.
La independencia permitiria establecer un sistema
contributivo de gastos publicos que responda a las realidades
de nuestro pueblo. Un sistema monetario amparado, un sistema
monetario adaptado a las condiciones de Puerto Rico y tratados
comerciales de fomento en el intercambio con todos los paises y
que nos permitan jugar un papel protagonico en la economia
global.
Con relacion a este ultimo aspecto, bajo el Estado Libre
Asociado o la estadidad, Puerto Rico no puede establecer
relaciones comerciales libremente con los paises del Caribe y
con la comunidad Latinoamericana inmediata, al igual que por
supuesto, con los Estados Unidos, Canada y la Comunidad
Europea. La independencia representa la unica opcion de status
que abriroi-, abriria las puertas para un intercambio comercial
libre de todo tipo de ataduras.
Mas aun, la forma mas efectiva de atraer capital externo es
a traves de tratados contributivos y de acuerdos comerciales
que solo son posibles bajo la independencia. El aumento de la
produccion se lograra ademas a traves del fomento de nuestro
capital en diversas areas de nuestra economia. Estos elementos,
como daran una mayor autosuficiencia y se convertiran en
efecto, en la via para romper con la dependencia para el
beneficio mutuo de Puerto Rico y de los Estados Unidos.
Muchas gracias.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Irizarry-Mora follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.096
Mr. Underwood. Mr. Emilio A. Soler Mari, President, Puerto
Rican Democratic Action Foundation.
STATEMENT OF EMILIO A. SOLER MARI, PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICAN
DEMOCRATIC ACTION FOUNDATION, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Mari. Muchas gracias y muy buenas tardes a los
distinguidos miembros de este panel.
Accion Democratica puertorriquena es una organizacion de la
sociedad civil de Puerto Rico, no partidista, y su fundacion en
parte ha sido motivada en torno a esta iniciativa del Gobierno
Norteamericano, que recogiendo el clamor internacional por la
descolonizacion, intenta resolver dicho problema de las
relaciones entre nuestras dos naciones.
Reconocemos, tal como fue anunciado cuando se radico este
proyecto, que este proyecto es uno sujeto a cambios y
enmiendas, en el proceso legislativo de la Camara, y a tales
fines hoy comparecemos ante ustedes con los siguientes
senalamientos y propuestas de enmienda.
En la expresion de principios, el proyecto debe reconocer a
Puerto Rico como algo mas que una isla situada en la entrada
del mar Caribe, habitada por cuatro millones de. . . Cuatro
millones de ciudadanos Norteamericanos, sino como una nacion
Hispanica debe reconocerse, Caribena, de cinco siglos de
existencia, con su propia historia, cultura e idioma.
Entendemos que por ser este un proceso de descolonizacion,
las alternativas que se ofrecen deben cumplir con los
requisitos minimos de descolonizacion de acuerdo a derecho
internacional. La alternativa de estado libre asociado-
commonwealth, que esta incluida en ese proyecto, ahora mismo no
cumple con ese requisito, por lo cual entendemos debe ser
excluida.
La estadidad como alternativa tal vez podria resolver el
problema juridico actual, pero entendemos que no el problema
politico. Las naciones no se disuelven con una votacion y el
sistema Federal esta constituido para permitir la coexisten-no
esta constituido para permitir la coexistencia de una nacion
dentro de otra nacion. Estados Unidos es la nacion y no admite
otras naciones dentro de la misma.
Solicitamos que este proyecto se enmiende, estableciendo
una logica presentacion de las alternativas, una indepen-una
independiente de la otra en la papeleta de votacion. Se debe
enmendar el proyecto para que contenga una definicion clara de
cada una de las alternativas propuestas. En el caso de la libre
asociacion, proponemos que el proyecto establezca la definicion
que acompanamos y que ha sido circulada por nuestra
organizacion a todos los miembros del Congreso de Estados
Unidos y a la Casa Blanca y que se ha acompanado en el idioma
Ingles como Anexo 1 de esta ponencia.
La Casa Blanca mas--y mas de treinta congresistas ya han
reconocido recibir este proyecto y le estan dando consideracion
a el mismo y asi nos los han confirmado. En terminos breves,
dicha definicion de libre asociacion debe incluir, el
reconocimiento que Puerto Rico es soberano y autonomo y entrara
en un Tratado de Libre Asociacion con el pueblo de Estados
Unidos.
Los ciudadanos de los Estados. . . De los Es- de los
Estados Unidos nacidos en Puerto Rico continuaran siendo
ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica luego de la
fecha en que entre en vigor el acuerdo de libre asociacion con
el pueblo de Estados Unidos.
El pueblo de Puerto Rico tendra la capacidad para llevar a
cabo sus asuntos internacionales. El pueblo de Puerto Rico
tendra plena autoridad para entrar en convenios y tratados
internacionales. El Gobierno de los Estados Unidos apoyara las
solicitudes de parte del pueblo de Puerto Rico para su
membrecia en organizaciones internacionales.
El gobierno de los Estados Unidos y el gobierno de Puerto
Rico podran establecer y mantener representaciones y/o misiones
en la capital de cada cual.
El gobierno de los Estados Unidos proveera anualmente en
calidad de asignacion, un bloque por la misma cantidad de
fondos que actualmente comprende sus aportaciones a Puerto
Rico. En adicion a aquellos fondos distribuidos como
compensaciones, entitlements, a residentes individuales en la
fecha en que entre en vigor el acuerdo.
El gobierno de Puerto Rico eh de Estados Unidos mantendra
la autoridad para y responsabilidad para velar por los asuntos
de seguridad internacional y defensa pertinentes a Puerto Rico,
sujeto a los terminos y convenios por separado. Puerto Rico no
estara incluido en el territorio aduanero de los Estados
Unidos. La moneda de los Estados Unidos continuara siendo la
oficial y circulante legal en Puerto Rico y todas las leyes de
los Estados Unidos relativas a dicha moneda se hacen parte de
esta.
El proyecto debe establecer, que en caso de que el
resultado de la votacion arroje una mayoria simple, a favor de
la independencia o la libre asociacion, se aceptara esta como
alternativa ganadora. Sin embargo, para la anexion sera
necesaria una mayoria absoluta.
Con respecto a los criterios para la elegilidad de los
ciudadanos que votaran en el plebiscito, debe tomarse en cuenta
la importancia de este proceso, el cual conllevaria la decision
final del destino de nuestro pueblo. Amparado en los
precedentes de las Islas Palau, las Islas Marshall y la
Micronesia, sugerimos la participacion de todos los nacidos en
Puerto Rico y sus hijos irrespectivamente de su residencia
actual.
Cumplidos noventa y ocho de relacion territorial
corresponde a Estados Unidos el promover un proceso
genuinamente colonizador, que permita deshacernos de los mitos
asociados con la alternativa de status que convenientemente han
creado los partidos politicos en Puerto Rico. Un paso
afirmativo y esperanzador en dicho proceso debe ser el
ofrecimiento al pueblo de Puerto Rico de una opcion de libre
asociacion. Asi lo solicitamos a nombre de nuestro pueblo.
Gracias.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mari follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.103
Mr. Underwood. Senator Eduardo Morales-Coll.
STATEMENT OF EDUARDO MORALES-COLL, PRESIDENT, ATENEO
PUERTORRIQUENO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Morales-Coll. Muy buenas tardes a los miembros del
Comite, y al pueblo puertorriqueno. Hice una ponencia por
escrito, la cual ustedes tienen. Voy a limitarme a expresar
algunas palabras solamente respecto a uno de los temas
tratados.
El Ateneo puertorriqueno, la institucion que presido, es
una institucion pluralista. Tiene miembros de todos los
partidos politicos y por esa razon no expresamos ninguna
opinion respecto a ninguna formula de status politico.
Solamente nos limitamos a tratar aquellos asuntos que sean de
naturaleza cultural.
Ahora voy a hablar de una limitacion que me preocupa
grandemente y voy a hacer la observacion de que el Proyecto
856, que pretende resolver la situacion politica
puertorriquena, esta escrito en el idioma Ingles. Segun el Buro
del Censo de los Estados Unidos, para utilizar una referencia
que nadie puede disputar, casi el ochenta por ciento de los
puertorriquenos no conocen el idioma en que esta proyecto esta
escrito.
El Ateneo se tomo el trabajo de traducir ese proyecto al
Espanol y distribuirlo. Hizo lo mejor que pudo. Hizo lo que
este Comite no hizo para que todos los puertorriquenos pudieran
entenderlo.
Segundo, el Proyecto 856, que pretende resolver la
situacion politica de los puertorriquenos, no ha circulado
entre los puertorriquenos para que estos tengan la oportunidad
de expresarse en estas vistas. El Ateneo se tomo el trabajo de
circularlo gratis a todas las personas que pudo. Hizo lo mejor
que pudo, lo que no hizo este Comite, para que todos los
puertorriquenos podamos tener copia de ese proyecto y que
podamos entenderlo.
Tercero, el Ateneo invito a todo nuestro pais, en una
invitacion publica, para que todos los puertorriquenos desde
los mas humildes a los mas favorecidos, vinieran al Ateneo para
expresarse sobre este proyecto, comprometiendonos en el Ateneo
a traducirlo y hacerselo llegar a ustedes, para que ustedes
hicieran uso de el como mejor pudieran.
Comparecieron al Ateneo mas de cincuenta personas de todos
los niveles, pobres y ricos, a hacerse oir y expresarse sobre
el Proyecto 856 que tenian en sus manos, porque el Ateneo se
los habia provisto. La gran parte de ellos no podian comparecer
a estas vistas, porque no dominan el Ingles, como no lo domina
mas del ochenta por ciento de nuestra poblacion, o porque no
tenian los $50 dolares que es el costo de las cien copias que
es necesario radicar en esta comision.
Abrimos este proyecto a la discusion publica de todos los
puertorriquenos de todas las ideologias. Realizado todo este
esfuerzo por el Ateneo para beneficio de nuestro pais, para que
todo nuestro pueblo entienda el proyecto que estan
considerando, nosotros nos comprometimos a traer esa expresion
a ustedes. Al yo venir aqui, a la Comision a traer copia, creo
que ustedes la deben tener ya, de la transcripcion que habiamos
hecho de todas esas ponencias al idioma Ingles, se nos informo
que incluir esas participaciones en el record era muy caro.
oCuanto estan ustedes dispuestos a gastar para reconocer la
expresion de los puertorriquenos que no pudieron comparecer a
estas vistas? [Applause].
Todo este proceso en el idioma Ingles es injusto para quien
no ha recibido copia de esa ley en su idioma, o habiendola
recibido, no la entiende por ser sumamente tecnica. Esta
decision de excluir la participacion de aquellos que no pueden
comparecer a estas vistas, es extremadamente injusta. Ustedes
tienen copias de ellas. Yo se las someto con la suplica de que
le den a estas personas que comparecieron al Ateneo, porque no
pueden comparecer aqui hoy, la misma oportunidad que se ha dado
en estas vistas, en el dia de hoy, para que todas las personas
que algun dia lean el record que habra de levantarse de estas
vistas, tambien encuentren que a ellas comparecieron policias,
carpinteros y personas de todos los niveles economicos con y
sin educacion, para expresarse sobre algo que ellos saben que
es de sumo interes porque es el destino de su nacion.
Muchas gracias.
[Applause.]
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morales-Coll follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.116
Mr. Underwood. Next on my list is Mr. Manuel Fermin
Arraiza, Puerto Rico Bar Association.
STATEMENT OF MANUEL FERMIN ARRAIZA, PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICO BAR
ASSOCIATION, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Arraiza. No se preocupe por eso. Mi nombre es Manuel
Fermin Arraiza y soy el Presidente del Colegio de Abogados de
Puerto Rico. El Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico se fundo el
27 de junio de 1840. Es la mas antigua asociacion civil de
Puerto Rico y la mas antigua asociacion profesional de vida
continua en Puerto Rico. El Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico
es una institucion plural, amplia, donde todo el espectro
politico partidista y no partidista tiene voz y voto. Nuestras
expresiones de hoy tienen una trayectoria historica que se
remonta a 1944 y son la expresion oficial del Colegio de
Abogados de Puerto Rico, dato que ustedes pueden comprobar por
el apendice que se unio a nuestra breve ponencia y que fueron
tomados por consenso dentro de la Comision de Desarrollo
Constitucional del Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, donde
todas las tendencias politicas estuvieron representadas.
La mejor prueba de que Puerto Rico es una colonia de los
Estados Unidos de America es que tengamos que estar hoy aqui,
bajo las condiciones que se explican en la carta de invitacion.
Es prepotente, paternalista y de condescendencia repudiable.
Conceder cinco minutos a una institucion civil, que desde 1944
se ha manifestado publicamente en terminos institucionales no
menos de veintiseis veces, es una falta de respeto. Pero
reconocemos que el respeto no es la caracteristica dominante de
la metropolis con la colonia.
El Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico no tiene preferencias
sobre una solucion particular al status nacional. El Colegio de
Abogados de Puerto Rico no quiere la colonia, y aboga por un
estado juridico politico digno para nuestra comunidad,
libremente escogida por los puertorriquenos y que cumpla con
los requisitos minimos sustantivos y procesales que son
satisfactorios en derecho internacional y politica
contemporanea.
Debo repetir hoy el angustiado e indignado clamor de
nuestro Presidente, Licenciado Carlos Noriega en el 1993 ante
las Naciones Unidas. ``Senores, quinientos anos de coloniaje,
es mucho coloniaje. oHasta cuando?''
En esencia, el planteamiento procesal que propone el
Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico es que un organo
deliberativo, libremente electo por los puertorriquenos, y con
representacion del universo ideologico politico formule una
propuesta especifica para ser negociada con los Estados Unidos,
en plano de igualdad soberana. Es, y debe ser asi ejercido, el
derecho del pueblo de Puerto Rico a escoger sus delegados,
decidir la formula y los lapsos de tiempo para la negociacion,
sin imposiciones externas al pueblo de Puerto Rico, todo ello
conjugado armonicamente con la Resolucion 1514 de la Asamblea
General de la Organizacion de las Naciones Unidas.
Dificilmente podra conseguirse en el hemisferio Americano,
una institucion que haya defendido con mas gallardia que el
Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, el sistema democratico de
gobierno, el gobierno republicano, el estado de derecho, los
derechos humanos y constitucionales, la justicia y la paz.
Precisamente de todo esto, es que trata la descolonizacion,
que agravia al que la sufre y baldona al que la impone y
sostiene. El colonialismo, como la esclavitud y como el
apartheid, no tienen justificacion en el dia de hoy.
No puede encubrirse mas la situacion de Puer- del pueblo de
Puerto Rico con medias verdades y formulas ilusorias y vanas.
No traten de enganar al mundo libre. No pretendan sostener el
sofisma que plantearon en la ONU. Es obligacion del Congreso de
Estados Unidos, propiciar el cambio definitivo de Puerto Rico,
desde la ignominia de la conculcacion, a la dignidad de la
libertad buscada y asumida fervorosamente. Ser colonia del
gobierno mas poderoso del mundo no es honor. Es una deshonra
para ustedes y motivo de pudor para nosotros.
Puerto Rico no es una cosa. Es un pueblo formado y con
identidad propia. Puerto Rico no es objeto de comercio entre
las naciones. Puerto Rico tiene su personalidad, y como lo que
es, debe negociar su futuro con sus iguales. El espectro
vergonzoso del Tratado de Paris y los casos insulares todavia
indignan a las conciencias libres. Las Naciones Unidas
senalaron la decada de 1990 al 2000 como la decada de la
descolonizacion. Puerto Rico, mi patria, es una nacion que no
ha ejercitado a plenitud su derecho inalienable a la
autodeterminacion. Ustedes, el Congreso de los Estados Unidos
de America, tiene la obligacion moral y politica de propiciar
ese ejercicio. No les pedimos un favor, les exigimos un
derecho. No queremos por caridad, lo que merecemos por
justicia.
Gracias.
[Applause.]
Mr. Underwood. I would like to state an observation that
the limitations of Congress do not mean that people do not take
the ideas and sentiments quite seriously. I think the fact the
Committee is here and the fact that the leadership in
particular of this Committee has been seriously involved in
this issue is important. The time and scheduling could not
include the opportunity for everybody to appear.
Mr. Young. I have a question, because I do think you
offered some suggestions.
I really would suggest there has to be a change. This is
the way I got involved in this. The status quo will not exist,
it cannot exist and should not exist.
As the gentleman at the end--although I rarely agree with
lawyers, I do think there is a moral obligation on behalf of
the United States. So I want to congratulate each one of you.
I have a question about the Serrano amendment. Are you
aware of this amendment, the voting by Puerto Ricans that are
outside of Puerto Rico itself? I believe his amendment goes to
the point it isn't limited to children born in Puerto Rico. I
think it goes beyond that.
Would anyone like to comment on that?
Ms. Mangual Velez. Si, con mucho gusto.
El Partido Independentista entiende que los nacionales de
Puerto Rico son los unicos, los que tienen derecho a ejercer su
derecho a la libre autodeterminacion. Y son nacionales los que
nacieron en Puerto Rico y los hijos cuyos padres hayan nacido
en Puerto Rico, aunque residan fuera de Puerto Rico.
Mr. Young. What you are saying is the parent is born in
Puerto Rico, moves to the United States. Their children--but
the children's children would not vote?
Ms. Mangual Velez. Eh pues, podrian votar, podriamos buscar
la manera de aquellas personas que fueran hijos de padres que
han nacido en Puerto Rico y que tienen el deseo de regresar,
tienen lazos afectivos en Puerto Rico, un interes economico,
politico, social, puedan ejercer el derecho al voto. Todo
depende del interes que tengan en regresar, de establecer unos
lazos afectivos con Puerto Rico.
Mr. Young. On the economics of it, Professor, I am somewhat
in sympathy with what you have to say, your proximity to the
Latin American countries. As a Commonwealth, you are prohibited
to trade directly with Latin American countries, and probably
as a State you would also be unable to trade directly with
them. Is that correct?
Mr. Irizarry-Mora. Yes, sir. For the benefit of the people
who are listening and watching through television, I will
answer in Spanish.
Si, bajo la estadidad, se impondrian las reglas eh. . . De
los estados, en terminos del. . . Del . . . Existe un comercio
interestatal, del cual Puerto Rico ha participado durante todo
este siglo, por ser parte de. . . Estar dentro del comercio,
del mercado comun de los Estados Unidos. . . Eh. . . Pero es la
independencia la opcion que le provee a Puerto Rico la
oportunidad de establecer nexos comerciales a traves de
tratados con paises Caribenos, con paises Latinoamericanos sin
ningun tipo de impedimento, es decir, es la soberania del
pueblo de Puerto Rico la que le permitiria establecer ese tipo
de contacto comercial con los paises Caribenos,
Latinoamericanos y con la Comunidad Europea y con el Sureste
Asiatico y por supuesto, con Estados Unidos, con Canada, con
todo el mundo. Y yo creo que--dentro de nuestra perspectiva
economica, tendriamos el poder suficiente para atraer esa
inversion que en este momento no llega, como muy bien usted ha
senalado, porque se nos impone una camisa de fuerza, que impide
la llegada de inversion desde el resto del mundo, fuera de la
inversion que llega directamente de los Estados Unidos.
Mr. Young. My time is up, gentleman.
The Chairman has touched upon it, those who could not
testify. But the process as set forth in this bill is a long,
slow process. Don't lose sight of that.
Puerto Ricans will have a chance to vote each time in the
three-step process on whether they want to go forward, very
much like Alaska did; and then eventually it will get to the
Congress to be ratified. This is not an up-and-down vote.
And as far as everybody not getting a copy of the bill, we
probably should have printed it in Spanish. We can't write a
law in other than English to be actually legal, your lawyer
will tell you that, in the U.S. Congress. We will do our best
to try to keep enough information going through to the people
of Puerto Rico and the media and make every effort we can to
make sure that occurs.
I want to stress one thing, not to pat myself on the back,
but this is a break where many of these Members of Congress
could have gone home. I ask you to think about it. Where would
you be if we had not started this process?
If you are happy about the status quo and want to stay
where you are, if you want no progress, you will be perfectly
unhappy with what I am doing. But I am trying to bring a
solution, because I think it is long past the time to have a
colony or a territory under the United States' jurisdiction.
That is where it is, my personal belief; and this is why,
as Chairman, I have gone forth with this process. Although it
may not seem fair at times, it is the only way we have to work
within the framework of our congressional body itself.
So keep in mind, each one of these people volunteered their
time to come down here. I honor them for being with me. I have
allowed them to chair the meetings for each different panel to
try to get a better participation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. No questions.
Mr. Underwood. Mr. Kennedy?
Mr. Kennedy. No questions.
Mr. Young. Just one final question on the issue of the
vote. The way that it has been described, it always gets a
little unwieldy to parents. I can understand that. Children, I
don't know. It seems a little convoluted.
Do you agree with the notion put forth in the legislation
that Congress has the right to withdraw citizenship from people
in the territories?
Ms. Mangual Velez Nosotros entendemos que el Congreso tiene
la autoridad, el poder, bajo la clausula territorial para
establecer los mecanismos adecuados para terminar con el
problema colonial de Puerto Rico.
Bajo la clausula territorial, puede el Congreso aprobar
cualquier legislacion que provea los mecanismos adecuados y que
le garanticen a los nacionales de Puerto Rico, excluyendo a los
extranjeros que residan aqui, para que solamente los
Puertorriquenos tenga el derecho a ejercer el derecho al voto.
Entre los nacionales tenemos a los hijos de los Puertorriquenos
que residen en territorio en Estados Unidos, a los
Puertorriquenos que no residan aqui pero que sean hijos de
padres Puertorriquenos.
Mr. Underwood. My question is, do you accept the fact that
the U.S. Congress can take away citizenship from Puerto Ricans?
And it would seem to me that if you do accept that, if you
do accept that there is congressional authority to do that,
then the people who should be allowed to vote would be the
people who would lose their citizenship, who would lose the
citizenship as a consequence of participation in the
plebiscite.
That would, in my estimation, would not include Puerto
Ricans on the mainland, because their citizenship would not be
affected. But if you were a Puerto Rican who lived here and who
had become a citizen through congressional action, then that
seems to me the clearest link to determining who should
actually participate in this election.
Mr. Rodriguez-Orellana. Y si me permite. . . [Applause] No
tengo la menor duda, senor Presidente, de que el Congreso de
los Estados Unidos, quien impuso la ciudadania estadounidense
en contra de la voluntad, en contra de la voluntad de los
puertorriquenos en 1917, tiene el perfecto poder en el 1997 de
eliminar la ciudadania estadounidense sobre el territorio de la
colonia de Puerto Rico. Eso es asi bajo el Estado Libre
Asociado. Bajo la independencia, no tenemos ningun empeno en
tener la ciudadania de Estados Unidos. Queremos la ciudadania
puertorriquena en la Republica de Puerto Rico.
Ahora bien. . . Ahora bien. . . En la. . . El planteamiento
suyo es, que como pueden ustedes quitar la ciudadania
estadounidense, podrian entonces ustedes quitarle la franquicia
tambien a los puertorriquenos para votar, en un proceso de
autodeterminacion, y me parece que eso es tergiversar el orden
logico de las cosas. La realidad aqui es, que la nacionalidad
puertorriquena precedio a la ciudadania. Por lo tanto es la
nacionalidad puertorriquena, los nacionales de Puerto Rico, los
que deben participar en una determinacion, independientemente
de donde vivan.
Y voy un paso mas lejos. Si ustedes deciden en el poder
omnimodo que tienen, quitarle la ciudadania estadounidense a
los puertorriquenos ahora, no se la quitan solamente a los que
estan residiendo aqui; se la quitan tambien a los que estan
residiendo alla, que hayan nacido aca. De manera que eso les
crea a ustedes un problema mucho peor que el que ustedes
quieren resolver.
Mr. Underwood. As I understand the discussion, Puerto Rican
nationality exists independently of congressional law. That
must be the basic assumption on the process of self-
determination. We are never going to resolve that through
congressional law.
What I think we resolve through congressional action is
what Congress can give and take away is what should be the
consequence of anything that is authorized by Congress. That
was the only basic point.
My own time is running out. Yes, sir?
Mr. Mari. Entendemoseque. . . Eh. . . Personalmente yo, no
tengo problema en eh. . . Si pierdo o no la ciudadania
Americana sino, pero sin embargo respondiendo a mucha gente en
Puerto Rico, que en realidad para ellos, es verdaderamente un
problema, nosotros no estamos de acuerdo con su eh. . .
Posicion en el sentido de que exista una eh. . . Un poder del
Congreso bajo la clausula territorial de revocar la ciudadania
de la manera que usted lo plantea.
Y esto, en realidad podriamos. . . Yo soy abogado, entrar
en un tratado legal porque es muchos casos que tocan el asunto,
y que ciertamente, no lo pone en los terminos tan sencillos
como usted lo esta planteando. Para mi, es un derecho personal
que tienen las. . . Que persona y si lo ha adquirido, existen
unas maneras de defenderlo.
Por ejemplo, cuando en Puerto Rico se impone, como dijo el
Presidente del Colegio de Abogados, la ciudadania Americana en
el 1917, fue a vis de unas invasiones posibles que existieran
para Puerto Rico y siendo ciudadanos Americanos pues existia ya
Estados Unidos con un. . . Es un derecho para defender a esos
ciudadanos. Posteriormente en el 1942 hubo una ley de este
propio Congreso, que establecio no solamente por legislacion,
que los puertorriquenos tenian derecho a la ciudadania, sino
que esa legislacion muy especificamente dice, que para todos
los efectos de ley, los puertorriquenos se reputaran nacidos en
Estados Unidos. O sea, ya cambia de una ciudadania obtenida por
medio de legislacion, a una obteni- una que se torna
constitucional.
Como le digo, eso es un debate bastante profundo. . . Me
esta tambien [Another voice] Que como hemos dicho antes, hay un
asunto politico que. . . Es mas importante que este juridico.
Mr. Rodriguez-Orellana. Y solamente permitame aclarar una
cosa de mi contestacion anterior. Me refiero al poder que tiene
el Congreso para quitarla prospectivamente. Retroactivamente,
ya eso es otro problema constitucional. Mi contestacion
anterior se referia a quitarla prospectivamente.
Mr. Underwood. Well, perhaps fortunately for all of us,
most of the members in the current Committee are not lawyers,
at this moment.
OK, thank you very much.
Mr. Kennedy. OK. I would like to have the fourth panel come
up: Kenneth McClintock-Hernandez, Angel Cintron-Garcia, Zoraida
Fonalledas, Etienne Totti del Valle, Ivar Pietri, and Hector
Reichard. Thank you.
I would like to have the Honorable Kenneth McClintock-
Hernandez begin for this panel.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH McCLINTOCK-HERNANDEZ, DESIGNEE FOR THE
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, SENATE OF PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN,
PUERTO RICO
Mr. McClintock-Hernandez. Thank you.
I will address you in English, the language several
Harvard, Yale, and Oxford antistatehood witnesses here today
have collectively chosen to forget for political grandstanding
purposes.
I first appeared before this Committee as a teenager to
oppose a bill endorsed by the Popular Democratic Party that
would have changed Puerto Rico's political status without a
vote from the people of Puerto Rico. Twenty-one years later,
after being elected twice to the Senate and having recently
been elected by fellow state legislators and Governors as vice
chairman of the Council of State Governments, I appear once
again to support the Young bill, which for the very first time
would provide a congressionally mandated opportunity to
determine Puerto Rico's political status.
During those 21 years, I have spent perhaps half of my time
and energy fighting for equality. The political indecision that
past congressional and local inaction has represented exacts a
terrible toll on our people. It divides our families, our
communities, and our body politic, and it imposes a huge
economic burden.
During 5 years in the Senate, I have been able to sample
the economic costs that the status quo imposes on our people,
many of which can't be adequately quantified, but that
certainly cost us billions of dollars every year and hundreds
of thousands of jobs. In many ways, we remain separate and
unequal. Plessy v. Ferguson still lives in Puerto Rico.
In the air transportation industry, for example, most
airlines treat us as ``international''--separate and unequal.
Considering that most fellow Americans prefer domestic travel--
``See America First''--over international travel, every time
American Airlines switches you to their ``international'' desk
when you attempt to book a flight to Puerto Rico, damage is
done to our tourism industry.
It gets worse: In spite of having your boarding pass and
having gone through the FAA-required security check, Delta
Airlines forces you to stand in line again to obtain an
``International Boarding Control Number.'' You certainly get
the impression you are on your way to a ``banana republic.'' In
the entertainment industry, Puerto Rico is also treated as a
foreign market--separate and unequal. The rights to American TV
programming are sold here under international syndication,
forcing cable TV systems to block out many broadcasts from the
mainland, including the Olympics and other sporting events,
pageants, and other programming, thus depriving American
citizens of timely, quality programming. While, thanks to
legislative pressure, movies no longer open months after
opening on the mainland, many still take weeks to arrive on the
island because, once again, we are separate and unequal. In
commerce, many multinational companies treat Puerto Rico as
part of their international, rather than domestic, operations--
once again, separate and unequal. May I show you the most
recent example. I am sure you haven't missed McDonald's
anniversary 55-cent national promotion, applicable from Bangor
to San Diego, from Key West to Anchorage. But it doesn't apply
in what, evidently, McDonald's considers the ``banana republic
of Puerto Rico,'' depriving our consumers of the savings
available to the rest of their fellow Americans stateside.
McDonald's is not alone. A few years ago, as we attempted
to resolve a constituent's problem, we had to deal with
Chrysler International--in London, England, of all places--
rather than Chrysler Corporation in Detroit. In the interest of
time, I will not go on and on with the many examples of
economic discrimination that political indecision and the
status quo foster. Our political status debate transcends
hamburgers, plane tickets, and TV programs, but the untold
examples demonstrate that the spirit of Plessy v. Ferguson--
separate and unequal--pervades every aspect of our lives and
imposes exacting tolls on society as a whole, depriving us of
the equal protection that American flag is supposed to provide.
The enactment of H.R. 856 provides the only real chance for an
end to the economic segregation of Puerto Rico and the hope
that some day we may be treated as equals, should that be the
choice of the American citizens residing in Puerto Rico, in
concert with Congress.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock-Hernandez
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.122
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Angel Cintron-Garcia.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANGEL M. CINTRON-GARCIA, DESIGNEE FOR THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN
JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Cintron-Garcia. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, and members
of the Committee on Resources of the U.S. House of
Representatives, my name is Angel Cintron-Garcia. It is my
privilege to continue serving the people of Puerto Rico in our
House of Representatives for a third term as an at-large
representative for the pro-statehood New Progressive Party. I
am currently chairman of the Committee on Federal and Financial
Affairs. Today I have the honor of testifying on behalf of the
House Speaker.
In 1995, I testified before a joint hearing of the
Subcommittee on Native and Insular Affairs regarding the
results of the plebiscite of political status held in 1993 here
in Puerto Rico. Back then, many local pundits spoke about the
lack of resolve on your part to finally address and bring to an
end the issue of Puerto Rico's self-determination. Nonetheless,
you proved them wrong again when you--and we are gratified--by
your renewed commitment to address this issue early on in this,
the 105th Congress.
As time maybe more on our side this time around, I think it
is extremely important to address all concerns that various
Members of Congress might have regarding the various aspects of
the bill, particularly the definitions contained within. That
way, we will make sure that this process is a successful one.
Therefore, in my case, I want to dwell on the concern brought
forth by some Members of Congress regarding the issue of
language in the case of statehood.
Concerns brought forth by some Members with regard to this
issue have been twisted and misconstrued by the opponents of
statehood. They argue that the true motive behind those
concerns is a deep bedded racism toward Hispanics and other
minorities within the United States, irrespective of whether
they are U.S. citizens or not. Instead, these narrow-minded
individuals here in Puerto Rico try to portray our Nation as
being culturally monolithic, rather than taking into
consideration the multicultural character of American society
and its long and venerable history that is widely recognized as
one of the United States' greatest strengths.
Nonetheless, I want to reassure those Members of Congress
that we share most, if not all, of their concerns, especially
our common quest for national cohesiveness between Puerto Rico
and the 50 States. That is why I feel that this issue goes even
further than just sharing a common language. It involves a
respect for a series of values, as put forth by our Founding
Fathers in the Constitution. Also, it entails a respect and
commitment for such valued institutions such as the U.S. Armed
Forces and others.
Still, in the last 4 years as chairman of the Select
Committee on Banking Affairs, I had the honor of sponsoring
important legislation that provides for further threads of
national reform that I spearheaded. As part of banking reform
that I spearheaded, we adopted the 1994 Riegle-Neal Act here in
our island, allowing for further interaction between local and
national banking institutions.
I also sponsored legislation amending our international
banking law, thus providing a very important tool for the
availability of funds for mainland and local companies
interested in financing their export of products and services
in regional trade.
In addition, I sponsored another important measure that
allowed for the adoption of the UCC, Uniform Commercial Code,
here in Puerto Rico, replacing our old mercantile act. This
provided for easier commercial relations between the
Government, companies in the mainland U.S., and Puerto Rico.
This term, as chairman of the Committee with jurisdiction
over banking, I intend to update all the additional banking
laws, including the creation of a currency exchange center here
in Puerto Rico.
Last year, as chairman of the Select Committee on
Telecommunications, I sponsored six measures which brought
about an overhaul of the telecommunications market in Puerto
Rico in accordance with all the recent FCC rulings. This year,
as chairman of the Committee with jurisdiction over this area,
we intend to update these laws in accordance with the FCC
rulings and relevant court decisions.
These measures provide a much needed and very useful common
ground with most Federal and State laws, facilitating
indefinite and commercial connection between mainland
businesses and local enterprise, obviously, going even further
in striving for the common goal of national cohesiveness than
just implementing a language provision in this bill. They
obviously exploit our island's competitive advantage due to its
location and its bilingual work force in order to maximize our
potential as a bridge between the Americas, as a gateway for
the United States and the rest of the hemisphere.
We can be an asset. We know that we can stand on our feet.
We have all confidences in our people. We only need the
opportunity to express our desire to be equal persons with the
other 50 States. As our Governor says, ``Lo mejor que esta por
venir.''
In conclusion, we deserve to have a bill signed by the
President of the United States later this year so that not
another year goes by without us having the opportunity to
finally achieve equality within the United States. One hundred
years is more than enough time for the United States to act
over an issue that affects the approximately 4 million U.S.
citizens in Puerto Rico. Please, make House Resolution 856 a
reality.
God bless Puerto Rico and our children. God bless America.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cintron-Garcia follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.126
Mr. Kennedy. Ms. Fonalledas.
STATEMENT OF ZORAIDA F. FONALLEDAS, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEEWOMAN, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Ms. Fonalledas. Chairman Young, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Miller,
Senor Barcelo, and distinguished Members of Congress, my name
is Zoraida Fonalledas. On behalf of the Republican Party of
Puerto Rico, bien venidos a nuestra isla, I welcome you to our
beautiful island and applaud the Committee's effort to provide
a process that will finally give our 3.7 million United States
citizens the right to freely determine their political status
and to resolve the century-old relationship with the United
States.
I am proud that our party platform and Presidents Nixon,
Ford, Reagan, and Bush have supported Puerto Rico statehood.
H.R. 856 will be the fulfillment of our party's commitment to
this goal.
Today I would like to make two points about H.R. 856: That
the status quo must end. Puerto Rico's current status, started
as an unincorporated territory subject to the Constitution
territorial clause, must be ended by establishing full self-
governing through either statehood or independence. For nearly
80 years we have been United States citizens, but we have no
voting powers for the President, who, as our Commander-in-
Chief, has sent over 200,000 of our youth into battle,
defending the Constitution which the court has determined is
not fully applicable to us. Congress continues to make laws
that affect our daily lives with no political accountability to
any of the island's residents. This is intolerable.
After 400 years of Spanish rule and a century of American
administration, we in Puerto Rico have earned our right to be
first class citizens. The bill provides a process by which that
goal may be achieved.
Second, America must admit Puerto Rico to the Union. The
United States can ill afford not to admit Puerto Rico to the
Union, as I hope it is in 1998.
I am not talking about monetary costs, since statehood has
never been a business decision. As my grandfather said,
President Rafael Martinez Nadad, statehood is not a question of
dollars and cents, but of a desire for liberty. ``La estadidad
no es una cuestion de pesos y centavos, es cuestion de
dignidad, de honor, de justicia y de el minimo anhelo de
libertad.''
Denial of Puerto Rico's statehood will undermine America's
credibility as the world leader in promoting liberty abroad and
our relation with the more than 3 million Hispanics in the
Western Hemisphere. And at home, political success in America
among the 27 million Hispanics, whose number will go up by the
year 2010, will go to those who seek to be inclusive of
America's largest minority.
What chances would exist for candidates in key States such
as California, Texas, Arizona, and Florida, where the Hispanic
vote is critical to victory, if Congress fails to recognize
Puerto Rico's right to statehood? The answer is self-evident.
Puerto Rico must be allowed in statehood its language and
culture.
Ronald Reagan put it best when he said, ``In statehood, the
language and culture of the island, rich in history and
tradition, would be respected, for in the United States the
cultures of the world live together with pride.'' The self-
determination process must be honest.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as you and Chairmen Burton,
Gallegly, and Gilman wrote in 1996 in response to the results
of the plebiscite, there is a need in Congress to define the
real options for change and the true legal and political nature
of the status quo, so that the people can know what the actual
choices will be in the future. This you have accomplished in
this bill. All the status options as defined in the bill are
capable of constitutional implementation.
The statehood definition is a good example. Puerto Rico
will know that statehood will mean first class United States
citizenship, a vote for President and Members of Congress,
guaranteed United States citizenship for, full funding of
Federal programs, and the continuation of both English and
Spanish as the official languages of Puerto Rico.
Thus, initiative to rewrite this definition must be
resisted, particularly efforts in Congress to really define
statehood--redefine the statehood definition by establishing
English as the official language or requiring English in Puerto
Rico as the official language must be viewed as an attempt to
compromise the self-determination process by forcing voters to
choose, regardless of constitutionality, between retaining
Spanish and voting for statehood.
The Constitution aside, we should recognize in this
shrinking world that building linguistic bridges will enrich
this Nation. In this respect, the bill wisely seeks to promote
understanding and use of English in Puerto Rico, a skill not
only necessary to participate fully in American society, but
equally important as a tool for commercial success.
In conclusion, I encourage the Committee to have this bill
passed by the full House as it now stands. Puerto Rico stands
as an anomaly to the rest of the free world: The most populous
colony, disenfranchized, administered by the foremost champion
of democracy and self-determination.
Puerto Rico has endured half a millenium of its colonial
rule. Puerto Rico must enter the new millenium in full control
of its destiny, as either a State or as an independent nation.
Passage of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act
will serve America and Puerto Rico well at home and abroad.
May God bless us all. And just a few words in Spanish.
Permitanme decirles estos. . . A estos miles de
republicanos y democratas estadistas, que esten conscientes de
estos puntos. Puerto Rico tiene que defender y asegurar su
ciudadania Americana, obtener el voto presidencial, obtener el
derecho a dos senadores y siete representantes en el Congreso
de los Estados Unidos y obtener iguales derechos en fondos
Federales que otros estados de la nacion Americana. Puerto Rico
tiene que defender su cultura y sus tradiciones y sus dos
idiomas, Espanol e Ingles. Queremos ser el proximo estado de la
union. Ahora, no de aqui a quinientos anos.
[Applause.]
El ideal de la estadidad de Barboza y Martinez Nadal vive
en nuestros corazones y vivira hasta que consigamos ser el
proximo estado de la union Americana.
Que Dios nos bendiga a todos y a toda esta juventud que
sera el futuro de nuestro Puerto Rico.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fonalledas follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.138
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have Etienne Totti del Valle.
STATEMENT OF ETIENNE TOTTI DEL VALLE, ESQUIRE, SAN JUAN, PUERTO
RICO
Mr. Totti del Valle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know you must be tired, and I appreciate your patience.
If you are tired after several hours of this, imagine how the
people of Puerto Rico feel after centuries of the same old
debate.
I earnestly hope what I have to say will do honor to the
generations as proud as I am of our heritage and loyalty to the
principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, who
have passed from this life with the unanswered hope of leaving
a legacy of true democracy and equality for the future
generations of our beloved boriquen.
Let us consider some objective facts. In 1917, the Jones
Act granted U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans. The logical and
natural expectation that this would lead to incorporation of
the island into the United States and therefore to statehood
was soon derailed by the U.S. decision in the Supreme Court of
People v. Balzac, which branded Puerto Rico as an
unincorporated territory.
This is my passport. It is no different from the passport
of millions of fellow citizens that reside in the 50 States.
Our citizenship is unqualified. In this regard, I respectfully
urge the Committee to reconsider the drafting of Finding 2 in
Section 2 of H.R. 856, specifically where it states that
Congress extended--and I quote--special statutory U.S.
citizenship to persons born in Puerto Rico.
The Jones act made no reference to special citizenship.
Three generations of Puerto Ricans in my family have proudly
served in the Armed Forces of our Nation. Just as our passports
are no different, our uniforms are no different. We have no
labels allusive to special statutory citizenship.
We are indeed special in many ways, but from the standpoint
of citizenship, we Puerto Ricans are as strong as the strongest
link that bonds the proud people of the United States of
America.
Labeling our citizenship as special can foster
misunderstanding. Those of us born in Puerto Rico after the 2nd
of March, 1917, were born citizens of our great and glorious
Nation. Puerto Rican Americans have died in the stars and
stripes uniform since before you were born.
Nearly 4 million citizens live in Puerto Rico. The number
of Puerto Ricans living in the mainland has been estimated at
2.5 million. The population of the United States at last count
did not reach 300 million.
It is a fact that more than 1 out of every 50 U.S. citizens
alive today is Puerto Rican. More than 1 out of every 80
Americans lives in Puerto Rico. It is time, once and for all,
to debunk the myth that Puerto Ricans are, objectively
speaking, anything other than U.S. citizens.
Subjective identity is another matter. No single subjective
identity, whether based on ethnicity, culture, religion, or
origin, is incompatible with U.S. citizenship.
As a former chief justice of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court,
Emilio del Toro in 1911 wrote: The United States of America was
founded upon such stable principles as would permit the
conglom-
eration under its flag of all the people of the earth,
regardless of their language, their beliefs, their customs, if
they coincide on the fundamental idea of respect for human
rights and on the guarantee of man's progress toward goodness.
The freedom that our Nation stands for in the eyes of the
entire world guarantees my right to be different from you and
your right to be different from each of your colleagues,
provided we all come together on a small but very basic set of
principles and ideals. The major and most transcendental of
these principles is equality. So sacred is the tenet of
equality that our Founding Fathers began the Declaration of
Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident that all
men are created equal.
The present political status of Puerto Rico provides
inequality with our fellow U.S. citizens. Residents of Puerto
Rico are unequal because our political system, based almost
exclusively on status preference, has the practical effect of
preventing the free and intelligent exercise of our right to
vote. We vote, hostages of the emotion that permeates status
politics. This prevents us from selecting among candidates
based on rational analysis.
Status politics is a plague that pits one Puerto Rican
against another, rendering us pawns in a never ending game that
most politicians play. Mainland Americans are free to exercise
their right to vote in a political election without regard or
concern for status. Therein lies the first measure of our
inequality, one that we owe, in part, to the timid aloofness of
one Congress after another.
If only we had the Young bill back in 1917 or 1950, we
would have been rid of the playing of the status politics which
fosters divisiveness. But we have remained unequal throughout
the century.
As a constituency of Americans, we are underrepresented.
Our congressional representation, though not lacking in
quality, is sorely lacking in quantity. The residents of Puerto
Rico are recognizing that we lack the power that is essential
to representative democracy.
For all proclamations made during five decades about Puerto
Rico as a showcase of democracy, the honest to goodness truth
is that the United States cannot preach democracy to the world
when it has nearly 4 million citizens disenfranchised right
here in the Western Hemisphere for all the world to see.
Why is there an exercise of public power over our borders,
our forests, airports, communications, environment, water, and
postal service, defense, food and drugs, minimum wages, banking
laws, immigration and taxes, by a legislature in which we lack
total representation, but by government isolation to
legislation, we do not participate.
Put yourself in our position, if you will. There is so much
that you take for granted that is lacking in our political
system. The power will only reside with people when people have
a right to vote for leaders that shape our Nation and guide its
course through history.
As Americans, we want our rightful political power. We
cannot hold the leaders of our Nation accountable; therein,
another measure of our inequality.
Consider: The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Harris
v. Rosario, which is the highest court of our Nation, decided
an Amer-
ican citizen living in Puerto Rico could be treated differently
from citizens residing in States. There was a rational basis
for such a disparate treatment.
The Young bill offers more than a glimmer of hope for
Puerto Rico. It offers the first opportunity in over 500 years
for Puerto Rico to obtain full sovereignty. It offers the
promise obtain to achieve full self government. It offers the
promise of redemption from status politics, allowing the
realignment of orders on the basis of philosophy instead of
tribal colors. This piece of legislation progressively seeks to
break with the past for this and future generations of
Americans living here. The stability that a final status
determination will provide shall help the climate for
investment in Puerto Rico.
Finally, and most importantly, the Young bill bears the
promise of political empowerment for people who will cherish it
and exercise it as full participants in all our national
concerns. I say this mindful of the fact that the people of
Puerto Rico will have a clear and fair opportunity to express a
reference for separate nationhood.
Whatever the choice, if Congress follows up by enacting
appropriate legislation, Puerto Ricans will united with dignity
and political rights in a true democracy. The aspirations and
dreams of those who espouse the ideal of a separate republic
should have our utmost respect.
We have a great responsibility at this historical juncture.
It is imperative that Congress, first, and then the people of
Puerto Rico, act with transparent clarity and resolute
firmness. I believe from the very depths of my soul that the
people of Puerto Rico could never enjoy a greater independence
than that available to them, together as one with the other
States of the Union.
I respectfully urge you and your fellow Representatives to
hold steadfastly to your equitable, moral, and constitutional
duties to Puerto Ricans. In order for this long overdue
initiative to be successful, any legislation enacted must
provide clear choices to Puerto Rico's voters. I believe the
Young bill, as drafted, meets that standard. Next, the choices
provided must be realistic lest this titanic effort become
another exercise in futility.
And finally, as an American, I urge you to view and to
support this bill as a means for dignification of American
citizenship. In order to form a more perfect Union, our
citizenship cannot be viewed nor treated as a commodity to be
bartered with. American citizenship is not a passport of
convenience to be brandished solely for the sake of the doors
that it may unlock and the opportunities that it may offer. Our
citizenship entails obligations and loyalties that Puerto
Ricans have shown time and again.
Our citizenship entails obligations and loyalties that
Puerto Ricans have shown time and again they are willing to
assume even at the highest personal cost. The dignification of
American citizenship, in our view, requires an unquestioned
allegiance to one nation that thrives on freedom and diversity,
from Rhode Island to California, from Alaska to Puerto Rico,
but loyalty to one republic; allegiance that is true to the
concept of e pluribus unum.
As Americans, we would do well to ask ourselves what
rational basis can exist to request a legacy of citizenship to
future generations while seeking to remain forever unequal. The
world will watch closely. Democracy beckons and a government of
the people, by the people, and for the people must ultimately
result from this initiative. Give the people of Puerto Rico the
chance to make a clear choice, to come to grips with their
destiny, to allow this daughter of the sea to become one with
the land of the free.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Totti del Valle follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.146
Mr. Kennedy. [Presiding] Mr. Pietri.
STATEMENT OF IVAR PIETRI, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Pietri. Good afternoon, Chairman Young, Ranking Member
Miller, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Underwood and Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
My name is Ivar Pietri. I appear before you as a private
citizen that has, for 25 years, been a close analyst of the
economy of Puerto Rico. For 15 years, I have served as an
investment banker based in San Juan with a major international
firm; and I helped raise over $20 billion in bond issues for
borrowers in Puerto Rico. I am here to share with the Committee
my insights into the economy of Puerto Rico as it relates to
the political status issue. I am submitting for the record a
more detailed presentation with economic charts.
I want to preface my comments by stating for the record
that I am proud to be a U.S. citizen and that I believe that
the United States of America, our country, is the greatest in
the history of mankind. I want to ensure that U.S. citizenship
for myself and for my four children. I want full rights as a
citizen, and I am most willing to assume all the
responsibilities, and I believe firmly that the only way to
attain that goal is for Puerto Rico to be admitted as the 51st
State.
Mr. Chairman, Puerto Rico is not and has never been an
economic miracle. The economy of Puerto Rico has completely
stagnated for 25 years. For decades, the local administrations,
led by commonwealth advocates, purposely and irresponsibly
pursued a one-dimensional development strategy, neglecting
other initiatives and policies in order to foster dependency on
Section 936 to sustain their political goals.
As we know, there are many conflicting views about the
economic impact of statehood. Section and U.S. taxes have been
the center of the economic arguments against statehood. There
have been several studies that supposedly analyze the economic
viability of statehood for Puerto Rico. However, they all share
the same critical flaw: They are a static analysis that
superimpose the U.S. tax system on our economy, remove Section
936, and then assume that nothing else changes. Well, that is
not statehood; that is commonwealth with U.S. taxes and without
936. And, obviously, that would be negative.
These studies completely ignore the most important benefits
of statehood: full integration to a U.S. economy, political
power, credibility, permanence and the broad comprehension
around the world of what it is. The benefits of statehood are
definitely tangible, and they are concrete, and they will have
an extremely positive impact.
Historically, territories have had a lower economic level
than the States. Upon admission into the Union, full
integration to a U.S. economy, they experience accelerated
growth that allow them to converge with the national economy.
Mr. Chairman, statehood is a precondition to Puerto Rico's
economic growth not vice versa.
The opponents of statehood have used the notion that
predevelopment must come before Puerto Rico is ready for
statehood to distort the historical fact that statehood leads
to economic growth, and we have 50 examples of that. It is easy
to use faulty analysis to pretend you can prove statehood would
ruin our economy and would be more costly to the U.S. than the
other options.
To believe some faulty logic defies logic and turns a blind
eye to certain key facts. Why have the other 50 States been so
successful, especially Alaska and Hawaii, the most recent
States? And why can Puerto Rico not enjoy such success as part
of the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth? After all,
let us not forget that at the turn of the century the U.S. had
five great offshore territories. Alaska and Hawaii became
States, and they have prospered. Cuba and the Philippines chose
independence, and we all know how much they have prospered.
Puerto Rico is still a territory, and it has marched along
this entire century showing potential that will never be
fulfilled until we become a State. To believe we cannot achieve
more progress as a full partner in the Nation is to have a very
cynical view of what it means to be a part of this great
Nation, and it also takes a very dim view of our capabilities
as Puerto Ricans to compete in the global economy and to
contribute to our Nation.
This is the same view that held that the people of Puerto
Rico are welfare basket cases and will all migrate to the
mainland to go on welfare if the Congress made changes to
Section 936. Have we not all heard that before? The enemies of
statehood put our own people down to confuse us, to confuse the
Congress and to confuse the Nation about the potential of
Puerto Rico as a State. And I will say unequivocally to this
Committee that if the people of Puerto Rico were welfare
hounds, we would have moved to the mainland a long time ago.
Those of us that moved in the past did so in search of
opportunity, not welfare.
Mr. Chairman, the people of Puerto Rico are industrious,
hard working and devoted to family. Those that rely on welfare
do so only because the present political status has not
provided them with the opportunities they aspire to. Puerto
Rico has many competitive advantages and only as a State can
the potential of these advantages be maximized. As a State, we
can truly become the economic crossroads of the Americas.
Before I close, I would like to urge the Committee not to
listen to the siren calls of those who insist on a level
playing field between alternative forms of status. The playing
field can never be level. Each status alternative is inherently
different.
What the advocates of the level playing field want is to
confuse the people of Puerto Rico into believing that the
benefits of statehood are available under other forms of
status. Mr. Chairman, as we all know, that is not the case.
There is no substitute for statehood.
The opponents of statehood have used the level playing
field concept to confuse our people. To have the benefits of
statehood without the responsibilities would not only be unfair
to all the other citizens of the Nation but, in some aspects,
may well be unconstitutional.
No matter how many of those benefits Congress would concede
them, however, no one could ever provide them with the most
important ones of all: full integration into the U.S. economy,
stability, permanence, dignity and the political power of
statehood.
I urge the Committee not to accept definition changes to
status alternatives that could lead to recreating the fiasco of
the 1993 plebiscite. I strongly urge Congress to pass H.R. 856.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pietri follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.159
Mr. Kennedy. Hector Reichard.
STATEMENT OF HECTOR REICHARD, ESQUIRE, PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICO
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Reichard. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, greetings to each and
every one of you; and I really thank you for caring for Puerto
Rico. You could be elsewhere, but you are here doing your good
work.
My name is Hector Reichard. I am the President of the
Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce. Our organization is truly a
cross-section of our economy for it groups together 1,600
individual members and, additionally, 60 organizations, which
are like an umbrella organization, which brings together the
bankers' association, the hospital associations, wholesalers,
broadcasters, et cetera.
The presentation I have here for you today, which is a
summary you have already in your files, reflects the positions
assumed by our assembly of delegates since 1985 through 1996,
also ratified by our executive Committee just recently. The
Chamber has no selection as to status. We present to you here
an economic analysis of what we think is important.
The worst thing that can face us is uncertainty. Certainly
we wish to end that.
Our position revolves around two main concerns: first, that
the plebiscite process should be fair and well-informed for the
people to make an enlightened decision; second, if the Puerto
Rican people choose to change the present status, an orderly
and well-defined transition has to be clearly stated.
The plebiscite process should be dealt with on its own
merits. It should not be mixed with the normal electoral
process. I think you had a flavor of what it can be here today.
Before Puerto Ricans are asked to mark their status
preference on the plebiscite ballot, it is necessary to clearly
spell out the cultural, political and socioeconomic consequence
of each alternative. The information transmitted to the people
should be based upon accurate and unbiased data.
We are deeply concerned about the consistency of the data
that Federal agencies have produced in the past with respect to
the cost and benefits of each status alternative. Therefore, we
value the resources of our institution to help in obtaining
additional information about the socioeconomic consequences of
each status alternative to supplement what has already been
produced in order to allow the people to make a really informed
decision.
The legislation that your Committee develops should
delineate each step and action in the process for participating
institutions and, more importantly, the responsibility and role
of each participant at each step. Our institution believes that
the private sector must have a role and, consequently, a
responsibility in this important undertaking. We think our
parties should welcome the private sector's contribution in
this process. You should further encourage participation of
Puerto Rican institutions to complement the contributions from
the political parties.
For the people to make an informed decision, the following
issues, we believe, must be clearly addressed before the
plebiscite:
First, the transition period contemplated for each
political status should be very clearly spelled out.
Second, the situation of the present U.S. citizenship of
the Puerto Rican people under each status alternative should be
addressed.
Third, the Federal tax treatment of U.S. corporations doing
business in Puerto Rico under each status formula, including
the period of time for which the corresponding tax treatment is
guaranteed.
Fourth, the Federal tax treatment to residents and local
businesses in Puerto Rico under each status, as well as during
the different stages of the transition period.
Fifth, Puerto Rico's access to the United States commercial
and financial markets under each status formula, including its
position with respect to present and future trade agreements
that the United States engages in with foreign countries.
Sixth, conditions and restrictions to Puerto Rico's access
to foreign commercial and financial markets under each formula,
as well as a market penetration of foreign goods into our
market.
Seventh, adjustments to be made, if any, to Puerto Rico's
long-term public debt under each status, as well as
constraints, if any, to the issuance of additional public debt
during each transition period.
Eighth, amount and term of U.S. transfer of payments to
Puerto Rico under each status alternative. Particular attention
should be paid to what is going to happen to contributions
Puerto Rico makes to earmarked funds, such as social security,
Medicare, unemployment and the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, among others.
Ninth, the conditions for travel and migration into Puerto
Rico by the United States under each status alternative. This
is a most crucial thing, since almost all families have close
relatives in the United States.
It should become apparent that, for whatever reason, if
these basic concerns could not be met, then a condition as to
the timing of the plebiscite should be made.
The Chamber of Commerce realizes that some of the key
factors that have contributed to our common development are
subject to change as circumstances vary over time. We are also
aware that the drastic change over a short period of time could
prove to be changes that occur at a rate faster than the
ability of our economy to adjust. Whatever alternative is
democratically chosen by the people of Puerto Rico would
probably result in economic adjustments and could entail
sacrifices on our part.
Private enterprise is ready to shoulder its responsibility.
However, even in times of budgetary constraint, Congress should
be sensitive to our needs and economic realities. For example,
I think Congress should focus on revised section 30(a), which
former Governor Romero-Barcelo and Governor Rossello are
looking into right now, as a means to strengthen the Puerto
Rican economy.
Socioeconomic development can only be achieved through a
long-term process. With God's help, with your help and a great
deal of work on our part, we are confident that we can achieve
our mutual goal of human progress for the people of Puerto
Rico, who, lest we forget, are proud citizens of the United
States.
Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Pietri, before I ask my questions,
I want to congratulate all six of you for your testimony. It
has all been excellent testimony, and I think we have cleared a
lot of issues that have been raised here today.
I want to ask Mr. Pietri, in your analysis of what
statehood would mean to the economy in Puerto Rico, have you
looked into what has happened to the per capita income of
Puerto Rico during the past couple of decades and comparing it
to the per capita income of the States of the Union? Have you
looked at that in your studies?
Mr. Pietri. Yes, Congressman.
We heard earlier this morning testimony comparing Puerto
Rico's per capita income as the highest in Latin America, and
that has been the kind of comparison that is generally done
when Puerto Rico is touted as an economic miracle. They hail it
as the highest south of the Rio Grande.
As an American, I hold that the comparison should be to
that of the 50 States, not to Latin America. We are part of the
United States. We are U.S. citizens. We should compare
ourselves to the rest of the Nation. And when you do that, our
per capita income presently is less than one-third that of the
national average, less than half of the lowest state.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And that is Mississippi?
Mr. Pietri. Mississippi. Not only that, but that gap has
not been reduced since the early 1970's.
For a period of time, Puerto Rico did close the gap, during
the 1950's and 1960's, relatively slowly. But since the early
1970's it stopped closing, and it has not closed since. And,
actually, in the 1990's, it has begun opening back up.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Do you remember what the per capita
income of Puerto Rico is compared to that of the State with the
lowest per capita income--Mississippi? Do you remember the
percentage?
Mr. Pietri. It is about 47 or 48 percent. I do not recall
precisely at this particular moment, but it is in the 40's--
high 40's.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. For the record also, in 1970 it used to
be 52 percent that of Mississippi.
Mr. Pietri. That is right.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And now we are one-third of that of the
Nation.
Mr. Pietri. That is right.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And in 1995-1996 it was down to 44
percent of that of Mississippi and less than one-third of that
of the Nation. So instead of closing, that gap it has widened.
Whereas the difference used to be only $1,300 in 1970 between
the per capita income of Puerto Rico and that of Mississippi,
it is now over $9,000; and the $9,000 is more than half of the
whole per capita income of Mississippi.
Mr. Pietri. Another key point regarding economic growth is
that, basically, for several decades Puerto Rico has been
growing at a pace that is similar to that of the rest of the
Nation. Sometimes in the period of expansion we outgrow the
Nation by a few tenths of a percentage point. In recessions,
several of them have been stronger here. We have felt the
effect more. Particularly when high interest rates combine with
high petroleum prices, the recession is deeper always here in
Puerto Rico.
But the problem is that, when we have a third of the
national average in per capita income, we just cannot afford to
grow at the same pace as the Nation. We have to outpace it. We
have to try to achieve a growth rate that is at least twice,
possibly three times that of the Nation in order to close the
gap.
If we want to close the gap in less than 30 years, we have
to grow at almost three times the pace of the rest of the
Nation.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. This morning there was also testimony
as to what statehood would mean, and they tried to indicate
that we would have a loss of jobs. The Federal agencies in
Puerto Rico have the same number, approximate proportion of
number of employees as they have in the States of the Union; do
you know that?
Mr. Pietri. Absolutely not. The Federal expenditure per
capita for procurement contracts, for whatever, all the other
different categories, are a fraction in Puerto Rico of what
they are in States per capita--any State.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And the Federal payroll in Puerto Rico,
on a per capita basis, is that as high as it is on the
mainland?
Mr. Pietri. Absolutely not. It is a very small percentage
as compared to the rest of the States.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. We have very few employees here in
health care.
Mr. Pietri. Hardly any.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And even in the post office we are
undermanned, is that not correct?
Mr. Pietri. Yes, sir.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And in a lot of the other agencies we
have much less employees on a per capita basis than States with
a similar population. So there will be a lot more Federal jobs
in Puerto Rico as far as that is concerned.
Mr. Pietri. Yes. But Federal jobs really would be a minor
portion of the jobs created. I think the massive amount of jobs
that will be created will come from that certainty, because
Puerto Rico has many competitive advantages.
Just a brief list of the competitive advantages: strategic
geographic location, a democratic tradition. We are part of the
U.S. flag, a dollar-based economy, an infrastructure that,
while it may need improvement, is sound. We have world-class
communications and transportation. We have a bilingual and
bicultural business environment. We have, most important of
all, a large, loyal, trainable and highly productive labor
force.
Those are tremendous competitive advantages. But to make
the most of them we need the certainty, we need the political
power of statehood and its full integration into the national
economy.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Why do you need the certainty?
Mr. Pietri. Because whenever anybody makes an investment,
that is the first item to be valued even before the return.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. The only certainty here is that I
will no longer be able to serve as chairman unless I limit your
time.
Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. No questions.
Mr. Kennedy. For my sake, I want to say how much I
appreciated all of your testimony and the clarity of the
testimony, especially with respect to the fact that currently,
under the commonwealth status, Puerto Ricans are
disenfranchised from their rights to elect seven more members--
six or seven Members of Congress. And at least with all the
decisions that are being made in the Congress, you could carry
some real political weight; and the people would understand
that in the future, I hope after Puerto Rico chooses statehood,
which I expect they will, that the next hearings like this they
will be done by a chairperson who has voting rights on the
Committee and who will have seniority because they will have
been able to have the same seniority rights as I currently have
as a member of my State representing Rhode Island and all the
other of my colleagues have in the U.S. Congress.
I have to now turn the gavel back over to Chairman Young,
and I thank you all. Buenos dias.
Mr. Young. [Presiding.] I want to thank the panel; and I
have some questions that I will submit to you for the record.
Because I do not think it is fair to continue when, as I said,
we would adjourn at a certain time.
A lot was said today in all this period of time with
different witnesses; but on any side of the aisle, those that
have presented some ideas and some suggestions and can really
help us make our decisions, I deeply appreciate that.
I am deeply interested in this, because I do believe that
if we do not act in Congress, Puerto Rico has some serious,
serious problems 20 years down the road, and the Congress would
have to do things that I do not think would be appropriate.
This is the time to act, to give you the right to take whatever
direction you want to take. To me, that is the crux of all this
hearing process.
I happen to believe that you can go forth and your economy
can grow. As you mention, Ivar, the advantages you have are
awesome. I know in Alaska, when we went from a territory to a
State, we did grow. Regardless of the oil, we did grow. We went
further and passed some laws to retain our fishing rights, for
instance; and that occurred, and we have become very
successful. So it can be done.
Before I excuse you, I want to tell you that these hearings
do not take place accidentally. There is an awful lot of work
that goes into a hearing.
We have, of course, Manase Mansur. He has been with us for
a long time. Steve Hansen. Chris Kennedy has been through this
and helped set up the legwork, along with Cherie Sexton, Jeff
Petrich and Marie Howard. These are the people that make this
operation work.
And, of course, the Capitol Police and those with us,
escorting us to make sure this works, the Puerto Rican police
force itself and those that have made it possible.
And to the audience, though it appears sometimes I get a
little apprehensive and a little bit less than understanding, I
do it because it is a thing I cherish. When I run my Committee
I try to give the witnesses as much time as possible to make
their testi-
mony and to have the Congressmen to ask questions to gain
knowledge.
So I would again thank the people of Puerto Rico and San
Juan for their courtesy and kindness. We will go to Mayaguez on
Monday and continue this hearing process. And before I finish
up, Mr. Miller has to say something, too.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I just want to join you and your
remarks in thanking the staff and all those people who helped
make this hearing today possible and Carlos for the invitation
and to all the panelists and the panelists before us right now
for their contribution.
The goal of coming here was to make sure that we would be
able to establish a fair and open process to put a conclusion
to this long-running debate; and I think that this hearing
today has been very, very helpful in that process; and I want
to thank you also for bringing the Committee here.
Mr. Young. Thank you. Again, I want to thank everybody; and
this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and the
following was submitted for the record:]
------
Due to the costs of printing, additional testimony received for the
record will be kept in Committee files.
Hon. Pedro Rossello, Governor of Puerto Rico
Hon. Sila M. Calderon, Mayor of the city of San Juan
Hon. Ramon Luis Rivera, Mayor of the city of Bayamon
Associated Republic
Hector O'Neill, President, Federation of Municipalities of
Puerto Rico
Enrique Vazquez-Quintana, M.D., Party for Free Associated
Nation
Arturo J. Guzman, Chairman, I.D.E.A. of Puerto Rico
Dr. Luis Nieves Falcon, Coordinator, and Jan Susler,
Attorney at Law
Fermin L. Arraiza Navas and Fermin B. Arraiza Miranda
Eduardo Gonzalez
Juan G. Muriel Figueras
Jose Garriga Pico
Efrain Hernandez-Arana
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3194.239