<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:43229.wais]
UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 856--United States-Puerto Rico's Political Status Act
__________
MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO, APRIL 21, 1997
__________
Serial No. 105-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-229 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 21, 1997...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 6
Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, a Resident Commissioner in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.............. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of Guam.......................................... 6
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska; and Chairman, Committee on Resources............ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Closing remarks of....................................... 284
Statement of Witnesses:
Alzamora, Hon. Antonio J. Fas, Minority Leader of the Senate-
Popular Democratic Party, Senate of Puerto Rico, San Juan,
Puerto Rico................................................ 93
Prepared statement of.................................... 96
Aponte, Hon. Nestor S., Representative, Puerto Rico House of
Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico..................... 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Borges, Hector Quijano, Association of Statehood Attorneys,
San Juan, Puerto Rico...................................... 223
Prepared statement of.................................... 226
Calderon, Hon. Sila M., Mayor, San Juan, Puerto Rico......... 271
Colberg-Toro, Hon. Severo E., Representative, Puerto Rico
House of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico............ 109
Prepared statement of.................................... 115
Fernos-Lopez, Gonzalo, San Juan, Puerto Rico................. 238
Prepared statement of.................................... 241
Ferrer, Dr. Miriam J. Ramirez de, MD, President, Puerto
Ricans in Civic Action, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.............. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Font, Hon. Jorge de Castro, Representative, Puerto Rico House
of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico.................. 101
Prepared statement of.................................... 103
Gallisa, Carlos, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico....................... 153
Prepared statement of.................................... 156
Gerena, Hon. Julio Cesar Lopez, Mayor of Huacao, Humacao,
Puerto Rico................................................ 233
Prepared statement of.................................... 235
Gonzalez, Hon. Ferdinand Lugo, Representative, Puerto Rico
House of Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico............ 183
Prepared statement of.................................... 185
Guzman, Mr. Arturo J., Chairman, I.D.E.A. of Puerto Rico,
Inc., San Juan, Puerto Rico................................ 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 255
Hernandez-Arana, Efrain, Lehigh Acres, Florida, prepared
statement of............................................... 280
Inocencio, Hon. Victor Garcia San, House Minority Leader,
Puerto Rican Independence Party, Puerto Rico House of
Representatives, San Juan, Puerto Rico..................... 167
Jarabo, Hon. Rony, Former Speaker of the Puerto Rico House of
Representatives, Popular Democratic Party, San Juan, Puerto
Rico....................................................... 111
Lebron, Lolita, President, National Party of Puerto Rico, San
Juan, Puerto Rico.......................................... 143
Prepared statement of.................................... 147
Lopez-Rivera, Hon. Carlos A., President, Mayors Association
of Puerto Rico, Dorado, Puerto Rico........................ 190
Marquez, Joaquin A., Esq., Springfield, Commonwealth of
Virginia................................................... 210
Prepared statement of.................................... 213
McConnie, Julian O., Jr., Attorney at Law, Rio Piedras,
Puerto Rico................................................ 198
Prepared statement of.................................... 201
Morales, Edgardo, Professor of Organizational Psychology,
University of Puerto Rico, Caguas, Puerto Rico............. 159
Prepared statement of.................................... 162
Negron-Rivera, Erick G., Tax Policy Advisor, Puerto Rico
Independence Party, Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico.............. 177
Prepared statement of.................................... 179
Ortiz-Guzman, Angel J., Guaynabo, Puerto Rico................ 253
Perez, Julio A. Muriente, President, Puerto Rico New Movement
Independent Party, San Juan, Puerto Rico................... 123
Prepared statement of.................................... 126
Ramos, Luis Vega, President, PROELA, San Juan, Puerto Rico... 220
Ramos, Oreste,............................................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Rivera, Ramon Luis, Mayor, Bayamon, prepared statement of.... 278
Robles, Ms. Belen B., National President, League of United
Latin American Citizens, El Paso, Texas.................... 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 67
Rodriguez, Hon. Jose Guillermo, Mayor of Mayaguez, Mayaguez,
Puerto Rico................................................ 77
Prepared statement of.................................... 79
Rossello, Governor Pedro, Puerto Rico, prepared statement of. 269
Ubinas, Roberto Cardona, President, Union Patriotic National,
Aguadilla, Puerto Rico..................................... 132
Prepared statement of.................................... 135
Velasco, Ramon L., Association of Pro-Commonwealth Attorneys,
Bayamon, Puerto Rico....................................... 221
Velgara, Frank, Co-Coordinator, Pro-Liberated, New York, New
York....................................................... 142
UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICO POLITICAL STATUS ACT
----------
MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Mayaguez, PR.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. at
University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico,
Hon. Don Young (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
ALASKA; AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
Mr. young. The Committee will come to order.
It is a pleasure to be here holding this third hearing of
the 105th Congress on the United States-Puerto Rico's Political
Status Act, H.R. 856, in the well-known city of Mayaguez,
Puerto Rico. All the testimony we will hear today in Mayaguez
will be important and considered equal with the statements
received by the Committee in the early hearings of San Juan in
Washington, D.C.
The Puerto Rican legislature enacted a valid request on
January 23rd, 1997, House Concurrent Resolution 2, asking the
Congress to authorize a vote on Puerto Rico's political status
before the end of next year. This bill will answer that request
by permitting the nearly 4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico
to exercise the right of self-determination by choosing a
federally authorized vote, to be held no later than the end of
1998, to continue the commonwealth structure of local self-
government, separate sovereignty or statehood.
Not only would such a congressional sanctioned political
status referendum next year be an unprecedented event in Puerto
Rico, but it would likely occur before the centennial of the
signing of the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish-
American War, and the subsequent transfer of sovereignty over
Puerto Rico to the United States. It will be in the best
interest of the United States to provide an adequately timed
transition to the political status form of full self-government
preferred by the full majority of the people of Puerto Rico.
The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act has
three stages, I want to stress that, three stages, to permit
the change to full self-government in a manageable and
practical way:
First, the initial decision vote in 1998, followed by a
transition period and final implementation. This multi-stage
approach per-
mits a smooth transition to address economic, fiscal, legal and
political concerns.
Although the bill's approach may seem to add additional
years to the decolonization process, it represents a relatively
small number of years compared to the five centuries under
Spanish and then American rule. Puerto Rico certainly has
waited a long time for the United States to provide the people
of Puerto Rico the most cherished right in our democracy. In
every respect the people of Puerto Rico are every bit as ready
as the people of other States were to exercise that right when
their time has come. It is now.
It is in the national interest, and in the best interest of
preserving and strengthening our democracy, for the United
States to move promptly to adopt the United States-Puerto Rico
Political Status Act. The people of Puerto Rico will then be
able to exercise their right of self-determination and decide
in 1998 whether they want to continue the commonwealth
structure for local constitutional self-government, separate
sovereignty or statehood.
Puerto Rico's political status referendum will be an
incredibly historic event of epic proportions befitting the
sacrifice, loyalty, and patience of the inhabitants of Puerto
Rico, who have waited 100 years for Congress to finally provide
for full civil and political rights as charged in the 1898
Treaty of Paris.
The witnesses' views and suggestions today will help the
Committee and the Congress to meet that obligation and take the
appropriate necessary action to enable the people of Puerto
Rico to resolve their political status.
The gentleman from California.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.003
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am delighted to
be here this morning for a continuation of our hearings in
Puerto Rico. I will say what I have publicly said before. I
think these are terribly important hearings, because I do
believe, in fact, there is a very good chance this legislation
authorizing the plebiscite will pass in this Congress. And if
it does, we will be telling the people of Puerto Rico that we
are now prepared to honor their decision.
If that is in fact the direction that we seek to go in the
Congress of the United States, then it is very important that
we fully understand the implications of that decision; that the
American people fully understand the implications of that
decision and that the Puerto Rican people fully understand
that. That can only be done by our gathering the best evidence
we can so that we can discuss it with our colleagues in the
United States, in the Congress, so that they can make an
informed judgment.
I look forward very much to the witnesses we will be
receiving testimony from this morning and this afternoon. Thank
you very much. And I want to thank our colleague, Carlos
Romero-Barcelo, for the invitation to come to Puerto Rico to
receive the testimony of his constituents.
Mr. young. The Gentleman from Guam.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A U.S. DELEGATE FROM
THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to echo
my words of support for the process that you have led. It is
quite clear that the process you have led has now at least
gathered the interest and the support of all parties in terms
of coming to a final conclusion.
The hearing process allows all the people of Puerto Rico
and various points of view to be articulated and also gives
certainly the members of the Committee to address issues that
need to be addressed, including the definitions and the time
line.
Again, I want to commend you for your leadership on this
issue and also to again relay my gratitude to the Resident
Commissioner for his graciousness and hospitality during our
stay here.
Mr. young. I thank the gentleman from Guam.
It is now my pleasure to introduce the Resident
Commissioner, a good friend, who has worked on this project for
the many years I have been chairman and the ranking member,
Carlos Romero-Barcelo
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, RESIDENT
COMMISSIONER FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I want to
begin my remarks by welcoming all the Committee members to the
beautiful Mayaguez campus of the University of Puerto Rico. As
an added factor that is perhaps not known by everyone, the
Mayaguez campus is well-known throughout the NASA institution
in the United States for probably the most engineer graduates
from a single university. The largest number here has graduated
from the Mayaguez Institute of Technology, as we call it
jokingly sometimes. But it is an outstanding institution and
has served Puerto Rico well and is serving also the Nation
well.
Mr. Chairman, on Wednesday, February 26, 1997, a historic
process began, and on that date more than 70 Members of
Congress introduced H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico
Political Status Act. Many things have happened since that day,
and on March 19, the Resources Committee held hearings in
Washington and a group of 12 Senators introduced a similar
version of this bill in the Senate on the same day. Last
Saturday, April 19, we held a hearing in San Juan, and
congressional support for the bill has increased, as we now
have 84 cosponsors.
President Clinton has made the establishment of a process
that will enable the people of Puerto Rico to decide their
future relationship with the United States his highest priority
regarding the Island; this from a March 19th statement by
Jeffrey Farrow.
Throughout this time, the Committee has given everyone who
has expressed an interest in this issue the opportunity to
participate and state his or her point of view either by
submitting a written statement or by testifying in person.
During these 2 days of hearings here in Puerto Rico alone, the
members of the Committee will have had the opportunity to hear
from over 50 witnesses representing the whole political
spectrum of the Island, and this process has been characterized
for its openness, inclusiveness and fairness, and for that,
both you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Miller, have to be commended.
This hearing is another important step in this process, a
process I hope will finally end Puerto Rico's long journey
toward disenfranchisement and full self-government.
It was almost 100 years ago, in 1898, Spain ceded Puerto
Rico to the United States at the end of the Spanish-American
War. In 1917, Puerto Ricans became U.S. citizens, a citizenship
that we have cherished and valued ever since, and a citizenship
that we have defended with our lives and our blood.
Then in 1952, the Island adopted a local constitution and
became a so-called Commonwealth of the United States, a purely
cosmetic change that did not in any way affect the Island's
status as an unincorporated territory of the United States
subject to the authority and powers of Congress under the
territorial clause of the Constitution. In international terms,
Puerto Rico remained a colony.
Prominent members of the Popular Party have recognized this
fact. Even former Governor and Commonwealth architect Luis
Munoz Marin, testified at a Congressional hearing on March 4,
1950, that the proposed changes to the Island's status did not
change the fundamental conditions of Puerto Rico as
nonincorporation and only permitted Puerto Rico to develop its
own self-government.
Jose Trias Monge, a former chief judge of the Supreme Court
and member of Puerto Rico's Constitutional Assembly,
acknowledged in his book Historia Constitucional de Puerto Rico
that even after 1952, Puerto Rico continues suffering a
colonial status. ``Puerto Ricans have the distinction of having
the longest period of colonialism in the whole world. What a
sad distinction,'' indicated Mr. Trias Monge in his book.
I have devoted most of my adult life in this struggle and
to leading my people in the long and treacherous journey toward
enfranchisement and equality. As former Mayor of San Juan,
Puerto Rico's capital city, and Governor, and now Member of
Congress, I have heard my people's voices and have shared their
dreams and their aspirations. As you may have experienced in
these past few days, these voices, questions and aspirations
resonate loudly in the Island, although to most Americans
living in the continental United States, they may seem as
distant echoes.
Many of our students on this campus have asked if our
present institution will at some time deny them or their
younger brothers and sisters or their children equal treatment
in Federal education programs that they desperately need to
succeed in today's competitive world. Young couples ask me why
they have to move to the States in order to search for
opportunities that are not available to them in Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rican veterans, who have served the United States
gallantly in all the Nation's wars and conflicts in this
century, ask me why they cannot vote for the President that, as
Commander in Chief, may tomorrow also send their sons and
daughters to fight and die in times of war. The elderly ask why
their health benefits and other support programs are less than
if they resided in New York, Illinois, Alaska, Rhode Island,
California, Florida or any other State of the Union. I have
heard the voice of a grandmother wondering why her son, who
died in Vietnam, gave his life for a country who denied her and
her grandchildren a right to participate on equal terms.
The answer to this question is clear. We are not equals
because we are not partners. We are not equal because we are
submerged is a colonial relationship in which our economic,
social and political affairs are controlled, to a large degree,
by a government in which we have no voting influence and in
which we do not participate. We are not equals because we
cannot vote for the President of the Nation of which we are
citizens and because we do not have a proportional and voting
representation in the Congress that determines the rules under
which we conduct our daily lives and the rules that influence
and determine our future.
I believe that the latest developments in Congress and
within the Clinton administration clearly show that after 100
years, the Puerto Rico colonial dilemma has finally become a
national issue and one that the two active branches of
government recognize has to be resolved before we enter the
next millennium. The disenfranchisement of the 3.8 million U.S.
citizens residing in Puerto Rico has to stop and it has to stop
now.
Before I close, I want to take this opportunity to address
an issue that has been raised by various groups during the
Committee's deliberations, and that is the issue of the
nonresident voting in the proposed 1998 plebiscite. Some have
advocated that all people born in Puerto Rico and, in some
cases, their immediate descendants be allowed the right to vote
in the plebiscite regardless of their place of residency by
waiving the residency requirement of Puerto Rico's electoral
law or by seeking approval from the U.S. Congress. While we
recognize that some of the advocates for the nonresident voting
may have a sincere interest in this issue, the fact is some are
also raising this issue with the only purpose of trying to
derail this process.
To allow nonresidents to vote in this plebiscite is neither
viable nor fair. Although we recognize and understand many
Puerto Ricans who migrated to the mainland did so in search of
better opportunities that they could not find here in Puerto
Rico because of the Island's colonial status, it is clear the
discussion of Puerto Rico's political destiny should remain in
the hands of the ones who live on the Island and who will
receive the benefits or the adverse effects of the people's
decision. Those are the ones who will have to face the
consequences of any new relationship between Puerto Rico and
the United States. It seems highly unfair that those who have
been able to enfranchise themselves by moving to one of the 50
States be allowed to vote to continue the disenfranchisement of
those who remain living on the Island.
Mr. Chairman, I feel honored at having the opportunity to
find myself in the center of this historic process. Once again,
I want to thank you for your leadership and vision in filing
this bill and for holding this hearing, and I look forward to
the testimony of the panelists.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Romero-Barcelo follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.007
Mr. young. I thank the gentleman.
The audience may have noticed that the curtain was rising
and falling behind me. I am not sure what that meant. I hope it
is not an omen.
We call our first panel. Dr. Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer,
Nestor S. Aponte, Arturo J. Guzman, and Belen B. Robles.
They are all before us, and I will try to keep the
testimony at 5 minutes, if possible. Keep that in mind as we go
forth during this hearing.
I do welcome you to these hearings and we are here to learn
and listen.
STATEMENT OF DR. MIRIAM J. RAMIREZ DE FERRER, MD, PRESIDENT,
PUERTO RICANS IN CIVIC ACTION, MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO
Ms. Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer. Chairman Young and members
of this Committee, I am proud to welcome you to the city of
Mayaguez. My name is Miriam Ramirez de Ferrer, and I am
accompanied by the vice president of my organization, Attorney
Luis Costas, who will be available for any constitutional or
legal questions that might come up. Please include my written
statement for the record as part of my time.
Mr. young. Without objection.
Ms. Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer. During all these years, we
have visited Washington many times to tell you about the
tangled web of local party status politics and to explain how
failure to solve the status issue has crippled the social and
economic development of Puerto Rico. It has been frustrating,
because those who want to preserve their political power and
profit by preserving the status quo have had tremendous ability
to influence Congress.
Today I am filled with that sense of peace that comes in
the struggle for liberty, when the truth is finally revealed. I
know the behavior of some of the audience at the hearing in San
Juan was not as dignified as it should have been, but the
Committee did the right thing by allowing the pro-commonwealth
faction to show their true colors.
That political faction in Puerto Rico went beyond cheering
for their champions and showed disrespect for witnesses in the
process. However, it was not spontaneous, it was a well-
orchestrated event meant to disrupt the hearings and reduce the
time allotted for questions and other witnesses.
As a matter of fact, the San Juan Star said in yesterday's
edition, ``When the panel of pro-commonwealth witnesses
completed its turn before the panel, dozens of the PDP faithful
left. And that brought almost to an end the noise and
disruption."
That is why self-determination should not be a transaction
exclusively between Congress and the Puerto Rico political
parties. People have consistently voted for a status change in
all referendums and against the status quo. The status quo does
not have the support of the majority of the people of Puerto
Rico. That is why it is imperative that a process for self-
determination be established. At the end, it will be an
individual choice between the United States citizens in Puerto
Rico who will exercise the right to self-determination in the
privacy of a voting booth.
At the San Juan hearing you heard the bizarre theories of
sovereignty and tortured logic of the autonomous doctrine. It
is a passive aggressive dogma that in a military tone demands
recognition of a separate national sovereignty, but claims
victimization at the mere suggestion that separate nationality
might mean separate citizenship.
It is a schizophrenic political identity which enables the
aristocracy of the colonial era to perpetrate its political
power by pretending that such aristocracy is the champion of
Puerto Rico dignity. The discussion of status under the Young
bill has unfolded the truth about the proposals of commonwealth
exponents.
Don't take it from me. You heard it yourself.
Their theory is that since all people have inherent
sovereignty, and this is recognized by the United Nations'
resolutions and the United States Constitution, then Puerto
Rico has a form of separate sovereignty. They take that half
truth and pretend that the local sovereignty and internal
autonomy that Puerto Rico has under the territorial clause of
the Constitution approved in 1952 is the same as national
sovereignty for Puerto Rico. This makes a mockery of the United
States national sovereignty under the Treaty of Paris and the
territorial clause.
Again, they have revealed their false theory to Congress,
asserting that local autonomy granted by Congress is a form of
national sovereignty that puts Puerto Rico on the plane of
bilateral, sovereign-to-sovereign, nation-to-nation level of
mutuality with the United States. But when they say ``mutual
consent,'' they mean that the political relationship of Puerto
Rico and the United States is permanent because Congress agreed
to a local constitution in 1952.
According to them, through this, Congress gave up its
sovereign power and consented to make nonincorporation a
permanent union and binding status for Puerto Rico with
permanent United States citizenship. Their theory ignores
constitutional supremacy. No matter what Public Law 600 is
purported to do, the constitutional supremacy clause prevails.
They also told you that Congress has the power to improve,
enhance, and develop Puerto Rico, but no authority to require
Puerto Rico to contribute to the Union. That arrogant demand is
what some now are calling ``reverse colonialism.'' According to
these political leaders, the United States has national
sovereignty only to the extent delegated by the Nation of
Puerto Rico.
But listen to this, even though the 10th Amendment does not
apply to Puerto Rico, if Congress exercise its constitutional
authority under the territorial clause, you heard them
Saturday, they make the childish threat to take you to court.
You also heard the politics of shouting down all who question
their opportunistic ideology imposed on us by the strident,
shrill and uncivil pro-commonwealth representatives.
I will leave you with just one thought. My message is
simple. Although the United States Federal Government
contributed to the problem by going along with the myth and
allowing the colonial situation to be perpetuated, the United
States did not do this to Puerto Rico.
The leadership of the pro-commonwealth party was the
driving force in creating this problem because they do not have
the courage to face a real choice between citizenship under
United States national sovereignty and separate national
sovereignty with separate citizenship.
The real challenge for the people in self-determination is
to take the responsibility for solving our own problems.
Commonwealthers have tried for 40 years to propose a status
which does not exist. Now we need to face the real choices.
What we need is for Congress to set aside the myth and point
out the realities. Please define the options available and we
can do the rest ourselves.
The people of Puerto Rico have great faith that this
particular effort will put an end to our divisive status
discussion and uncertainty about our future. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.024
Mr. young. Thank you, Doctor. And for those at the witness
table, she was allowed 6 minutes, so I will give you 6 minutes
as well.
The Honorable Nestor S. Aponte.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NESTOR S. APONTE, REPRESENTATIVE,
PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Aponte. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on
Resources, my name is Nestor S. Aponte. I am the Director of
the Institute of Political Vocation and Communication of the
New Progressive Party and a member of the House of
Representatives of Puerto Rico, in my fourth year consecutive
term. During the term that ended last December, I occupied the
position of House Majority Leader. I am an Army veteran and a
lawyer in private practice.
My main concern in attending this hearing is to emphasize
the importance of having Congress define clear and precise
formulas for any process in which we the people of Puerto Rico
have to make our decision on status. It is of utmost importance
to have an unmistakable definition for the relationship,
political condition or status, presently called commonwealth,
or any of the possible variants finally included in the
plebiscite H.R. 856 proposes for the solution of our status
dilemma.
Since the enactment of the Constitution for the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1952, the advocates of
commonwealth have capitalized on the silence of Congress in
regard to the term ``estado libre asociado'' used as a
translation for the word commonwealth. They have hidden and
forgotten Resolution 22 of the Puerto Rican Constitutional
Assembly, approved to determine in Spanish and in English the
name of the body politic created by the Constitution, and they
have defined the term or phrase ``estado libre asociado'' in as
many ways necessary to fit into the particular circumstance of
any time.
They have been able to make our people believe that under a
commonwealth we can acquire all the benefits of statehood
without the responsibilities and all the possible benefits of
independence. They call it ``the best of two worlds.''
If this elastic type of political status is possible,
Congress should state so. But if this elastic type of status is
not possible, Congress should also state so. The process you
have already begun to solve our status problem must only
include viable alternatives if it is intended to be a sincere
effort to put an end to our colonial relationship.
Independently of what you may hear from detractors of
statehood, in regard to nationality, language differences,
Olympic representation and beauty contests, the unquestionable
facts are that a very great majority of our people are ready
and willing to make the necessary adjustments that will make
permanent the points we have developed during our centenarian
relationship. We are ready for statehood.
There should be no doubt, with the approval of Public Law
600 in 1950, and the enactment of the Constitution for the
Commonwealth in 1952, our political relationship with the
United States remained as a territory.
The Congressional Record is clear. It was a break from the
practice where Congress exercised local self-government
according to organic legislation. The only purpose of that
legislation was to authorize the establishment of local self-
government, but the fundamental relationship of Puerto Rico to
the Federal Government would not be altered.
Section 4 of Public Law 600 reads as follows: ``Except as
provided in section 5 of this Act, the Act entitled 'An Act to
provide a civil government for Puerto Rico, and for other
purposes, approved March 2, 1917, as amended, is hereby
continued in force and effect and may hereafter be cited as the
``Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act''.
The sections of said Act, known as the Jones Act, repealed
in section 5 of Public Law 600, are the ones that deal with the
organization of the local government, because from there on the
organization of the local government was to be determined by
the articles of the new constitution. All other sections are in
force in the same way as when enacted in 1917.
In 1953, at the conclusion of the process to enact our
constitution, the U.S. Government sent a memorandum to the
United Nations concerning the cessation of transmission of
information under article 73(e) of the Charter with regard to
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Even though the arguments used to describe the scope of the
local government are similar to the dispositions of Resolution
22 of the Constitutional Assembly, the advocates of
Commonwealth have used said memorandum for the purpose of
trying to prove that with the approval of the local
constitution we engaged in a new relationship with a new
political status.
In summary, if the language used to describe the formulas
is not precise and clear, this process may turn into a
political campaign as confusing as the ones that we have
developed in our locally legislated political status
plebiscites.
Thank you.
Mr. young. Thank you, and thank you for staying within the
time. Very well done.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aponte follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.027
Mr. young. Oreste Ramos.
STATEMENT OF ORESTE RAMOS
Mr. Ramos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, Mr. Romero-Barcelo and members of
this Committee, my name is Oreste Ramos. I have the privilege
of having served the people of San Juan as a Senator for 20
years until 1996, the last four as Chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary. Nonetheless, I want to make clear that today I
come as a private citizen interested in this issue.
I would like to begin by congratulating the sponsors of
this bill by addressing this complex issue in the most
appropriate manner and, of course, in accordance with what was
expressed by U.N. Resolution 1541 of the 15th General Assembly.
Some people may ask themselves, why do we need full self-
government? Is it one of those technicalities, legal theology,
the lawyers love to discussion but which have no impact on real
people? In the case of Puerto Rico, as in the case of every
other jurisdiction in the world, full self-government means
that our people have a say in all decisions that affect their
daily lives.
As the aforementioned U.N. resolution indicates, there are
only three possible ways as to how you can do that, namely,
statehood, independence and free association. All of them are
sovereign options.
Do we currently exercise sovereignty in Puerto Rico? A
careful perusal of the Congressional Record of Senate Bill 3336
of the 81st Congress would suffice to answer this question in
the negative. Every single congressional committee which
reported on that bill and its House equivalent reproduced
Secretary of the Interior Oscar J. Chapman's statement to the
effect that the approval of what later became Public Law 600
would not change Puerto Rico's political status or U.S.
sovereignty as acquired over Puerto Rico under the Treaty of
Paris.
Thus, absolutely no measure of sovereignty has ever been
transferred by Congress to the people of Puerto Rico. This is
evidenced by the undeniable fact that the intricate web of
Federal regulations, congressional legislation and decisions by
the Federal judiciary apply to Puerto Rico, without Puerto
Ricans having any say in the selection of the officers who spin
the web.
As it was correctly understood by the Court of Appeals of
the 11th Circuit decision of U.S. v. Sanchez in 1993, Congress
did not accord the people of Puerto Rico any measure of
sovereignty, not even that recognized by the Constitution to
the Navajo reservations.
This is perfectly in line with the U.S. Supreme Court
decision in 1980 regarding Harris v. Rosario. In short, Puerto
Rico is, in 1997, as much of an unincorporated territory under
the plenary powers of Congress arising under the territorial
clause as it was in 1898 and, thus, devoid of any measure of
sovereignty.
Now, in finding 15, page 8, lines 4 to 12, of the bill
under consideration today, its 84 sponsors clearly recognize
that full self-government for Puerto Rico is obtainable only
through the establishment of a political status under which
Puerto Rico would cease to be sovereign to the territorial
clause as an unincorporated territory.
Throughout these hearings, we have also heard the
distinguished members of this Committee state that this process
would be one leading to the attainment of sovereignty by Puerto
Ricans, either of a separate nature or as members of the U.S.
polity.
Thus, in order to comply with the avoid desire of the
sponsors of the bill and with U.N. Resolution 1541, you must
exclude territorial or colonial formulas from the bill.
We have repeatedly heard proponents of the so-called New
Commonwealth formula raise charges of unfairness and allusions
to a, quote-unquote, unlevel playing field. These charges will
not cease to be raised, but I beseech you to be understanding
of the quandary the PDP faces. Keep in mind it was not designed
to solve Puerto Rico's status problem. It has to fight very
hard to get within its fold different factions, ranging from
those who would like closer ties with the U.S. to those who
advocate for free association with the maximum degree of
sovereignty under such an agreement.
To one of those factions, this bill is Kryptonite, Mr.
Chairman.
That is why their definition has so many attributes of free
association, while maintaining some of the aspects of our
current territorial relationship. It was contrived and
concocted as a product for local consumption in Puerto Rico.
They know that a lengthy and protracted discussion on how to
fit such a formula in this bill could spell doom for the
prospects of this measure ever becoming law.
Is there a way to accommodate the advocates of the New
Commonwealth as much as feasible without running astray of the
Constitution? The possible solution in my view to the adoption
of the New Commonwealth definition in this bill was perhaps
implied yesterday by former Governor Hernandez-Colon. In an
exchange with Mr. Underwood, he mentioned that if the
territorial clause could not be construed in an elastic enough
manner so as to allow for Puerto Rico's exercise of
sovereignty, as called for in the proposed definition, then
Congress could act without the constraint of the clause, but
still within the Constitution.
Now, there is no way of doing that unless you use the
treaty-making power; and that would, of course, entail the
transfer of sovereignty which could take place simultaneously
with the enactment of that treaty of association.
Mr. young. Mr. Ramos, how close are you to being finished?
Mr. Ramos. Thirty seconds, sir. However, we all know that
some elements of the definition would still be
unconstitutional, while others would simply fall short of being
accepted by Congress. For example, after the 1994 amendments to
the Nationality Act, there is no way that Puerto Ricans born
after Free Association, or New Commonwealth as they call it
now, were born, could keep their American citizenship and still
be citizens of a separate sovereign nation.
So I think, Mr. Chairman, in summary, that this New
Commonwealth--colonial definition of New Commonwealth should be
excluded from the bill, and that in order to comply with the
avowed desires of the sponsors of this bill, then Free
Association, even if we have to use or if you have to include
two versions of it, one of it would be the classical one and
then another one called New Commonwealth, if that is what you
have to resort to in order to comply with your avowed desires
and what is stated in the introduction of this measure, then
that is the way to go. But to do anything else would be to
complicate matters even further and have to face an ever more
complicated issue and problem 15, 20 or 50 years from now.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. young. Thank you. May I suggest, I don't want it any
more complicated than it is, believe me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramos follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.039
Mr. young. Arturo Guzman.
STATEMENT OF MR. ARTURO J. GUZMAN, CHAIRMAN, I.D.E.A. OF PUERTO
RICO, INC., SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Guzman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Once again, it is
our privilege to welcome you back to the colonies.
For many years and in testimony before different
Congressional committees we have stated that a solution to
Puerto Rico's status condition and an end to our nation's
legacy of colonialism could be only be achieved by an act of
mutual self-determination on the part of the Congress of the
United States and we the people of Puerto Rico.
H.R. 856 constitutes such an act, and it has our full
concurrence, endorsement and support.
We would be remiss if we didn't take this opportunity to
also recognize the support for our self-determination expressed
by every U.S. president since Harry Truman and of particular
value to our society the additional support given the cause of
statehood by Presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, the latter two
of which allowed me the privilege of serving through the course
of their administrations as an unofficial advisor on matters
pertaining to Puerto Rico and other areas of this hemisphere.
As with any process of this nature, there are some areas
which may warrant further definition, clarification or
consideration which we are covering in detail in our written
statement. Due to time limitations, I will just mention the
titles of the topics covered, should you wish to direct any
questions to them:
Under the option of Commonwealth, the question of immunity
from Federal taxation and the costs to the Federal Treasury of
the actual condition; under the option of independence, full or
Free Association, a need to further outline the political
economic models that would ensue; the question of investor
guarantees, particularly during the transition period; and the
question of continued U.S. citizenship and some loopholes that
may exist on the bill as drafted.
On the option of statehood, the question of the General
Accounting Office report and our recommendation that it be
revised and updated; and then, under general provisions, the
matter of voter eligibility as it pertains to the Federal
Relations Act and the U.S. Constitution, the matter of voter
education; and then, finally, the question of language. It is
to this subject that I must allocate the time remaining in my
oral presentation.
In this congressional process, the subject of language has
made an inappropriate change of venue from the field of
education to the field of politics in much the same manner as
it has been treated locally or perhaps as a direct result of
it.
Allow me to try and set the record straight, for oftentimes
the impression has been given that Puerto Ricans are reluctant
to learn English or, worse and more demeaning, that we lack the
intellectual capacity to learn more than one language, when
nothing could be further from historic fact.
Let me state that we oppose English or Spanish only as we
oppose any condition that would have the detrimental effect of
restricting the potential of human learning and development.
Suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, that the history of
civilization has proven that diversity is the very essence of
true culture.
However, I also believe that each and every American
citizen has the right to learn the English language; and it is
precisely as a result of treating the question of language
politically in order to preserve the current colonial condition
that this right has been denied the people of Puerto Rico, with
the implicit complicity of the Congress and Federal Government
of the United States and also at the expense of the American
taxpayers, who contribute 80 percent of the funds for public
education.
Language, like any other aspect of education, represents
empowerment; and empowerment is conducive to emancipation. As I
have testified before in other congressional committees, for
the vested political and economic interests to allow the Puerto
Rican people the equal opportunity to learn English would have
resulted in their quest to seek parity in wages and equality in
their citizen rights, and that would have meant the demise of
the status quo.
Colonial educational systems, Mr. Chairman, are designed
for two classes of citizen, the autocrats and administrators
that assist in the daily management of the colony, and a second
class of peons restricted by the denial of learning the English
language to conform to the conditions imposed upon them by the
acting regimes, in alliance with the powerful economic
interests that prevailed over our lives and destiny until very
recently.
We persist that the issue of language should be treated
beyond the scope of status and politics, but if others in the
Congress and elsewhere demand its inclusion in this process,
then let them prove their good intentions by providing equal
conditions to all status options that entail U.S. citizenship,
regardless of the type of its nature, and that also require
Federal funding for their educational systems.
If the true motivation is to correct an injustice and to
provide the people of Puerto Rico full bilingual capabilities
that would allow them a better life and better opportunity,
then we must endorse it. We need not wait for any future status
transition or even for the enactment of this legislation,
because within the powers vested you by the Territory Clause
you possess the means to avoid condemning yet another
generation to a life of inequality and mediocrity.
Finally, as a reminder to you and your colleagues in
Washington, I conclude with a quotation in the hope that it
serves to affirm your determination to conclude this process
and put an end to an era of colonialism in this hemisphere:
``Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, for the bell tolls for
thee.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members.
Mr. young. Thank you, Arturo.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guzman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.047
Mr. Young. Ms. Robles.
STATEMENT OF MS. BELEN B. ROBLES, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF
UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, EL PASO, TEXAS
Ms. Robles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of this Committee.
My name is Belen Robles, and I am the President of the
League of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest and
largest community-based organization in the United States to
include Puerto Rico. LULAC was founded in 1929 in the State of
Texas and has more than 115,000 members in organizing councils
throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.
From its inception, LULAC has been one of the principal
civil rights organizations fighting to ensure Hispanics
participate fully in the American society.
Puerto Ricans have been American citizens since 1917 by
decision of the U.S. Congress. Our Nation presents itself to
the world as a democratic example, and so it should act
accordingly. Our first request before you is that you grant
Puerto Ricans their civil right to choose freely their
political status through a vote.
LULAC looks at this issue as one of civil rights and
citizenship. The political alternatives discussed will have a
tremendous impact on the Hispanic community both here and on
the mainland. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that
Congress seriously consider our position as the largest and
oldest Hispanic organization in the United States.
Should the proponents of independence win the majority of
votes, they request that Puerto Ricans no longer be U.S.
citizens but that they will have free access to the United
States because of the 100 years that Puerto Ricans have had
access to our country. They also contend that European
countries have agreed to allow free access for certain
countries as an example of their position.
While taking into consideration this modality, Congress
should pay attention to the following: Congress did not grant
free access rights to the Philippines when they received their
independence. Congress should consider, nonetheless, the
Philippines' right to free access if the Puerto Rican
independence petition is approved.
It is important to remember that 25 years before the
Mayflower set sail from England, Don Juan de Onate, with 40
other men, arrived in what is today New Mexico via what today
is the city of El Paso, Texas, the city where I reside.
Don Bernardo de Galvez, Spanish Governor of the Louisiana
Territory, cleaned the south part of the United States of
English fortresses with Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban and
Dominican soldiers.
Therefore, if Congress decides to accept this petition of
free access for citizens of a future Puerto Rican Republic, it
has to consider what to do with Mexicans who want to gain free
access to the United States, their former homeland.
LULAC is not against this petition from the Puerto Rican
Independence Party, but we request equality for all Hispanics
in Latin America, especially Mexicans.
The proponents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico request
to continue being American citizens without, however, being
part of the United States. They demand an association through a
pact between both countries, while retaining their citizenship.
Thus, Congress should consider in this case the type of
citizenship that should exist in the United States. The
American citizenship requested in this case is an incomplete
one, like the one currently owned by Puerto Ricans residing in
the island.
How can the United States explain that we are the champions
of democracy when 3.8 million citizens cannot vote for their
President? How can the United States explain that its Congress
decrees and laws apply to citizens who have no representation?
How can the United States explain to the world that part of
their soldiers who are enlisted in its military do not have the
civil rights to elect the President that could send them to
war?
LULAC does not oppose maintaining a second-class
citizenship, if that is the wish of this Congress. However, we
strongly feel that you need to fully inform Puerto Ricans of
the limitation of this form of citizenship so they know what
they will be voting for.
The statehood supporters propose that Puerto Rico be a
State of the Union with Puerto Ricans having the same rights
and responsibilities as citizens residing within the 50 States.
This is a demand for equality. Should this request be
granted, it would be a big boost for Hispanic representation in
the U.S. Congress, with the addition of six Congressmen and/or
women and two Senators residing from the island.
This civil right to equality, should it be granted, must be
granted completely.
Some Congressmen have stated their intention of requiring a
majority vote in favor of statehood in order for it to be
granted. Other Congressmen demand that English be the official
language of the island. These two requirements, or any other
ones, are not suitable.
The rights of American citizens must be the same and equal
in all the States of the Union and in Puerto Rico. To demand a
vast majority of the votes is to infringe the concept which is
the cornerstone of democracy, and that is the vote must be
equal for all.
A vast majority of the votes means that a vote for
statehood has less weight than a vote for independence or
Commonwealth status. This is not democratic.
In regard to the issue of English as the official language,
we need to say that the right to choose the language is
naturally reserved to the American citizens; and LULAC is on
record of supporting English-plus--English plus Spanish plus
any other language that the person is capable of learning.
In summary, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this
Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens
strongly urges the U.S. Congress to pass the United States-
Puerto Rico Political Status Act that would allow the people of
Puerto Rico the opportunity to express their preferred
relationship with the United States. We request that you honor
the civil rights of the residents of Puerto Rica and allow them
to choose freely their political status through a vote.
It is important that the Congress make clear to the people
of Puerto Rico the true nature of statehood, independence and
Com-
monwealth alternatives that are before them. We are opposed to
requiring a vast majority of the vote cast to be for statehood
in order to grant that option. We are also opposed to requiring
English to be the official language of Puerto Rico.
I thank you.
Mr. Young. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Robles follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.050
Mr. Young. I want to thank the panel for their excellent
presentation.
If I can ask a couple of questions, what I hear from this
panel is that you want definite definitions in the legislation.
Is that correct? Everybody agrees with that?
Ms. Ferrer. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Because we feel that if the
people of Puerto Rico do not understand what the United States
is capable or willing to accept under each of the options, it
might be misleading during the actual plebiscite process in
Puerto Rico.
Mr. Young. That is the what your position is, too? You
don't want to confuse it any more. If we don't make it very
black and white----
Mr. Ramos. That is precisely my point, Mr. Chairman. We
have heard some people come here before this Committee and
refer to an unlevel playing field. Now, the bumps in the
playing field are the result of a contorted and distorted and
hodgepodge definition which has been put together by some
people who simply wish to keep the different factions of the
party together.
It isn't the fault of the Committee. It is the result of
that definition. So we need the Committee to clarify those
definitions so the people will know what they are voting for.
Mr. Young. Ms. Robles, your organization, have you
attempted to promote this legislation?
One of our problems as a Committee, and we are doing this
basically on our own, we need to get a more national attention
to this issue. Has your organization tried to promote this
nationwide?
Ms. Robles. We definitely have, Your Honor.
Mr. Young. Don't call me Your Honor. That is twice I have
been called Your Honor today. That worries the daylights out of
me, believe me.
Ms. Robles. Mr. Chairman, we have. As a matter of fact, we
have gone on record as a result of a unanimous mandate of our
assembly. We communicated to all the Members of Congress our
position on this. We will be glad to reiterate it again and to
advocate this particular position to Congress.
Mr. Young. Just on the language issue, this is an issue
that is very dear to my heart. I was so impressed today. I was
flying down with the National Guard, and I wanted to
congratulate them. Puerto Rico ought to be very proud of their
National Guard. They were professionals. But it made me feel
good that I was informed by your Resident Commissioner that
they play such an important role in the hurricanes in other
parts of the Caribbean because there was an ability to speak
Spanish and English.
That will be up to the discretion of the Puerto Rican
people. There probably will be an amendment offered, I will
tell you that; and we are going to do everything in our
possible power to make sure that that amendment is not adopted,
as I think it would kill the legislation. It is the wrong thing
to do. That is a decision that the people of Puerto Rico will
make.
Later on down the line, if Congress was to adopt something
like that, again, the people of Puerto Rico would have the
decision within whatever decision they make as to what they
will speak.
I want to thank each one of you. There are probably other
questions.
Miriam, I wanted to thank you for being here, because you
have been bugging me for the last 7 years, you and Arturo both,
and I appreciate that.
For those that may have opposite views of the people at
this table, the one thing you will find out about this
Committee, we are very open-doored and we try to listen.
I wanted to congratulate the audience. We very frankly look
forward to hearing the rest of the testimony.
I am going to do as I did Saturday. I am going to transfer
the gavel. One reason I am going to do it is this chair is very
uncomfortable. I think my staff is trying to kill me, and I am
going to move the chair and transfer.
Mr. Miller, do you have questions?
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses for their testimony. I have a
comment, and then I have also a technical question on the bill.
My comment is that there seems to be a substantial effort
here to somehow demonize or to suggest that the proposal that
was in response to the letter from Chairman Young and myself to
the leaders of the parties, the proposal for the New
Commonwealth definition, somehow is so outrageous and far
outside the norm. But the fact of the matter is, when you look
at it and look at the key words in it, there is a lot of
precedence and other relationships in the United States; and
there is constitutional precedence for these actions.
The Congress can agree to a very wide range. Whether or not
we would or whether or not that would be acceptable to the
people of Puerto Rico is two different considerations. But
clearly we, historically, some of which we are proud of and
some not so proud of, we can agree to a wide range of
relationships with peoples and territories.
And we also can grant a wide range of privileges. The State
of California likes to engage in commercial transactions, and
sometimes the Federal Government tells us we can't, and
sometimes the Federal Government says that is fine.
Puerto Rico has sought to engage in various activities in
the Caribbean and elsewhere, and the Federal Government said
fine in some instances and in other instance said you are
trampling on the sovereign powers of the United States or our
ability to conduct foreign relations under the Constitution.
All I am saying is that it is not--that definition is not
as clear as statehood, it is not as clear as free association
and obviously seeks to be a hybrid. But to suggest that somehow
the Congress cannot accept a hybrid relationship is, I think,
to mischaracterize that definition. Whether, again, that would
be wise, whether the Congress would do it, whether the people
of Puerto Rico will accept it, that is what this process is
about. The Congress will work its will when we start writing
the definitions on all of these issues.
There is some suggestions from this panel. Mr. Guzman has
made suggestions with almost each and every definition. So I
would hope we understand the process we go through here, and I
appreciate the political advantage.
I am a very partisan Member of Congress. I appreciate
looking for--I didn't have to tell my Chairman that--but I want
to make sure that we not so politicize the process at the
outset that it, in fact, can kill the process. That can happen.
That can happen, that this process can sink as a result of
politics; and at the other hearing I made somewhat the same
admonishment, because I am concerned about that.
This is a very fragile process. Chairman Young is engaging
in an effort here that very few have been able to succeed in
getting through, and I would hope that people would understand.
Finally, and my time is short, the legislation requires if
this is not resolved and the current status continues it can
require there be an additional referendum essentially every 4
years.
Again, it is a rather well-established historical precedent
that one Congress cannot bind another. My concern has been with
the overall time lines within this legislation. I think it is
very important that both Members of Congress understand that
there are consequences to the decision that they make and the
people of Puerto Rico understand there is a serious consequence
to the decision they make and to being brought into union and
we decide this matter. The longer that is, the easier it is for
Members of Congress to maybe vote or not vote and not worry
about the consequences, because it may happen 10 years later,
and people come and go in our Congress.
By the same token, if the suggestion is you can get a new
bite of the apple every 4 years, I suggest it diminishes the
importance of what--if Chairman Young is successful and all
those involved in this process are successful, it diminishes
the importance of that process because we can do it again if it
doesn't work out.
This is an important decision about the status, after all
of this history, to move to the future and say this is going to
be the status in the future. And I wonder if you would, just
quickly because I have used up most of my time with the
question, but is that really essential to this legislation,
that we would have this ongoing referendum every 4 years sort
of binding the future governments of Puerto Rico and clearly
cannot bind the Congress as to the outcomes of that?
If anyone wants to make a comment to that.
Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. Yes, sir, let me make a few comments
and then allow our attorney----
Mr. Miller. However you want to, the time is running.
Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. Once you have a Commonwealth, you
have to consult the people again. You cannot finalize a status
question if you have Commonwealth, as United States, we believe
is going to define it there. That is in my written testimony,
and I oppose that.
Mr. Costas. With due respect, Mr. Miller, the problem with
your point of view, although it sounds reasonable, it flies
against decisions in the past proceedings in the status bills.
Every one of your points that you made and are now being put
out in an ELA flier for a rally Saturday to you has been
rejected.
For example, this, removing Puerto Rico from the
territorial clause, if you look at the testimony of Secretary
of Justice Dick Thornburg----
Mr. Miller. Let me say, we spend a lot of time in this
argument fighting the past wars. We fight the 1993 referendum,
we fight the old issues. This is about now, what this Congress
will and will not do.
Mr. Costas. Why repeat the things that have already decided
against us? Studies are there----
Mr. Miller. For the very reasons we told you before. One
Congress cannot bind another. It is a different Senate and
Congress, and if people want to make those proposals----
Mr. Costas. It is the same Constitution. It hasn't changed.
Mr. Miller. Let us not pretend that each finding of the
Congress is constitutional.
Mr. Costas. No, these are legal decisions----
Mr. Miller. I understand that.
Mr. Costas. [continuing] that have been invariable for the
past 40 years, almost.
Mr. Miller. What I am suggesting is, at the outset of the
process, people have the right to submit that to the process;
and the whole purpose of this is for the Congress to work its
will based upon what the Congress could agree to accept and
what we believe, if offered to the people of Puerto Rico, we
can make a rational choice for.
Mr. Costas. If you look at the letter written by Chairman
Young to the Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, December
11th, 1996, it is precisely this fuzzy language that got Huang
into trouble. Surely you don't want to repeat that.
Mr. Young. I am going to allow Arturo to comment, and then
I think the gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Guzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller, if I may, may I ask you a question?
Mr. Miller. If I could get an answer to my question about 4
years, first.
Mr. Guzman. The 4 years, I think language was developed by
the Resident Commissioner to have it as a maximum in repeating
this exercise over again in 4 to 8 years. You not only have to
think about our own destiny, but you also have to think about
the constituents in your district and how long will they be
willing to shore up with their taxes this present condition.
Are you going to condemn your district taxpayers to shoring up
for this current Commonwealth forever?
Mr. Miller. That is just your political rhetoric. That is
not the way the question suggested. I mean, you are welcome to
it.
Mr. Young. All right. The gentleman's time has expired. I
think we will be able to address this issue as time goes by.
The gentleman from Guam.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping we
would keep Guam out of this discussion.
Mr. Young. I am setting a hearing for you in June so you
don't want to keep it out of the discussion.
Mr. Underwood. Here is the feeling I have, and it is the
same point I raised before. The issues that are discussed here
in terms of political status openings are phrased as formulas;
and it tends to imply that as a political status formula, one
way or another, you can rationally read into it whether the
formula adds up or does not add up. In reality, what we are
talking about, at least in terms of the way that we are
describing these political status options is really a series of
political aspirations; and I am willing to make a distinction
between a legal explanation and a political program.
What I am a little--I don't know whether the word is
amused, but bemused is I guess a better word--is that in the
process of discussion about what is exactly the appropriate
formula for this, we are getting--at least I have certainly
gotten--the impression that the pro-Commonwealth people have
somehow misled the entire people of Puerto Rico on this issue.
For an electorate that seems to be highly sensitive to this
issue and an admission, at least on the part of the
Commonwealthers at the hearing on Saturday, that what we are
putting forward is a series of aspirations that is subject to a
political process which their aspirations may indeed fail, may
not come to fruition, and I think that was clarified in the
course of the hearing on Saturday. It seems that all the
attention that is given to the definition seems like someone is
trying to get a political advantage over another.
Now, the status, the electoral process itself, will account
for that. And I didn't mean it as a kind of a cynical remark,
but on Saturday I said we will leave it up to elected officials
and politicals to mischaracterize each other's position in the
course of an electoral campaign, and I think we should do that.
I don't think we should do this in the context of this
legislation.
But it seems to me--am I being led to believe that in the
course of discussion on this whole issue of political status of
Puerto Rico--that Congress, one, is somehow complicit in
contributing to this misunderstanding; and, second, are the
people of Puerto Rico so naive that they don't understand this
after discussing this issue for a long time? Is someone willing
to say here that the people of Puerto Rico don't understand
these options?
Mr. Aponte. If I may comment, Mr. Underwood, what I would
say is this. As long as the bill offers the problem as an
answer, as a solution to the problem itself, then the Congress
would be contributing to perpetuating the problem. It would be
like holding a contest between different ways of washing one's
face and allow leaving it unwashed as an option.
Mr. Underwood. But that seems to me to be a political
argument about the relative merits of the positions. If one
option is unacceptable to you, you are perfectly entitled to
that; but if it is acceptable to others, they are entitled to
that as well.
Mr. Aponte. Yes, sir, but then you would not be complying
with U.N. Resolution 1541, which is what the bill says you are
complying with.
Mr. Underwood. Well, that is prefatory language.
Mr. Young. May I suggest one thing? I have every intention
to debate all proposed definitions, but before this bill leaves
the House it will be definite definitions in the legislation.
And not speaking up for my friend from California, I have
looked at this 4-year deal and we are going to discuss this
more. I would suggest what we have to do is define this bill so
finely that when the process goes forward the people of Puerto
Rico will know exactly what they are voting for.
The gentleman, my good friend----
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to take a moment to perhaps clear up a little
bit what has been said here. Because being in Congress, what we
say in Congress sometimes is perceived differently here in
Puerto Rico.
These hearings are not to make a decision. We are not going
to make a decision in these hearings, right here, either one of
us. So these hearings are to hear, to make everyone feel they
have a clear opportunity to express their views and what their
desires and aspirations are.
That is exactly what Mr. Miller was underlining and
underscoring. He wants to listen. He does not want to argue
whether it is or is not constitutional. Maybe he will decide
something that is being asked is unconstitutional, but that
will be later on when he researches that and studies with his
staff. Then he will make that decision, not now.
He is going to listen to all of the aspirations. Whether
they are practical or not, he is not going to make that
decision now. He wants to hear the aspirations, and then he
will make that decision later on when we mark up the bill.
Whether the aspirations and the desires of any particular
group are acceptable politically, he is not going to decide
that now. Neither are any of us going to decide that now. That
is going to be decided later on.
Most people here do know I have my mind made up. I would
not be telling the truth, I would not be honest if I didn't say
that. But I have spoken to all of the others, and they don't
have their mind made up. But they would consider it.
So don't misunderstand what Mr. Miller says. Also that he
will listen to everything. He is not giving credit or patting
on the back any of the aspirations. He will make that decision
later on.
And, George, if I have not correct--OK, you can take my
time and say so. So don't misjudge.
Mr. Miller. If you will yield, I just think that what you
and Chairman Young started out here is far different than how
we have handled this in the past. I said I think it has a great
opportunity to succeed, and I am very concerned that we not
have the process overwhelm with the politics and that the
people understand that we in Congress will have to make some
difficult discussions.
There is a lot of arguments that have been suggested to us
that are they thin, with all due respect. But people should be
entitled to present them to us. Because the 49ers pick their
colors and the Rams pick their colors. There is a long history
in this country of these three parties. As Mr. Underwood said,
let us not suggest that the Commonwealth is a new argument.
So all I am saying is, as people present the evidence to
us, let us not try to swamp the other fellow's boat in the
process, because that is not helpful to us.
Mr. Young. May I suggest, what colors do the Yankees have?
Mr. Miller. I am a Mets fan.
Ms. Ramirez de Ferrer. May I make a comment?
The problem is, sir, some of these proceedings in the past
have allowed kind of a wish list up there; and then they say
let them vote on it and then we will decide if those decisions
are viable or not when we come back, Congress. We need to know
that before we vote the first time.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. That might be a decision to be made
later on; but what we obtain here, today, in this hearing,
those decisions will not be made.
On the contrary, I think every member here wants to listen
as broadly as possible to the proposals and aspirations of each
one that testifies. So when I ask questions about sovereignty
and nationality and citizenship, I am trying to just make it
clear for the panel, so when we go to decide it in the markup,
the panel knows what each party, when they say they want to
have citizenship, they want to have sovereignty, they know what
they mean, so we can discuss it. Otherwise, we might make a
decision based on assuming facts that are not correct.
Mr. Aponte.
Mr. Aponte. One thing that should be clear is that we are
right now right here before Congress because we are under the
territorial clause of the Constitution. If we had status that
could survive independently from the Federal assistance, we
would be before the executive branch of Congress.
So the people of Puerto Rico, they know that Congress can
design a Commonwealth to fit all possible alternatives. We are
not naive, but we have been forced to adjust to the situation
and try to take advantage of the disadvantage of our political
status, and that is what we want to solve in this process.
If the definitions are not clear, we can go into the
process, but you bet we are going to have same discussion maybe
4 years from now, maybe 6 years from now, but you will have the
same problem. If you want to solve the problem, all we are
asking is not to use the problem as a solution.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Aponte, the territorial clause more
or less says that the Congress has powers over the materials
and possessions. But are you aware that this Congress, 105th
Congress, can make the option not to exercise those powers in
this Congress? You know that. But what it cannot do is perhaps
tell the next Congress, 106th, that it cannot do it. Is that
what you are trying to say? Is that one of your points?
Mr. Aponte. What I am trying to say is this Congress has
decided to find a solution to the problem of Puerto Rico. It
has not a legal obligation, but it has a moral obligation. It
has a moral obligation. Since you are the ones that stepped
forward, all I want to tell you is we are willing to go through
this process and find a final solution. It will be best for you
and best for Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I think you can be assured that that is
what I have spoken and all the Members have spoken they want to
do.
Mr. Young. The gentleman's time has expired.
I want to thank the panel for their testimony and, as is
usually and customary, I want to pass the gavel down to Mr.
Underwood, who will be the chairman of the next panel. I will
be in and out of the room and listening to most of the
testimony, but that is the way we do it.
I want to thank you personally for very good testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSE GUILLERMO RODRIGUEZ, MAYOR OF
MAYAGUEZ, MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Underwood. [Presiding] OK. We will begin the second
panel and start with the Honorable Jose Guillermo Rodriguez,
Mayor of Mayaguez; and I would like, first of all, to thank you
for welcoming us to your beautiful, fair city.
Mayor Rodriguez, go ahead please.
Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Underwood and Mr. Carlos Romero Barcelo,
nuestro Comisionado residente en los Estados Unidos. Mi nombre
es Jose Guillermo Rodriguez y soy el Alcalde electo de la
ciudad de Mayaguez. Senor Presidente y miembros del Congreso de
los Estados Unidos, deseo comenzar brindandoles la mas cordial
bienvenida a nuestra ciudad de Mayaguez a nombre de los mas de
100,000 habitantes que residen en ella.
Antes de entrar en los detalles de la ponencia, deseo
indicarles que los electores de esta ciudad en el plebiscito
del ano 1993, auspiciado por el gobierno del Partido Nuevo
Progresista, le dieron a la formula del Estado Libre Asociado,
sometido a la consideracion del pueblo, alrededor de 5,000
votos de ventaja. La mayoria con mas amplio margen en todos los
municipios del pais.
Este servidor de ustedes, fue electo representante a la
Camara en las elecciones de 1998, el legislador electo
representante a la Camara por mayor cantidad de votos en la
ciudad, Alcalde en el 1992 y reelecto en las elecciones de
1996, siendo el alcalde de Mayaguez que por mayor cantidad de
votos consecutivamente ha sido seleccionado en la ciudad de
Mayaguez.
Entendi importante participar en estas vistas
congresionales, donde se pretende establecer un proceso
adecuado para que el pueblo de Puerto Rico exprese una vez mas
su preferencia sobre el status politico que habra de regir los
destinos de este pueblo.
Estoy seguro que ustedes se habran preocupado por conocer
el trasfondo historico de la creacion y establecimiento del
actual Estado Libre Asociado, sobre algunas reflexiones de su
fundador y ex- Gobernador de Puerto Rico, don Luis Munoz Marin,
y sobre todo, del panorama politico, social y economico que
existia en nuestro pais antes de la fundacion del Estado Libre
Asociado, deseo hablarles un poco.
Nuestro pais, era uno sin esperanza, azotado por la miseria
y la falta de oportunidades de progreso, aun estando durante
mas de cincuenta largos anos sobre el dominio total de los
Estados Unidos. Ante ese cuadro desalentador, el fundador del
Estado Libre Asociado lucho dentro de si en contra del deseo
innato que reside en la mayoria de los seres humanos y el cual
rechaza la idea de sentirse esclavo, arrimado, extrano en su
propia tierra. La independencia, aunque digna, insensata en
aquel momento.
Puerto Rico se encontraba totalmente dividido entre dos
extremos. Sobre cuatrocientos anos de historia marcaban en
nuestro pueblo un arraigado nacionalismo, protagonista de
sangrientos episodios en el pais y ante el Congreso. La
estadidad, aunque digna, tambien insensata por la resistencia
extrema a la entrega de nuestra cultura, de nuestro idioma, de
nuestra identidad. Sobre el dilema del status, decia don Luis
Munoz Marin lo siguiente: ``Cada dia se me hacia mas dificil
tolerar aquel boxeo de sombras, aquella contienda entre los dos
fantasmas de la independencia y la estadidad, tan amenazantes
como irreales, que brincaban dandose punos de sombra. A veces,
disparando balas de plomo sobre un cuadrilatero bajo el cual se
acurrucaban la miseria, el hambre, la desolacion, la
desesperacion y la enferma resignacion de los
desesperanzados.'' Indicaba con profunda claridad de
pensamiento, que el status politico debe ser para servirle a la
vida buena de un pueblo y no para obligar a la vida de un
pueblo a ajustarse por razones abstractas, a un status politico
predeterminado.
De esa lucha interna, de la refleccion del idealismo
absurdo frente a la realidad, surge una nueva creacion politica
que armoniza el pensamiento sobre el status politico con los
ideales de justicia social, de vida buena y de honda
satisfaccion para los Puertorriquenos. Es por eso que solo
existe en el mundo un solo Estado Libre Asociado. Porque se
creo para servirle al progreso, desarrollo y aspiraciones de
todos los Puertorriquenos, plasmando lo mejor de los dos
extremos tradicionales, logrando la paz entre los
Puertorriquenos y tomando lo mejor de dos mundos, para
confeccionar una exitosa y nueva herramienta de desarrollo
politico, social y economico.
Decia nuestro Comisionado residente en Washington, don
Antonio Fernoz Isern, ``El Estado Libre Asociado responde a la
historia de Puerto Rico. Su molde ha sido la propia vida de
Puerto Rico. No hay que ir a buscar la definicion ni la
descripcion del Estado Libre Asociado en ningun tratado de
Ciencias Politicas. Forma de por si, un capitulo nuevo que hay
que agregar al libro.'' Aqui es que ha estribado siempre, la
dificil mision de los Estadolibristas, de hacer entender a los
que evaluan con estrechez de pensamiento, el Estado Libre
Asociado. Estamos ante un nuevo concepto mundial, que ha roto
los conceptos tradicionales del pasado, de estadidad o
independencia.
La forma y manera en que esta redactado este Proyecto,
comete el gravisimo error de llevar a nuestro pueblo al pasado,
a la lucha de los extremos, en vez de permitir fortalecer el
Estado Libre Asociado desde una perspectiva enfocada al futuro
y no al pasado. Es en este contexto, que el Estado Libre
Asociado es un concepto de avanzada, adelantado en el tiempo,
apuntando siempre al futuro y no al pasado.
Si es este un proceso genuino para alcanzar una nueva
negociacion entre nuestras naciones, sera necesario que el
Congreso al igual que el derecho internacional libere su
estrechez retrograda arcaica y la tempere a la nueva realidad
mundial, recogiendo los conceptos que en este momento mueven el
mundo, eliminando barreras, estableciendo mercados comunes,
relegando a un segundo plano los idealismos absurdos que aislan
y provocan conflictos entre los pueblos.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much.
I trust there are no more mayors of Mayaguez on the panel.
I allowed you to go on simply because you are the mayor of this
city, and we will try to hold the witnesses as much as possible
to the 5-minute time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.064
Mr. Underwood. I now call on Honorable Antonio Fas
Alzamora, the Minority Leader of the Senate-Popular Democratic
Party, Senate of Puerto Rico.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANTONIO J. FAS ALZAMORA, MINORITY
LEADER OF THE SENATE-POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY, SENATE OF PUERTO
RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Alzamora. Muy buenos dias, senores Congresistas. Como
bien ha mencionado el Congresista, represento a la delegacion
del Partido Popular Democratico en el Senado, cuerpo
legislativo que llevo dieciseis anos en el y cuatro en la
Camara. Para veinte anos, trabajando en la politica
Puertorriquena y defendiendo el ideal del Estado Libre
Asociado.
Por segunda vez comparezco ante esta honorable Comision,
para exponer algunos de mis puntos de vista en torno a este
proyecto. Hay dos aspectos que deseo enfocar, pero quiero
previamente adelantar que el mismo esta redactado en forma
viciada, prejuiciado para fabricar una mayoria a favor de la
estadidad aunque no se compromete a concederla.
Este proyecto, a mi juicio, como esta redactado, le falta
el respeto a la democracia Puertorriquena. En primer lugar, la
discusion del futuro politico de Puerto Rico debe partir de la
propia creacion del Estado Libre Asociado. Quiero citar
palabras que dijera el primer Gobernador electo por los
Puertorriquenos, don Luis Munoz Marin, el veinticinco de julio
de 1952, cuando se izo esa bandera Puertorriquena que ustedes
ven ahi, junto a la bandera de los Estados Unidos de America, y
cito: ``Voy a izar cuando termine mis palabras, la bandera del
pueblo de Puerto Rico al fundarse el Estado Libre Asociado, en
voluntaria asociacion de ciudadania y afecto con los Estados
Unidos de America. El pueblo vera en ella el simbolo de su
espiritu, ante su propio destino y en el conjunto de America.
Junto a la bandera de los Estados Unidos, la del pueblo mas
pequeno del hemisferio significa que a los pueblos como a los
hombres, la democracia los declara iguales en dignidad'' y
cierro la cita.
Estas elocuentes palabras del arquitecto del ELA, que ha
marcado el rumbo de nuestra relacion con los Estados Unidos
durante las pasadas cuatro decadas y media, pusieron fin a un
proceso de descolonizacion. Se reconocio nuestra soberania y el
pacto bilateral entre Puerto Rico y Estados Unidos. Todo este
logro le fue informado por ustedes, a las Naciones Unidas en
1953.
A Puerto Rico no se le conoce como una isla en el Caribe,
ocupada por ciudadanos Norteamericanos, sino como una nacion
Caribena con cultura, caracteristicas y personalidad propia.
Estados Unidos no encontro en 1898 a una isla desierta, sin
identificacion nacional. No llego a un territorio abandonado,
sino a una nacion con caracteristicas propias, con igual
dignidad a las demas naciones del mundo.
El Proyecto en cuestion debe incorporar, para que exista un
juego limpio o igualdad de condicion en este proceso, la
definicion del nuevo ELA que ha sometido el Presidente de
nuestro partido. El desarrollo y culminacion del ELA no es
hacia la independencia ni tampoco hacia la estadidad, que es el
status que conllevaria a la desaparicion de nuestra
nacionalidad Puertorriquena. Insisto, la estadidad no es el
desenlace final en el desarrollo del ELA. Esta no ha sido la
intencion de los que hemos favorecido la formula del ELA en las
consultas de 1952, 1967 y 1993.
Un segundo aspecto de nuestra vision de este proceso, es
que hay que desenmascarar la estadidad a nuestro juicio, de la
cual se dice es un status digno. Con el respeto que me merecen
quienes asi piensen, la asimilacion seria una condicion de
indignidad, porque seria retornar a Puerto Rico a un status
colonial en forma permanente.
Somos dos naciones distantes, dos razas distintas. Los
estadistas Puertorriquenos quieren la estadidad, no porque se
sientan Americanos, sino en razon de los dolares y centavos que
segun ellos llenarian nuestras arcas. La inmensa mayoria de los
Puertorriquenos, no nos sentimos Americanos. Nos sentimos
Puertorriquenos con ciudadania Americana, y no es lo mismo ni
se escribe igual, pues tenemos la voluntad y el compromiso de
mantener una relacion con Estados Unidos porque nos sentimos
orgullosos de esa ciudadania y reconocemos su valor y sus
responsabilidades.
La estadidad tiene multiples desventajas porque afecta
significativa y adversamente tanto a Puerto Rico como a los
Estados Unidos. En esencia, la estadidad daria aunque muchas
cosas negativas, una significativa reduccion en el crecimiento
de la economia de Puerto Rico. En cuanto a los Estados Unidos,
la estadidad le impone mayores gastos en Puerto Rico, pero aun
mas importante, la cultura y el idioma vernaculo de Puerto Rico
ira desapareciendo a medida que avanza el proceso de
asimilacion de los Puertorriquenos para convertirse en
Norteamericanos como ha ocurrido en varios estados.
oCuales serian las ventajas de la estadidad? No puede haber
ventaja alguna, pues la asimilacion es un proceso de
autodestruccion, de dejar de ser lo que somos para convertirnos
en otra cosa. Es pretender borrar nuestra historia y
reescribirla bajo la asimilacion. Con la estadidad, Puerto Rico
enfrentaria los numerosos problemas que conllevaria a hacerla
el estado mas pobre de la nacion Americana. Otro problema que
enfrentaria Puerto Rico es la aplicacion de contribuciones
Federales a nuestra gente productiva, lo que originaria una
situacion catastrofica en la economia familiar pues tendriamos
que pagar mas contribuciones.
La estadidad seria el suicidio politico de Puerto Rico, la
desaparicion de nuestra nacionalidad. Es por esto, que en lugar
de ayudar a imponer una formula politica en contra de la
mayoria de los Puertorriquenos expresada en las urnas, asi como
en contra de los mejores intereses de nuestros pueblos, hay que
darle continuidad al compromiso desarrollado por nuestras
naciones.
El ELA, como todo sistema, hay que mejorarlo en aquellas
partes donde no ha sido desarrollado. Para esto es menester
tener la voluntad politica de entender nuestro status. De eso
es que se trata esto, de la voluntad politica de unos y otros,
voluntad politica de los que queremos la ciudadania Americana y
seguir siendo Puertorriquenos y la voluntad politica de ustedes
para respetar eso y por tanto no darle la espalda a la creacion
mas afortunada en este continente.
Senores Congresistas, se necesita solo la voluntad politica
para mantener y desarrollar nuestra autonomia con ciudadania.
Nosotros somos Puertorriquenos primero. Puerto Rico es una
nacion. Definan el nuevo ELA con la misma dignidad como lo
concibe la mayoria de nuestro pueblo, tal y como lo hemos
propuesto. Recuerden, la clave de todo es voluntad politica.
Nosotros la tenemos. Demuestrenla ustedes. Atrevanse.
Muchas Gracias.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alzamora follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.069
Mr. Underwood [Presiding]. Next we have Mr. Jorge de Castro
Font, a Representative of the Puerto Rico House of
Representatives. Sir, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JORGE DE CASTRO FONT,
REPRESENTATIVE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN,
PUERTO RICO
Mr. Font. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Governor
Romero, and distinguished members of this Committee, welcome to
the Commonwealth, indeed the shining star of the Caribbean.
Since 1900, with the adoption of the Foraker Act, through
the Jones Act of 1917, the Elective Governors Act of 1947, and
finally with the adoption of the Constitution creating the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1952, the United States has been
complying slowly but consistently with its international
obligations to Puerto Rico.
In 1952, a big step was taken defining United States-Puerto
Rico political and constitutional relationship. The official
position of the United States as respects the process
culminating in the adoption of the Constitution creating
Commonwealth status can best be expressed in the words of
former President George Bush while U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations in 1972, and I quote:
``Since 1953, the practice of self-government has become a
firmly rooted tradition among the people of Puerto Rico. The
compact under which the peoples of Puerto Rico and the United
States live harmoniously in association has been achieved in
complete freedom.''
However, Representative Don Young, through H.R. 856, in
treating the present Commonwealth status as colonial in nature
and being under the plenary powers of Congress, openly and
brazenly contradicts official policy as pertains the nature of
the present Commonwealth relationship. If this is the case,
then I submit to the learned gentlemen from Congress that what
Judge Magruder refused to accept is quite true: ``Congress did,
in fact, perpetrate a monumental hoax upon the people of Puerto
Rico and upon the international community.''
The Popular Democratic Party believes in self-determination
for the people of Puerto Rico and self-government within the
framework of an enhanced and permanent Commonwealth status
firmly rooted on common citizenship, common market, common
defense and common currency. We hold these principles to be
nonnegotiable. We also believe in fair play.
We want to participate in this process but we must insist
that the status option that we support and have enjoyed since
1952 be not only validated as to its constitutional soundness,
but also that it be treated on an equal footing with the other
status options to appear on the ballot.
The bill we now consider falls short of this prerequisite.
It clearly violates the fundamental principles governing the
historic and special constitutional relationship between Puerto
Rico and the United States. This bill seems to be tailor-made
for failure of statehood, since it is the only option capable
of assuming for Puerto Ricans a permanent union with the United
States and American citizenship, which we insist must be made
part of any definition of Commonwealth appearing on the ballot.
Furthermore, the process contained in the Young bill lacks
self-executing definitions and in no way binds Congress. It
forces our people to multiple referendums while not even
guaranteeing a swift and uninterrupted process of transition.
It is, therefore, totally unacceptable to us and, in all
candidness, should likewise be unacceptable to you. The
question I ask each and every one of you is the following: Why
deprecate Commonwealth? Why deprecate Commonwealth? Governor
Romero?
Commonwealth has been an exceptionally good partnership for
both the United States and Puerto Rico. It has assured a
political and social stability without parallel in this
hemisphere, responsible for the unbelievable transformation of
Puerto Rico in the last 45 years. All this, gentlemen, has been
possible under Commonwealth.
We are really not asking for the impossible. What we are
asking this Committee in general, and Mr. Don Young in
particular, is to be consistent with previous definitions of
Commonwealth status which have been specifically endorsed, to
wit: that appearing on H.R. 4765, of May 1990. We will ask
nothing less.
We want a vote taken on this matter; but for this vote to
have any meaning, it must be an exercise of fair play and
pursuant to the most basic principles of American democracy. It
must be a process that dignifies our relationship and that
treats with due respect the 1 million American citizens in
Puerto Rico that favor Commonwealth. Estado libre asociado.
My party has always defended the political bonds that
through Commonwealth have united Puerto Rico and the United
States. I really hope that the doings of this Committee in
relation to Commonwealth status, which I uphold, will fully
justify that defense.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressmen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. de Castro Font follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.075
Mr. Underwood. Thank you. And now we have the Honorable
Severo E. Colberg-Toro, who is a Representative in the Puerto
Rico House of Representatives. Sir, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SEVERO E. COLBERG-TORO,
REPRESENTATIVE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN,
PUERTO RICO
Mr. Colberg-Toro. Senor Presidente y resto de los
Congresistas. El Proyecto 856 supone el establecer un proceso
que lleve a Puerto Rico a un completo gobierno propio. Para que
ese objetivo se cumpla, senor Presidente, hay que garantizar
que los Puertorriquenos puedan optar entre las alternativas en
forma libre, sin presiones o manipulaciones. El proceso tiene
que ser un ejercicio verdadero del derecho a la libre
determinacion. Con el historial de imposicion a que Estados
Unidos ha sometido a este pueblo por casi cien anos, oque
razones tendriamos en esta ocasion, los hijos de esta tieorra,
para pensar que esto es un proceso verdadero de libre
determinacion?
Veamos parte de ese historial antidemocratico sobre Puerto
Rico, por parte de Estados Unidos, quien ha actuado de acuerdo
a su interes y en violacion a los principios morales de los
cuales Estados Unidos se vanagloria de ser el paladin a nivel
mundial. El 25 de julio de 1898, las tropas Norteamericanas
invadieron a Puerto Rico. La ciudad de San Juan fue
bombardeada, poniendo en peligro la vida de mujeres y ninos
Boricua. Estados Unidos impuso en nuestra patria, un regimen
militar que dictatorialmente trastoco todo nuestro sistema de
vida.
La ley Foraker, que Estados Unidos tambien nos impuso,
trajo un gobierno civil. Este regimen fue valuado y comparado
con el sistema Norteamericano bajo la administracion del
Presidente Carter y dicho informe determino, que en todos los
sentidos no adquirimos nada mejor de lo que teniamos. Intento
imponer el Ingles en la educacion y en la judicatura.
Economicamente, los Estados Unidos no hizo nada de lo que ya
hacia Espana al devolvernos las tarifas que le imponia a
nuestros productos.
En 1917, ustedes impusieron la ciudadania Americana. La
legislatura de Puerto Rico, presidida por quien honramos hoy,
don Jose de Diego, aprobo unanimemente una resolucion que
establecia, que aunque se respetaba la ciudadania Americana,
mantenia su oposicion a ser declarados en su contra, ciudadanos
Americanos, intentando despojarnos de la ciudadania
Puertorriquena. Desde la decada de los treinta, el pueblo
Puertorriqueno a traves de sus sectores ideologicos y
politicos, han desarrollado todas las formas de lucha
concebibles, para conseguir que Estados Unidos colaborara en la
solucion del status politico.
El cabildeo de los estadistas, las grandes demostraciones
electorales del Partido Popular y la lucha armada del Partido
Nacionalista no fueron suficiente para adelantar a nuestro
pueblo en su lucha por la libre determinacion y autogobierno.
Se desato una represion contra las fuerzas politicas
Puertorriquenistas y en especial, contra el independentismo.
El Director del FBI, Edgar Hoover, le informaba al
Secretario de Justicia de los Estados Unidos con gran
preocupacion, que la legislatura de la isla habia aprobado una
ley para que se celebrara un plebiscito. Como consecuencia de
esa intencion, se desato una persecucion contra las fuerzas
Puertorriquenistas.
En el 1952, senor Presidente, como resultado de uno de los
logros mas importantes de nuestra historia como nacion y por
ejercer ese derecho a la libre determinacion, nuestro pueblo
aprueba una constitucion, de las mas completas del mundo. En
1952, se creo el Estado Libre Asociado, en el entendido, que se
creaba una nueva formula de relacion no- colonial con los
Estados Unidos. El Congreso Norteamericano elimino la Seccion
20 de nuestra Constitucion, atropellando la voluntad de nuestro
pueblo, y maculando el ejercicio a la libre determinacion.
Como resultado de la creacion del ELA, el Gobierno de los
Estados Unidos fue a las Naciones Unidas y consiguieron que se
le eximiera de seguir brindando informes obligatorios, basado
en que Puerto Rico habia entrado en una nueva relacion no-
colonial con los Estados Unidos. El Proyecto 856, presentado
por el senor Presidente y avalado por otros congresistas
concluye, que Puerto Rico sigue siendo una colonia de los
Estados Unidos. Esta aseveracion nos lleva entonces a la
conclusion de que Estados Unidos engano a las Naciones Unidas y
engano a la humanidad en el 1953. Esto demuestra el aspecto
moral de esta controversia.
Se ha senalado que el Partido Popular al que yo pertenezco,
colaboro con ustedes en el engano. Primero, creo que es bien
injusto dentro de la relacion de fuerza entre Estados Unidos y
Puerto Rico, siendo nosotros los mas en desventaja y donde ha
predominado la fuerza de la imposicion, aceptemos nuestra parte
en la responsabilidad de los Puertorriquenos en el engano.
Senor Presidente, yo le digo que aun asi, yo acepto la parte
que pueda haber de esa responsabilidad historica. Ahora bien,
yo pregunto, oaceptan ustedes la responsabilidad moral del
Gobierno de los Estados Unidos por ese engano?
La relacion de 1953. . . Ustedes le deben una explicacion
al pueblo Puertorriqueno. Si el reconocer esa situacion
significa que en esta ocasion el proceso se marcara dentro de
las normas del derecho internacional, al dia de hoy, para
comenzar a cumplir con ese derecho y obligacion, ustedes le
deben a las Naciones Unidas cuarenta y cinco informes
correspondientes por cada uno de los anos del 1952 que no se ha
cumplido. Desde el 1952 al presente, y en una demostracion de
buena fe y anhelo del pueblo Puertorriqueno por resolver su
status, se han celebrado dos plebiscitos, se han creado
comisiones, comites ad hoc, se han radicado proyectos en el
Congreso, se dio el proceso del 1989 y aqui estamos como
empezamos. Como diria don Luis Munoz Marin, ``Estamos en una
situacion donde cada punto es un 'turning point' porque estamos
moviendonos en circulos.''
Para romper este circulo senor Presidente y terminar, vamos
a ver y tener un verdadero derecho a la libre determinacion, de
acuerdo a lo que establece el derecho internacional. Yo, que
creo en lo establece ese derecho internacional para la
asociacion con soberania entre dos naciones, la libre
asociacion, lo acepto. Ahora bien, oaceptan ustedes que
entienden que Puerto Rico es una colonia, y por ende no puede
ser un caso domestico, la aplicacion del derecho internacional
en este proceso?
Finalmente les senalo, que ustedes tienen un problema de
indole moral con Puerto Rico y como ustedes saben, en este
ambito no puede haber puntos intermedios. No se puede ser el
lider de la democracia en el mundo y atropellar la voluntad de
un pueblo durante cien anos. En ese sentido, rechazo la
utilizacion de la ciudadania Americana como forma de chantaje
contra amplios sectores de nuestro pueblo para favorecer a una
de las opciones, la estadidad. Eso es un acto de agresion,
caracteristico de la politica de las canoneras. El jugar con
las lealtades y la querencias de un pueblo. Ustedes impusieron
la ciudadania Norteamericana cuando nadie la pidio. Ahora
tienen que asumir la responsabilidad por sus actos. Lo que se
da, no se quita. No pierdanle perspectiva que la paciencia del
pueblo, por mas pequeno que sea, tiene su limite y puestos
contra la pared no se suicidan, sino que se reafirman.
Muchas gracias.
Mr. Underwood. Now we have the Honorable Rony Jarabo, who
is the former Speaker of the House of Representatives. Sir, you
may proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RONY JARABO, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE
PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Jarabo. Thank you, sir. Acting Chairman Underwood,
former Governor and Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero-
Barcelo, Congressman Miller, I come before you as a deeply
concerned citizen who finds the design of the process of
consultation and implementation of status preference as
proposed by H.R. 856 very peculiar, highly objectionable, and
very unfair to the people of Puerto Rico. Decisions on the
political destiny of a people are a very serious matter, of
such proportions and consequences that they should exclude
partisan and sectarian biases that prejudge the merits of the
questions involved.
The exercise of a nation's most fundamental right, the
right to self-determination, and the possibly irreversible
results that ensue thereof, should be framed in a process that
is equitable to all competing options, not slanted in favor of
one of them. The process should embody effective moral,
political, and legal commitments of all entities with a
deciding role so that they shall be obligated to act on the
people's mandate within a reasonable time.
Admittedly, the criteria of political feasibility is
relevant and, indeed, essential to the responsible legislative
choices that must be made when drafting a bill that purports to
be a means of self-determination. But such criteria should be
applied evenhandedly, with fair play as the guiding spirit of
its application to all options in the process, not just to the
obvious target of the bill's design.
Certainly the process should facilitate solutions to
existing problems and not create new ones that cannot be
solved. I am deeply worried that we may be placing Puerto Rico
on a sure course to a no-exit situation, whereby the existing
political reality, Commonwealth, is the means and disqualified;
and the other probable choice, the other alternative with
sufficient political backing, there is no commitment as to it.
So we could end up recognizing or viewing what we have as
unacceptable and not being able to get what supposedly is
acceptable. I feel that would be a much worse situation than
what Puerto Rico now has in the present. And I feel that this
Committee, and Congress in general, have a very special
historic responsibility that this situation not be created.
I respectfully submit to you that H.R. 856 does not meet
the minimum basic requirements of a bill that fairly offers a
means to legitimate and effective self-determination.
Accordingly, I respectfully propose to you that this bill be
amended as follows:
Eliminate all provisions on findings that demean the option
of Commonwealth or that assume that nothing of political,
historic, or of constitutional relevance happened when
Commonwealth was created. They are unnecessary to the bill but
they slant the balance, the competitive balance, between the
options before the people of Puerto Rico.
Avoid the dualistic or bipolar approach of separate
sovereignty versus the formulas for union. I know you are
getting an intensive course in the labyrinth of Puerto Rican
status politics. I know that you have argued about sovereignty
and citizenship, and maybe by now you have realized that the
word and the concept of sovereignty in Puerto Rico is used at
least in three different meanings:
One, natural, or inherent sovereignty, which means the
inherent sovereignty of a people, the ultimate source from
which a political entity derives its authority. Which means the
right to self-government. Which means the right to self-
determination; Sovereignty of a political entity within the
Federal system of self-governing units within a Federal system,
which means reserved powers, retained rights. As, for example,
the rights of States, not delegated to the Federal Government
according to the 10th amendment of the Federal Constitution. Or
the Commonwealth sovereignty, ``over matters not ruled by the
U.S. Constitution.'' The quote is from the U.S. Supreme Court;
And the third meaning of a concept of sovereignty in Puerto
Rico is national sovereignty, which is what the bill calls
sovereignty. Separate sovereignty, of course. The full
sovereignty of independent states, which as an essential
characteristic exclude other entities; authority over the same
jurisdiction.
There is no conflict between the sovereignty of Puerto Rico
understood in the first or second meanings of the concept and
U.S. citizenship for Puerto Ricans as it exists under current
Commonwealth status. It is a basic flaw of H.R. 856 to equate
statehood with the only possible guarantee of permanent U.S.
citizenship.
I submit to you that the nature of citizenship is one
irrespective of its constitutional or statutory origin. I
believe we are afforded the same guarantees against loss of
citizenship that Afroean versus Rusk defined for all citizens.
The fact that voting rights of citizens vary according to
the political entity in which they reside, as do benefits under
Federal programs and tax obligations, does not invalidate the
principle of one class of citizenship. These differences are a
consequence of residence, not of citizenship, not of ``levels
of citizenship.''
The Nationality Act provides that for the purposes of
nationality, U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico shall be deemed
to have been born in the United States, thus bridging the gap
of nonincorpora-
tion. I believe this bill should not create a gap between
Puerto Rican born U.S. citizens, natural born U.S. citizens,
and fellow citizens born in one of the States of the Union.
There is no gap in the battlefield, there is no gap as to
due process and equal protection of the laws, there should be
no gap as to citizens.
I know I am running short of time.
Mr. Underwood. You have run out of time, but, please
continue.
Mr. Jarabo. Well, there are a number of----
Mr. Underwood. Would you please wrap it up, sir?
Mr. Jarabo. Yes. I will back Congressman Miller's point of
view as to the Commonwealth definition. I could answer
questions on it. There is nothing unusual or heretical or
unconstitutional in it.
I would like to end my testimony by addressing a number of
matters on statehood which deeply worry me.
As I said before, there is no commitment that statehood
will be granted even if statehood wins. I find that very
unfair.
I think that this bill should, in the absence of the
resolution expressing the sense of Congress that statehood is
possible, that Congress would be willing to grant statehood, if
statehood wins in Puerto Rico or if statehood reaches the
required majority and sustains it; because it should worry you
that since 1964 only twice, the third time this year, a party
has repeated its electoral victory. In 1964, PDP, the Popular
Democrat Party won, in 1968 the PNP; in 1972. So it goes back
and forth. So you could have a status decision here and the
consensus would not hold in 4 years or 8 years.
I believe there should be a policy established here as to
the possibility of statehood. It is a very relevant and very
essential factor of the debate on Puerto Rican status whether
statehood is possible or not. And as you know, the consensus
analysis of what happened with the Senate bill in 1990-91 was
that the Republican Senators would not vote for the bill
because it had automatic provision for statehood, if statehood
won.
Second----
Mr. Underwood. One final point, sir.
Mr. Jarabo. OK. On the language issue. I believe no
condition should be imposed on Puerto Rico, in the event of
statehood, that would not be imposed equally when it is imposed
on the rest of the States.
There should not be a provision that seems to place Puerto
Rico in a different light than what other States would be. And
that there should be in this bill, in this bill, policy
established as to Spanish in the event that statehood would win
and that Puerto Rico would become a State of the Union.
I believe that a plebiscite every 4 years is excessive.
Mr. Underwood. Now you have gone from language to the
plebiscite.
Mr. Jarabo. That is my last point, Chairman Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much. All of this is very
interesting testimony.
I wanted to ask a quick question of Mr. Castro Font. I read
about the vote in the newspaper. You alluded to it in your
written testimony but you did not say it in your statement.
Does your political party have a unified stand on who should be
eligible to vote in this political status process?
Mr. Font. I didn't have that in my address today because of
the time, but you read the papers; so, good.
Mr. Underwood. I tried to.
Mr. Font. Let me tell you something. I am a very pragmatic
man, let me tell you. I believe the only people that have the
authority to vote in Puerto Rico must be the residents of the
Island of Puerto Rico, and that is my point of view.
I am pro-Commonwealth. I am a member of the Popular Party,
but I am a very pragmatic man. I believe this is fair. The
fairness of the process is, if you are going to a plebiscite in
1998, you have to fix that definition, and also the only people
that must have the right to vote are the people living in
Puerto Rico, and if they apply the electoral law of Puerto Rico
for the year of residency in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Colberg-Toro. Si, senor Presidente, en cuanto a esa
pregunta, nosotros diferimos respetuosamente del companero. El
Partido Popular no ha definido su posicion en cuanto a eso y la
que se ha discutido. . . La que se ha discutido ha sido de que
Puerto Rico es una sola nacion. Y eso incluye los
Puertorriquenos que viven en los Estados Unidos, que son tan
Puertorriquenos como nosotros los que vivimos aqui en la isla.
Nosotros entendemos que es justo y razonable, que siendo
una sola nacion y se vaya a definir. . . Se vaya a definir el
futuro de la nacion, sean los nacionales, los Puertorriquenos
eh. . . No importa dondequiera que estos se encuentren. Y un
ejemplo clasico seria el Puertorriqueno que lleva tiempo
viviendo en los Estados Unidos, tiene siempre el deseo de
regresar a Puerto Rico o que ha regresado, lleva veinte anos, y
esa persona y sus hijos son Puertorriquenos no pudiera votar
cuando viene una persona que cumpla con la ley electoral y
simplemente sea un residente de un ano en Puerto Rico, ese si
pueda votar en la decision de un pueblo. Parece que hay una
gran contradiccion y que es un punto por lo cual me parece que
debe ser evaluado y sobre todo, si se va a cumplir con el
derecho internacional.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Colberg-Toro follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.078
Mr. Underwood. My only point was, I wanted to know whether
the party had a position, and it appears it does not.
Mr. Jarabo. In the past, Mr. Chairman, the party has made
public statements backing the vote by Puerto Rican-born
citizens and leaving the door open, given the problem of
logistics, as to children born of Puerto Rican parents and
living in the States.
That is the past. I don't know what the present position
would be.
But let me just point out that if this is a process of
self-determination, it seems to me the only valid option is
that all Puerto Rican-born citizens would be able to vote.
Whether non-Puerto-Rican-born citizens residing in Puerto
Rico could vote, that is a different question, whether you
would consider them as a different segment of the vote, because
they are part of the people of Puerto Rico, because they reside
here, they are citizens of Puerto Rico, their children have
been born here, that type of consideration.
But as to the first question, I believe all Puerto Rican-
born should be able to vote.
Mr. Font. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I want to add
something, because you are mistaken. This is my personal
belief. I want to say something to you.
My family is the Castro family. We came to Puerto Rico 500
years ago from Spain, 500 years. I have cousins in California,
I have cousins in North Carolina, I have Puerto Ricans, the
Castro family, in Florida and New York. I don't vote for the
decision of my fellow cousins in the United States mainland.
Mr. Underwood. Very good, understood.
Before we go to the other members, just briefly on the
issue of reporting in the United Nations, I want to share an
issue with you. The issue of how that is portrayed is one that
I have watched very carefully.
In the case of Guam, Guam is still on the list of non-self-
governing territories at the United Nations. It was
communicated to me in no uncertain terms that had Guam adopted
what was called a constitution of self-government, then the
U.S. Government would have moved toward removing Guam from the
list, even without a particular change in political status. So
the issue has many different dimensions to it.
I have run out of time, and I will go to Mr. Miller from
California.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate your question on eligibility to vote. As you
know, we have been approached by our colleague, Mr. Serrano,
who is deeply concerned about that issue, and I am sure we will
be debating it.
As he points out, we can resolve it in a manner in which he
can be a Puerto Rican with a vote in Congress but no vote in
Puerto Rico, which would be an interesting turn of events.
I really don't have a question. I want to again make a
couple of defining remarks here about this process. It has been
suggested by various witnesses that we have had, both in
Washington and here--that somehow each of these definitions
ties you down to a specific status, and in some cases that is
heralded as a benefit, and in others it is suggested that is a
detriment. Again, it is depends on who is characterizing this.
I would only state this process comes at a rather unique
time in our own history, when the Congress is in the process of
redefining the status of many of the States. We are handing off
burdens to many of the States, some of which they asked for and
think they can handle, and others which they are now quite
alarmed at having to deal with.
We also find our own courts now taking another look at the
powers of the Congress with respect to the commerce clause vis-
a-vis the States and obligations that we can place on those,
and even the obligations we can place on individual citizens.
The general use of our system is that it is, in fact, a
fluid system. It is never static, it is constantly changing
within those relationships. And that is why, again, I would
argue that this process remain as open as possible and as fair
as possible, because eventually the decisions that will have to
be made on both sides of the equation are very, very serious
decisions.
As we properly should, we continue to dwell on the
decisions that the people of Puerto Rico will have to make. I
suggest to you that many Members of Congress, when they realize
that this is in fact a very real legislative proposal, this
will be every bit as serious a decision for them as any vote
they cast in the Congress of the United States. Some of them
will come to that realization sooner than others.
But the fact is, by the time we vote on the Floor of the
House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and pass this to
the President of the United States, this will be a very real
concrete decision for Members of Congress.
For that reason, I just continue to argue that we should
remain open to all suggestions. Again, we will not accept all
suggestions, by any means, but that is the process, and we have
got to make sure as we take that first step, which will be the
presentation of this legislation, that all parties feel truly
enfranchised in that process.
I raise that point for some of the reasons that some of you
raised it here and the previous panel raised it. I think it is
maybe the most important gift that this Committee can give to
the process, is that all concerned citizens of Puerto Rico
truly feel enfranchised by this Committee.
I know that Carlos and Congressman Young have worked very
hard to do that. We had a lot of negotiations, and we will
continue to have those, to make sure that, in fact, people who
are in this room and watching this and participating in this
long and historical debate believe that the Congress served
them well. As we have already heard, some of you are not so
sure of that today. But that is our obligation back to you.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Alzamora. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify something
very important. Se trata, como portavoz del Partido Popular en
este. . . En este grupo, dejar una cosa bien clara para el
record. La posicion oficial del Partido Popular Democratico,
que fue aprobada en una resolucion y que no ha sido revocada,
es que los nacionales Puertorriquenos no importa donde vivan,
participen en el plebiscito que tenga que ver con el futuro de
el pais. La posicion del querido companero de Castro Font se la
respetamos. Es un. . . Como el ha dicho, su opinion personal.
Pero la oposicion oficial del partido, hasta tanto no sea
revocada y no anticipo que vaya a ser revocada, es que todo
nacional Puertorriqueno pueda votar en relacion al futuro del
[U/I].
Mr. Underwood. Thank you for that clarification.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start first of all by saying that we talk about
the vote of people that do not reside in Puerto Rico. We have
too short a time to discuss the logistics of it, but the
logistics are just impossible. So to try to do that is the way
of derailing the process.
The other thing: As far as some people claim, there are 3.3
million Puerto Ricans residing in the mainland, 50 States of
the Union, and in other countries. To give them the same
process of identification as we do here for those who vote here
and to issue them a voting card with a photograph, it would
just be logistically impossible.
The other thing that I would like to let you be aware of:
This is a process where we are asking that each group say what
it is they want from Congress; in other words, how do they
define the formula? But you must also be aware of, this is not
a one-way street, this is a two-way street.
One thing is what you might want to see, and the other
thing is what can be reasonable or what others are going to be
willing to accept. Each Congressman and each Senator responds
to their citizens in their State.
So when you claim, for instance, that you want to have
equal benefits in Federal programs and yet you are not willing
to pay Federal income tax, well, you have to be aware, whether
it is constitutional or not, how does that sit with the
citizens of the 50 States who do have to pay Federal income
taxes? That is part of the things that each Congressman and
each Senator is going to weigh.
So one thing is what you might want, and the other things
is what Congress is going to be willing to give.
Then the other thing is, when you ask that the Congress
commit themselves, and I see that you underscore when they
commit themselves to statehood, 37 territories became States
after the original Thirteen Colonies, and those 37 territories,
none of them were offered or guaranteed statehood. They had to
go through a process. They had to ask for statehood. In some
instances it was a very short time, and in some instances it
was a very long time.
But you think that we should be guaranteed something that
has not been guaranteed historically to anyone else? I know you
have great concerns for statehood. Please, let us deal with
that. We will take our chances. We will take our chances.
The other thing I wanted to say: When you think of a
sovereign nation--and Puerto Rico is a sovereign nation with
U.S. citizenship--do you, as a sovereign nation, think Puerto
Rico should abide by the Federal banking laws or not--the
banking laws adopted by Congress, or not?
Mr. Alzamora. Bueno, la--la soberania de Puerto Rico la
reconoce el propio Congreso de los Estados Unidos, cuando en la
Ley 600----
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Please, I know that you can evade
answering my question and you can talk for the rest of the
time, but I am trying to get a point across so the people
understand what it is that you want in your choice. Do you
think in the new Commonwealth--would you expect the banking
laws that were then adopted by the Congress--do you think they
should be applicable to Puerto Rico, yes or no?
Mr. Alzamora. Bueno, yo le voy a contestar conforme a como
yo entiendo que debo contestar mi pregunta no como usted desea
que yo se la conteste. La propuesta del Estado Libre Asociado
esta clara. En el Inciso C en particular, habla de una asamblea
constituyente especial para cualquier cosa que no este
debidamente definida dentro del concepto de mejorar el Estado
Libre Asociado a obtener el maximo de autonomia y que nosotros
podamos decidir sobre la legislacion Federal a aplicarla o no.
Esa asamblea constituyente estaria a cargo de redactar todo ese
proceso que es bastante detallado. Por lo tanto, eso no puedo
contestarlo con un si o un no. Ahora, si para complacerlo mas,
le puedo decir lo siguiente. Denos la oportunidad a que se
acepte esta definicion. Estoy seguro que con esta definicion
volvera a ganar por tercera ocasion el Estado Libre Asociado y
esa asamblea constituyente se encargara de esa preocupacion.
[Applause.]
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. When the Congressmen or Senator asks
me, with this definition of ``New Commonwealth,'' when we pass
banking laws, are they going to be applicable to Puerto Rico, I
say I don't know. How can we make a decision?
Mr. Alzamora. Pero precisamente, la Asamblea Constituyente
especial atendera todo aquello que tenga que ver con la
aplicabilidad de leyes Federales.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. So I cannot answer them, because then
they want to know. But they want the entitlements. On that they
are clear; they want the money, but not the obligation.
Mr. Alzamora. Pero es que la--el desarrollo del Estado
Libre Asociado obviamente tiene que estar basado en primero, en
un mandato del pueblo. A pesar de que han habido dos mandatos y
Estados Unidos no los ha atendido gracias al boicot del
liderato estadista en el Congreso, como en el del 1993 que
ustedes lo propusieron y no nos permitieron entonces a nosotros
trabajar en la forma que habia que trabajar. Estamos aqui ahora
mismo, debatiendo en un futuro status precisamente, porque al
Estado Libre Asociado no le han permitido desarrollarlo por el
boicot antidemocratico de las personas que pierden plebiscito
en este pais. Y entonces, ante esa realidad, pues estamos
nuevamente en un proceso congresional ahora para poder definir
la formula.
La estadidad se sabe cual es, una sola, Americana, la
eliminacion de la nacionalidad Puertorriquena. La independencia
se sabe cual es, separarse de Estados Unidos. El Estado Libre
Asociado tiene los parametros basicos que se basa en la comun
ciudadania, la comun defensa, el comun mercado, la comun moneda
y entonces la aspiracion de mejorarlo, manteniendo esos cuatro
pilares basicos pero logrando el maximo de autonomia compatible
con nuestra relacion permanente con los Estados Unidos. Y por
eso en el Inciso C proponemos como podemos desarrollar esa
autonomia a base de que ley Federal se aplica Puerto Rico y
cual no y que forma Puerto Rico pueda tener su presencia
internacional. Eso esta contestado en esta definicion que hemos
sometido.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. It is not answered. You are just going
around in circles, but you are not answering.
Just one final question. How do I answer when they ask me,
this group of people that want U.S. citizenship, that one of
the spokesman says, ``I do not feel American''? What do you
think their constituents of the Congressmen and Senators are
going to say? Why do you want to give citizenship to those
people that don't want it? Why? What can we tell them?
Mr. Alzamora. You don't have to give us citizenship; we
have citizenship. Just nationality.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Why should we guarantee it?
Mr. Alzamora. Es que no hay--no hay que darles ciudadania.
La ciudadania la tenemos igual que la nacionalidad. Lo que
sucede--yo le pregunto a usted, si usted se siente--si usted se
siente Puertorriqueno o Americano porque yo me siento----
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Las dos cosas.
Mr. Alzamora. ... Puertorriqueno.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I feel both.
Mr. Alzamora. No, yo me siento Puertorriqueno----
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I feel both.
Mr. Alzamora. [continuing] y ciudadano Americano. Son dos
cosas distintas porque la nacionalidad no puede ser nada mas
que una. La ciudadania puede ser dos como la tenemos en Puerto
Rico, la Americana y la Puertorriquena por naturaleza. Pero
nacional uno es solamente de una nacion, y nuestra nacion es
Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Then you don't want to be a U.S.
citizen. Will you defend it?
Mr. Alzamora. No, claro que la defendere, claro que
defendemos la ciudadania Americana. La defendemos, claro que
si. La hemos defendido con nuestras vidas inclusive en las
guerras, defendiendola dentro del pacto que existe bilateral,
que es parte de ese pacto, la ciudadania Americana.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am sure we
can continue this discussion ad infinitum. I would like to
thank again the members of the panel.
Before I turn the gavel over to Mr. Miller, I would like to
just take one small privilege and say, ``Hafa Adai,'' which is
the greeting in Guam, to all the people of Puerto Rico and
Mayaguez who are watching this, and also take an opportunity to
introduce a couple of people in the audience. One is Senator
Elizabeth Barrett Anderson of the Guam Legislature. I see she
is not there. The other is her staffer, Jim Underwood, who
magically has the same last name. I don't know how that
happened. He is my first cousin. He is also a former Senator of
the Guam Legislature.
Thank you very much for being a good panel.
Mr. Miller [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony and
time and consideration of the Committee.
The next panel will be made up of Mr. Julio Muriente Perez,
who is the president of the Puerto Rico New Movement
Independent Party; Mr. Roberto Cardona Ubinas, president of the
National Patriotic Union; Ms. Lolita Lebron, the president of
the Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico; Mr. Frank Velgara, co-
coordinator, Pro-Liberated; Mr. Carlos Gallisa, Hato Rey; and
Dr. Edgardo Morales, professor of organizational psychology,
University of Puerto Rico.
Welcome to the Committee.
Mr. Perez, we will begin with you.
Mr. Gallisa. Senor Presidente, antes de comenzar a deponer
este panel queremos expresar nuestro profundo disgusto por la
ausencia del senor Don Young que es el que preside este panel,
y creemos que es una falta de respeto.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Young is watching this testimony. Mr. Young
happens to have a bad back. Mr. Young cannot sit through all of
the testimony. He has been monitoring and watching the
testimony, just as he did in San Juan.
Mr. Gallisa. Pues yo espero que asi sea, pero de cualquier
manera nos parece que el senor Young ha hecho un compromiso de
venir a oir aqui a todo el mundo y que solamente esta oyendo a
un sector de los que se expresan aqui. Asi que conste nuestra
protesta desde este comienzo por la ausencia de el, que
entendemos que es irrespetuosa.
Mr. Miller. That is fine. That is simply an inaccurate
statement.
Senor Perez, we begin with you.
STATEMENT OF JULIO A. MURIENTE PEREZ, PRESIDENT, PUERTO RICO
NEW MOVEMENT INDEPENDENT PARTY, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Muriente Perez. Senores congresistas, mi nombre es
Julio Antonio Muriente Perez. Soy geografo y profesor
universitario. Comparezco ante ustedes en calidad de Presidente
del Nuevo Movimiento Independentista Puertorriqueno, hoy 21 de
abril de 1997, fecha en que se conmemora treinta y dos anos de
la muerte del patriota don Pedro Alvisu Campos, cuya vida y
ejemplo nos inspira como igualmente nos inspira compartir aqui
con la heroina nacional Lolita Lebron, presente aqui con la
misma firmeza con la que los enfrento a ustedes. . . [Applause]
En el Congreso el primero de marzo de 1954.
Hace casi noventa y nueve anos, las tropas Estadounidenses
invadieron Puerto Rico y nos tomaron como botin de guerra.
Entonces no hubo plebiscitos ni consultas. Se apoderaron de
nosotros a la fuerza. Desde entonces, Estados Unidos ha
controlado nuestras vidas, ha impuesto sobre los
Puertorriquenos las leyes que emanan del Congreso. Ha intentado
imponer su lengua y su cultura, ha militarizado grandes
porciones de nuestras tierras.
Esta situacion de unilateralidad no vario con la creacion
del Estado Libre Asociado en el ano 1952 y se mantiene hasta
nuestros dias. Casi noventa y nueve anos despues, ustedes
senores congresistas, radican un proyecto de ley que han
catalogado como de naturaleza descolonizadora sin contar con el
parecer del pueblo Puertorriqueno, concebido y disenado en
funcion de sus intereses y de los intereses de un sector
antinacional y antipatriotico que son los eleccionistas que no
representan el sentir de la mayoria del pueblo Puertorriqueno.
Ustedes le han pedido definiciones de status a los tres
partidos politicos del pais, pero en ultima instancia seran
ustedes quienes decidan que definiciones apareceran si el
Proyecto Young se convierte en ley y si se implementa alguna
consulta al pueblo. Incluso, si se diera dicha consulta, no se
comprometen a reconocer los resultados de la misma.
Ustedes celebraron unas vistas publicas recientemente en
Washington y celebran estas vistas publicas en Puerto Rico para
dar la impresion de que el pueblo de Puerto Rico participa en
este proceso. Pero la realidad es que ustedes aprobaran, si es
finalmente aprueban algo, lo que a ustedes y solo a ustedes les
convenga. Vistas publicas, que si para algo han servido, es
para dividir aun mas al pueblo Puertorriqueno en tribus
irreconciliables.
Mientras tanto, al pueblo Puertorriqueno se le mantiene en
las gradas mientras ustedes imponen sus decisiones en el campo
de juego. Cuando decimos el pueblo Puertorriqueno, nos
referimos tanto a quienes residimos en Puerto Rico como a los
millones de compatriotas radicados en Estados Unidos y otras
partes del planeta, que son hijos de esta tierra como el que
mas, y que tienen los mismos derechos fundamentales para
decidir sobre el destino de este pais.
El Proyecto Young, senores Congresistas, no representa un
proceso descolonizador sino una imposicion similar a la ley. .
. A la Ley 600 de 1950. Ustedes, senores Congresistas, y la
institucion que ustedes representan, tienen que demostrar que
tienen la voluntad para promover un proceso real y genuinamente
descolonizador en Puerto Rico si es que interesan gozar de
alguna credibilidad. Corresponde a ustedes reconocer que Puerto
Rico es una nacion sometida al colonialismo y que son ustedes
la metropoli que somete a esta nacion Caribena y
Latinoamericana.
Tienen ustedes que reconocer que existe una legalidad
internacional en materia de colonialismo que no comienza con la
quince (15) cuarenta y uno (41) quinza [sic] (XV) sino que esta
inspirada en la Resolucion Quince Catorce (1514) Romanos quince
(XV) de la ONU, la cual establece que todo proceso de
descolonizacion tiene que estar precedido por una transferencia
de poderes fundamentales de la metropoli a la colonia. Sin esa
transferencia de poderes, no puede haber proceso
descolonizador.
Tienen ustedes que desistir de lanzar una escalada militar
como lo es la imposicion del Comando Sur de su ejercito y la
instalacion de un sistema de radares por su Marina de Guerra.
Sin desmilitarizacion, no puede haber proceso descolonizador.
Tienen ustedes que dar muestra de su buena fe liberando a los
quince (15) prisioneros politicos Puertorriquenos que purgan
largas condenas en las carceles Estadounidenses por el solo
delito de luchar por la independencia de su patria.
Ustedes, senores Congresistas, y el Congreso que ustedes
representan, tiene el poder para hacer eso y mucho mas, si
fuera su voluntad. Claro, tambien tienen el poder para imponer
un proyecto de ley como el Proyecto Young, o mas grave aun,
tienen ustedes el poder para intentar imponernos la anexion,
como nos han impuesto el colonialismo.
La anexion, quede absolutamente claro, no es una
alternativa descolonizadora para la nacion Puertorriquena. Por
el contrario, constituiria la consumacion del colonialismo, y
ello es inadmisible.
Si prevalece como hasta ahora la soberbia colonial, o peor
aun, si se intenta llevar a la nacion Puertorriquena al
despenadero que representa la anexion, sepan ustedes senores
Congresistas y haganle saber a sus colegas en el Congreso, que
Puerto Rico es un hueso duro de roer. No ha sido en vano que
hemos logrado prevalecer como nacion tras casi un siglo de
colonialismo. Si hemos luchado por largo tiempo, primero contra
el colonialismo espanol y luego contra ustedes, no tenemos
ningun reparo, ninguno, en comenzar el siglo veintiuno
combatiendo el colonialismo y la anexion.
Sepan ustedes, senores Congresistas, que la comunidad
internacional esta muy atenta a los paso que de Estados Unidos
para adelantar legitimamente la descolonizacion de Puerto Rico.
Asi quedo patentizado en la Conferencia Ministerial de la
Organizacion de Paises No Alineados celebrada asi varios dias
en Nueva Delhi, India--a la cual asistimos.
Nosotros simplemente queremos alcanzar la meta que ustedes
alcanzaron hace mas de dos siglos. En 1776, el pueblo de las
Trece Colonias hubiese rechazado firmemente un Proyecto Young
proveniente de la metropoli Britanica, como nosotros hoy
rechazamos este que proviene de la metropoli Estadounidense.
Deseamos la autodeterminacion e independencia, es decir, la
verdadera descolonizacion y una relacion de paz y respeto con
Estados Unidos. Estamos dispuestos a ir a la mesa de
negociaciones, pero tambien al campo de batalla como lo hemos
hecho en el pasado.
En esta coyuntura tan injusta y desigual, corresponde a
ustedes senores Congresistas, y al Congreso de Estados Unidos,
ofrecer algo mas que un proyecto de ley amanado, en el que una
vez mas se nos impone su criterio y que tal como se ha
conducido este proceso, constituye un nuevo engano y una
perdida de tiempo.
Concluyo senores Congresistas, leyendo para ustedes el
fragmento de un poema, ``Aleluya'', escrito por el patriota
Jose de Diego, cuya vigencia y pertinencia es indiscutible.
Dice asi, ``Hablamos otra lengua, con otro pensamiento, en la
onda del espiritu y en la onda del viento y os estamos diciendo
hace tiempo en las dos, que os vayais con el diablo y nos
dejeis con Dios.''
Muchas gracias.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perez (in Spanish) follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.084
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you.
Mr. Ubinas.
STATEMENT OF ROBERTO CARDONA UBINAS, PRESIDENT, UNION PATRIOTIC
NATIONAL, AGUADILLA, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Ubinas. Senor Presidente del Comite de Recursos,
senores Congresistas. . . Mi nombre es Roberto Cardona Ubinas.
Presido la organizacion politica Union Patriotica Nacional. En
primera instancia, quisiera solicitar respetuosamente que se
admita en evidencia la ponencia que se preparo para esta
audiencia ante ustedes y me permito presentarles a quien sera
nuestro portavoz durante la tarde de hoy, el Licenciado Eduardo
Villanueva Munoz, quien ocupara el turno concedido a la Union
Patriotica Nacional.
Si, un saludo a todos los eh. . . A los Congresistas y a
todos los compatriotas que se encuentran aqui. Bienvenidos a mi
patria, a mi nacion, Puerto Rico, para dialogar sobre un asunto
tan importante como es la descolonizacion de Puerto Rico.
Hubiera preferido que este dialogo analitico se diera ante un
tribunal internacional presidido por observadores imparciales
que juzgaran la controversia de forma objetiva y que no fueran
parte interesada o gestora del problema colonial como lo son
ustedes. De todos modos, si la intencion real es terminar la
relacion colonial que nos une, estamos dispuestos a iniciar un
dialogo que propicie un proceso justo para todas las partes y
sectores.
La Union Patriotica Nacional ha dialogado con sectores
obreros, ambientalistas, organizaciones independentistas no
electorales, maestros e individuos no afiliados, con el
proposito de recoger un consenso sobre los elementos y
garantias que debe contener un verdadero proceso de
descolonizacion. Estos elementos son los siguientes:
Reconocimiento de la existencia de la nacion Puertorriquena
tal como la definio el Senador Ruben Berrios, con la cual
coincidio el ex-Gobernador Hernandez Colon, a saber, la
definicion clasica de ``nacion'' es aquella incluida en el
Diccionario de la Academia Espanola desde 1925.
Es ``una colectividad de personas que tiene el mismo origen
etnico y que en general, habla un lenguaje comun y poseen una
tradicion comun.'' Otras caracteristicas comunmente asociadas
con la nacion o la nacionalidad son, territorio, historia,
simbolos y rituales comunes y fidelitas [sic] O lealtad
primaria a la nacionalidad. Por eso es que las lenguas romance
de las que son indigenas la palabra ``nacion'' y
``nacionalidad,'' la raiz de esas palabras se refiere a origen
o ascendencia, ``natio'' en Latin. Reconocimiento de la
ciudadania Puertorriquena, con plenitud de derechos
constitucionales, a saber, derecho al voto, a viajar, a ser
elegido a puestos publicos y con libre acceso al territorio de
los Estados Unidos de Norteamerica, con sustancial con el
reconocimiento de la ciudadania Puertorriquena. Es necesario
que se garantice para esta y futuras generaciones, que el
idioma oficial de Puerto Rico bajo cualquier status ha de ser
el Espanol. El idioma natural de los ciudadanos Puertorriquenos
lo es el Espanol y no el Ingles. Cualquier intento por imponer
el Ingles en la ensenanza o en gestiones administrativas bajo
cualquier status constituye una violacion de nuestros derechos
humanos, ademas de ser antipedagogico como lo ha senalado el
Senador Roberto Resach [sp] Benites. Tercero, liberacion de
todos los presos politicos Puertorriquenos, en virtud de que no
puede darse un proceso de descolonizador en el cual la
poblacion votante sea intimidada o coaccionada para evitar o
disuadir la lucha por la independencia con medidas represivas
como lo es el encarcelamiento o la exigencia de
arrepentimiento. Dicho sea de paso, tambien debe concederse el
indulto incondicional al luchador por la independencia en el
clandestinaje, Filiberto Ojeda Rios. Cuarto, detencion del
proceso de militarizacion. Por ejemplo, que se desista de
establecer unidades del Comando Sur en la isla y se detengan
los planes para instalar el radar que auspicia la Marina en
vista de que esto es un organismo militar.
El uso de Vieques para bombardeo y practicas de la Marina
de Guerra de Estados Unidos tambien debe terminar, siendo que
Vieques es parte de Puerto Rico y sus votantes tambien tienen
derecho a autodeterminarse. Todas las formulas sobre las cuales
se consulta al pueblo, deben ser no coloniales, a tono con las
Resoluciones Quince Cuarenta y uno (1541) y Quince Catorce
(1514) Quince (XV) de la Organizacion de Naciones Unidas. Por
tanto es contraria al derecho internacional, incluir al ELA
clasico, en virtud de que su fundador, Luis Munoz Marin,
reconocia que la soberania seguia en poder del Congreso y asi
lo reitero el Licenciado Javal Hernandez Dolon ante las vistas
de 1989 que presidio el Senador Bennett Johnston.
El FBI, la CIA, el Consejo de Seguridad y todos los
organismos de inteligencia de Estados Unidos, deben abstenerse
de participar en cualquier proceso de autodeterminacion del
pueblo Puertorriqueno para que este cumpla con los criterios
reconocidos por el derecho internacional. En ese sentido, nos
preocupa el anuncio de que ha de aumentarse la presencia del
FBI en Puerto Rico, mediante la apertura de nuevas oficinas en
diversos pueblos de nuestro pais. Documentos de COINTELPRO
Revelan que el FBI jugo un rol manipulador decisivo en el
proceso plebiscitario de 1967.
En vista de la amplia documentacion que existe acreditando
la intervencion para amedrentar, dividir, dirigir procesos
hacia el resultado querido pero oculto de varios organismos de
inteligencia de Estados Unidos, es imprescindible que un
verdadero proceso descolonizador y de autodeterminacion cuente
con observadores internacionales, especialmente de
Latinoamerica, que es el entorno geografico cultural e
historico al cual pertenecemos.
Es imposible que un pais intervenido militarmente, sin
control sobre su frontera, sin representacion internacional,
sin relaciones comerciales libres y extremadamente dependiente,
pueda en realidad ejercer el derecho a la autodeterminacion. Es
por ello que las normas de derecho internacional han disenado
un proceso previo de transferencia de poderes como condicion
sine qua non a un proceso descolonizador. Ese paso de justicia
necesaria, obliga a que ustedes y su pais devuelvan al pueblo
de Puerto Rico, la soberania que detentan ilegalmente desde
1898.
Puerto Rico esta preparado para recibir en una convencion
constituyente todos los poderes constitutivos de la soberania y
en ejercicio de nuestro derecho a la libre determinacion e
independencia, decidir el tipo de relacion que convenga a los
intereses de ambos paises. Convendria a este proyecto
incorporar la transferencia de poderes como una expresion
genuina del Congreso de Estados Unidos para propiciar y
asegurar un verdadero proceso de autodeterminacion. La
propuesta del----
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ubinas (in Spanish)
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.091
Mr. Miller. Mr. Velgara.
Mr. Ubinas. La propuesta del----
Mr. Miller. If I might ask that you honor the time, please.
Mr. Velgara.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The original time for Mr. Cardona be
added to--if you want to yield that time, if that was your
intent, was to yield your time.
STATEMENT OF FRANK VELGARA, CO-COORDINATOR, PRO-LIBERATED, NEW
YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. Velgara. Yes.
Mr. Ubinas. La propuesta del PI [?] Para que exista un
proceso de transicion economica de diez anos es una razonable y
necesaria en vista de la responsabilidad que tiene Estados
Unidos por haber creado y disenado en nuestro pais una economia
dependiente.
Los Puertorriquenos no tenemos duda de que podemos en la
Republica, crear una economia prospera y autosuficientes.
Existen paises mas pobres que nosotros ahora, pero los hay con
igual o menos poblacion y territorio que son mas prosperos y
dinamicos que nosotros. La inmensa mayoria del pueblo de Puerto
Rico estoy seguro, rechaza la alternativa que se nos convierta
en un territorio incorporado. Ello solo incrementa la
dependencia economica y sociologica y seria como decia don
Pedro Alvisu Campos de la estadidad, ``El paso previo a la
culminacion del coloniaje.'' Incluso el electorado
estadolibrista que ronda cerca de 900,000 electores, deberia
considerar seriamente boicotear cualquier proceso que contemple
la incorporacion, porque esta jamas seria un proceso orientado
a la culminacion del ELA, sino mas bien encaminado a la
transicion hacia la estadidad. La generalidad del
independentismo Puertorriqueno preferiria que en una votacion
sobre nuestro destino ulterior, voten los nacionales
Puertorriquenos. Es importante que no voten personas con
arraigo en otra cultura, con intereses economicos y politicos
mucho mas vinculados a otros paises o incluso a estados
federados, que de advenir un resultado contrario a su
ideologia, no se quedarian a vivir las consecuencias de su
eleccion.
En un verdadero proceso de autodeterminacion, la tendencia
historica ha sido permitir que voten exclusivamente los
nacionales del pais que se autodetermina. Nacionales pueden
definirse como los hijos de Puertorriqueno y de aquello que
lleven residiendo en Puerto Rico mas de cinco anos. No son
nacionales Puertorriquenos los Norteamericanos por adopcion de
ciudadania. Ejemplos, Cubanos, Dominicanos, Argentinos, rabes,
etcetera, que tienen su domicilio en Puerto Rico porque tienen
animos [uninteligible] Aqui.
Las transferencias de fondos Federales en el periodo de
transicion hacia la independencia pueden extenderse en bloques
y debe ser negociada la cantidad de anos por las cuales se
recibirian, en virtud de que consideramos que son una
compensacion por los danos que ha causado el coloniaje en
terminos psicologicos, morales, economicos y sociologicos a los
ciudadanos Puertorriquenos que lo han sufrido.
El Estado Libre Asociado y la Libre Asociacion son dos
formulas distintas, conforme al derecho internacional. El
Proyecto Young equipara la libre asociacion con la
independencia, lo cual en la practica equivale a estimular o
incitar los miedos que tienen algunos sectores en Puerto Rico
con la independencia. Por lo tanto, el proceso segun iniciado,
y la definicion de la formula tiende a favorecer la formula
estadista. No hay que decir que ello es injusto y contrario a
los mejores intereses tanto de Puerto Rico como de Estados
Unidos.
Finalmente, reconocemos que existen fuertes vinculos
historicos, economicos y politicos entre Estados Unidos y
Puerto Rico. Tenemos mas de 2 millones de Puertorriquenos en
Estados Unidos que probablemente sigan viviendo alla pero se
preocupan por nuestro destino. Queremos finiquitar el regimen
colonial y queremos hacerlo de una manera racional, ordenada,
pacifica y honorable para ambas partes.
Sin embargo, queremos hacer claro, que para los
Puertorriquenos el derecho a preservar nuestra identidad
nacional, nuestra cultura, nuestro idioma Espanol, nuestro
territorio para uso agricola, industrial y no militar, nuestra
identidad deportiva incluyendo la representacion internacional
olimpica y el origen Latinoamericano que establece un vinculo
indisoluble con nuestros hermanos que viven desde el Rio Bravo
hasta Tierra de Fuego, son valores y principios por los cuales
no dejaremos de luchar en todas las formas, absolutamente en
todas, incluso en la estadidad federada.
Es por ello que esa formula, que para nosotros es la
culminacion de la disolucion nacional, no conviene ni a Puerto
Rico ni a Estados Unidos, tanto desde un punto de vista
practico, como desde la proyeccion historica que ustedes
quieren impartir a este proceso.
Muchas gracias.
Mr. Miller. Ms. Lebron.
STATEMENT OF LOLITA LEBRON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PARTY OF PUERTO
RICO, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Ms. Lebron. Senor Don Young, Senores Congresistas,
Distinguido Pueblo de Puerto Rico. . . Yo soy Lolita Lebron,
Presidenta del Partido Nacionalista de Puerto Rico, ex-
prisionera politica de los Estados Unidos. Soy la que dirigio
el ataque al Congreso de Estados Unidos de Norteamerica el
primero de marzo de 1954, en defensa de la liberacion del
Pueblo de Puerto Rico y en rechazo al Estado Libre Asociado, o
sea, al engano que gracias a ustedes, al Proyecto Young, puede
hoy Puerto Rico decir que estaba bien y don Pedro Albizu Campos
se tiene que regocijar en el Paraiso porque el ordeno ese
ataque por el abuso que se hizo con nosotros.
Gracias . . . y gracias por un merito mas que tienen. El
merito que tienen es que han conmovido a este pueblo para que
se decida definitivamente a liberar a su pais. El Movimiento
Libertador de Puerto Rico existe desde 1868, cuando el Padre de
la Patria, don Ramon Emeterio Betances lucho para nuestra
liberacion y proclamo la Republica de Puerto Rico, la primera,
el 23 de septiembre de 1868, cuna de la nacion Puertorriquena.
Don Pedro Albizu Campos, nuestro apostol, Padre de la
patria contemporanea, nos quito la venda de los ojos, nos dijo
que somos esclavos de ustedes, y les voy a decir que si ustedes
nos hicieran a nosotros banqueros y nos hicieran nuestras
calles de oro y nos llevaran a pasear a la luna, senores, aqui
hay un movimiento de liberacion que ha de haberlo, siempre.
Y yo le digo a todo este pueblo puertorriqueno que ha
tenido la desgracia de haber sido modificada su conciencia
nacional para que rechace su liberacion, y para que viva un
siglo de rodillas, que ellos son sus victimas.
Un pais como los Estados Unidos de America, que cuando
invadio nuestro territorio, era entonces ``La Luz del Mundo'',
decian, que traian la libertad a los pueblos, enganaron hasta a
unos patriotas puertorriquenos. Pero ustedes vinieron aqui con
las armas. Ustedes vinieron aqui con sus cinco naves armadas y
ustedes dispararon aqui sus cohetes, y vinieron aqui con terror
y la violencia y todavia quieren que nosotros bajemos la cabeza
y nos hinquemos ante ustedes.
Perdonen, debo decir, sus antepasados cometieron el grave
error de tener a este pais bajo sus botas. Desgraciadamente, le
han hecho dano a ustedes mismos y a nosotros y son unas llaga y
un cancer en el rostro del mundo, y ustedes estan obligados a
curar esta desgracia. Y yo los invito a ustedes, y los exhorto
desde aqui y lo hace la mujer que ataco el Congreso de los
Estados Unidos, estuvo un cuarto de siglo alli en defensa de la
Nacionalidad Puertorriquena.
Yo los invito a ustedes, y les he mandado tres razones
desde que sali de la prision, y ustedes deben haberlas
recibido, porque hasta el Presidente de los Estados Unidos le
mande a decir, que aqui no viniera jamas, jamas ponga un pie
aqui, hasta que este pueblo sea libre, entonces senores, el
vendria aqui como nuestro invitado de honor, como iguales, de
igual a iguales.
Yo los invito a ustedes a curarse su error, porque le han
infundido en la mentalidad puertorriquena un rechazo y un
repudio a la libertad, y eso es un crimen, y ustedes tienen que
curarse de ese crimen. No son los pueblos libres llamados a ser
esclavos en la tierra, y ustedes deben saber que cuando la
esclavitud estaba presente, aquellos que andaban con cadenas,
hubo que llevarlos a la libertad casi obligados, porque tenian
miedo a la libertad. Esta gente le tiene miedo a la libertad.
Una inmensa mayoria de los puertorriquenos teme la libertad,
porque ustedes los han infundido con un temor a la libertad.
oDonde esta esa gran nacion norteamericana, que era la luz
del mundo? oDonde esta? Senores ustedes corrijan su error.
Diganle a los puertorriquenos estadistas, diganle a todos los
puertorriquenos que no le teman a la libertad, que es la
dignidad de sus hijos, que desde que el nino esta en el vientre
de la madre, debe herendar la libertad, porque Dios nos hizo
libres.
Yo le doy las gracias a Dios que estoy aqui, despues de
ustedes haberme tenido un cuarto de siglo en sus prisiones, yo
estoy aqui para defender una dignidad que esta dormida. t Esta
dormida! Ahora dicen estos senores que van a hacer un estado de
la union norteamericana de este pais, jamas, jamas, jamas.
Nada puede suceder en esta tierra, a no ser la libertad
plena y total de este pueblo. Y cuando este pueblo haya
disfrutado esa libertad y quiera hacer cualquier negocio que
sea digno con ustedes o con cualquier pueblo del mundo,
soberanamente lo puede hacer, pero no antes.
Yo hablo duro senores, oigan mi voz, es fuerte y ha de
morir y vivir eternamente fuerte por este pueblo.
Ademas les tengo que decir que tienen unos prisioneros
politicos. Saquenlos de ahi porque ellos no han matado a nadie,
y ustedes cuando un asesino anda por sus calles le dan unos
poquitos de anos y los sacan por ahi para que sigan matando.
Los patriotas puertorriquenos son castigados y torturados en
las carceles. Oscar Lopez esta siendo torturado en las
carceles, todos ellos estan siendo torturados en las carceles.
Yo les pido a ustedes, el Partido Nacionalista de Puerto
Rico le pide a ustedes, ponga a esos hombres, esas mujeres
patriotas en las calles.
Yo aqui llamo a Clintock, ocomo se llama el? Kenneth
McClintock, yo soy patriota. t Tu eres un entregado! Tu no
tienes patria, te has expatriado a ti mismo.
Senores, tomad conciencia de sus deberes en este Planeta.
Olvidense tanto de las estrellas. t que quieren hacer colonias
alli! Tomen conciencia de la gran dignidad que ustedes ostentan
ante el mundo, y echen a un lado esas pequeneces, porque la
dignidad de los hombres no se compra con dinero. Este pueblo
tiene lo que tiene porque lo ha trabajado, y es sudor de su
frente. Ustedes a nosotros no nos dan nada, nada, nada. Ustedes
dicen que nos meten la comida en la boca. Ustedes dicen y asi
me dijo una prisionera, ``Look at them, they are asking for
freedom. Give them freedom, my country,'' decia ella ``and you
will see them here in week, asking for food.''
Senores, nosotros somos trabajadores y decentes. Nosotros
somos honrados, nosotros somos una gente civilizada. No abusen
de nosotros. Ustedes no nos dan a nosotros nada, nada, nada.
Aqui ustedes tienen el mas grande comercio, el quinto comercio
de Latinoamerica y cada papelito que venden le sacan una
millonada. oOyeron? Aqui ustedes no . . . Ustedes le deben a
esta tierra, mucho, y cuando seamos libres, que tenemos que ser
libres ya mismo, muy pronto, y ustedes perdonados por nosotros
y por Dios, y Dios Perdonando a nuestro padres, nosotros
podemos encaminarnos hacia un mejor mundo y hacer una nueva
era, una era de paz y de concordia y de liberacion para todos
los pueblos. Donde los ninos puedan levantar su frente y ser
ninos con esperanzas de un futuro, donde nadie se le pare
encima.
Oiganlo bien. Yo les estoy llamando a ustedes la atencion
por ustedes mismos. No crean ustedes que porque hayan miles y
miles y miles de puertorriquenos que dicen que lo que quieren
ser es americanos--miren senores, no quieren ser americanos,
ellos quieren ser puertorriquenos, pero ustedes le han
infundido cientificamente en la cabeza al puertorriqueno, que
ellos son pequenitos y que no pueden ser libres.
Dios los bendiga a ustedes, porque yo soy una mujer de
Dios. Dios bendiga a este mundo, y ustedes como un poderio
grande de la tierra, saquen esas bombas atomicas del medio del
mundo. Ustedes se las dieron al mundo y despues que se las
dieron . . .
Mr. Miller. I'm going to ask if you might----
Ms. Lebron. No, yo le voy a decir a usted, voy a terminar
ya. No quisiera que en mi pais nadie me tuviera que mandar a
callar por defender la libertad de mi pais. . . Y ella no se ha
encontrado todavia.
[Applause.]
Senores, no hay odio, no hay nada. Lo que hay es el derecho
y el deber de un pueblo a ser libre. t Nada, nada trabajara
aqui que se no la liberacion total y plena del pueblo de Puerto
Rico.
Muchas gracias.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lebron follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.097
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Gallisa.
STATEMENT OF CARLOS GALLISA, HATO REY, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Gallisa. Senor Presidente y miembros del Comite de
Recursos. La primera pregunta que nos tenemos que hacer ante
este Proyecto Young, es si esta es una propuesta seria, que
conduce a la descolonizacion de Puerto Rico o si por el
contrario, este proyecto se presenta como una recompensa o pago
a los sectores anexionistas de Puerto Rico por el dinero que
han repartido en el Congreso y las contribuciones y
aportaciones que han hecho a las campanas electorales de
ustedes y de sus partidos.
En Puerto Rico hay un refran que dice, que quien paga la
musica escoge el repertorio, y en la prensa del pais ha salido
publicada el numero de congresistas de este comite, senor
Kennedy, Burton, Young y otros que tal vez no haya habido la
informacion para publicarla, que han recibido dineros y
contribuciones de Puerto Rico y me parece que es hora de que
tanto estos senores que he mencionado de este Comite comenzando
por el senor Young, le digan al pueblo de Puerto Rico y hagan
una declaracion de todo el dinero que han recibido de aqui en
Puerto Rico, la cantidad y quienes, porque se puede decir como
han dicho ya algunos, que es legal recibir donaciones. Pero lo
legal no es lo moral siempre, y creo que se falta a los minimos
de etica y de moral que debe presidir un cuerpo del Congreso,
para que aquellos que pretendan fungir de congresistas
legislando para un proceso de descolonizacion en Puerto Rico,
tengan que observar una conducta distinta. Esa conducta
observada por este Comite, y no incluyo a todos los miembros,
esta conducta no puede crear credibilidad ni confianza entre
los Puertorriquenos de que aqui se esta trabajando un proyecto
justo para darle a Puerto Rico el derecho a la libre
determinacion.
Y no podemos creer en este proyecto, porque este proyecto
fue manufacturado en las oficinas del senor Young, con un
sector anexionista de este pais, excluyendo a todas las demas
tendencias politicas de Puerto Rico en la confeccion de este
proyecto. Y por ahi viene la doble desconfianza nuestra,
respecto a las verdaderas intenciones de este proyecto y al
caracter del mismo.
La desconfianza de nosotros los Puertorriquenos en ustedes
como Congreso y en el gobierno de su pais esta solidamente
justificada en la experiencia vivida a lo largo de los cien
anos de dominacion colonial que ustedes le han impuesto al
pueblo de Puerto Rico. Han sido cien anos de mentiras, de
medias verdades, de falsedades, de imposiciones, de
falsificaciones y de promesas incumplidas.
Desde la proclama del General Meiss [sp] Que vino aqui con
sus tropas y a raiz de la invasion le dijo a este pueblo que
venia a traer democracia y libertades, desde ahi comienza esta
historia de enganos. Y por aqui al igual que ustedes
congresistas, han pasado docenas y docenas de congresistas,
desde Ford aquel en el 1900, Johnson en el 1916, el Senador
Tydings en 1930 y en el 1940, [uninteligible] Bryan, Aspinal,
Bennett Johnston, Lagomarcino y hoy es Young. Los presidentes
de Estados Unidos desde McKinley hasta Eisenhower, que prometio
la independencia cuando la pidieramos hasta el Gerald Ford
hasta hoy Bill Clinton, tambien nos han hecho toda clase de
promesas.
Y todos los Puertorriquenos independientemente de
ideologias y de partidos hemos sido enganados por ustedes a lo
largo de cien anos porque nunca han cumplido la promesa y nunca
han cumplido con su responsabilidad como potencia colonial,
administradora de este territorio. Y digo territorio porque
ustedes insisten en llamarnos territorio como si nosotros
fueramos un pedazo de tierra en el Mar Caribe. Nosotros somos
un pueblo con una historia, con una cultura. Somos una nacion
Caribena y Latinoamericana y jamas vamos a entregar esta nacion
que es la unica que tenemos y es la patria nuestra.
Ese sentido que ustedes tienen de nosotros como territorio,
es por donde tienen que comenzar ustedes para entendernos a
nosotros. Ustedes y nosotros somos dos cosas totalmente
distintas. Ni tan siquiera hablamos el mismo idioma. Somos dos
naciones, somos dos culturas, somos dos pueblos y ustedes no se
pueden tragar a este pueblo, y ustedes no se pueden tragar una
nacion y ustedes nunca se han anexado una nacion. Ustedes se
han anexado unos territorios que estaban vacios y que los
llenaron ustedes con Americanos mismos, como sucedio con Hawai
y con Alaska.
Si algo meritorio tiene esta gestion, podriamos decir algo,
son los diez puntos que ustedes han incluido en los llamados
``findings'' que ustedes le llaman a las conclusiones de este
proyecto y que tal parece que por fin, ustedes reconocen que
existe un problema colonial en Puerto Rico.
Ahora se me dice que por no ofender a los popular, van a
sacar los diez puntos del proyecto. O sea no ofenderan a los
populares, pero ofenderan entonces una vez mas, a la verdad
historica de este pais.
Nosotros creemos en la democracia y creemos en los derechos
civiles y en los derechos humanos, y nosotros los practicamos.
Pero mientras ustedes se proclaman ante el mundo como
defensores de la democracia y los derechos humanos, aqui en
Puerto Rico en su dominacion colonial, ustedes han sido unos
violadores graves de los principios democraticos y de los
derechos humanos.
Mientras ustedes se ufanan que su politica como nacion esta
inspirada en los ideales de Washington, Jefferson y de otros
que ustedes los ``Founding Fathers,'' los Padres de la Patria,
aqui en Puerto Rico a los que pensamos como los ``Founding
Fathers'' de ustedes, como los Padres de la Patria de ustedes,
ustedes los han perseguido como veinticinco anos de prision que
le impusieron a Lolita Lebron y a otros y han matado patriotas
Puertorriquenos para ejercer su dominio colonial en Puerto
Rico. Ahora mismo hay quince patriotas Puertorriquenos con
condenas de sesenta y ochenta anos de carcel, por el unico
delito de luchar por la independencia de esta patria. Y ustedes
son los carceleros de esos quince patriotas Puertorriquenos.
Si ustedes quieren comenzar un dialogo con este pais, con
este pueblo, yo estoy seguro que aqui todos los Puertorriquenos
queremos un dialogo, y queremos llegar a ponerle fin a este
sistema colonial. Empiecen ustedes con un gesto de buena fe,
liberando a los presos Puertorriquenos.
Pero este proyecto no puede ser credibilidad y garantia
para ese dialogo. Este proyecto surge de unas componendas
politicas con un sector del pais. Este proyecto no tiene
credibilidad para la mayoria de los Puertorriquenos. Este
proyecto pretende dejar a un lado las consideraciones mas
importantes.
No nos llevan mas a votar el plebiscito. No vamos a
resolver el problema de Puerto Rico, arrancando a votar en un
plebiscito. Ese es un camino fracasado, fracasado en el 1993,
fracasado en el 1967. Tenemos que empezar otro camino. Tiene
que haber un dialogo primero, antes de votar, porque ustedes no
tienen consenso en Estados Unidos en el Congreso y en los
circulos de poder sobre que hacer con Puerto Rico y nosotros
los Puertorriquenos tampoco tenemos consenso sobre el futuro de
esta patria. Por lo tanto, no se puede empezar a votar cuando
no hay consenso en ninguno de los dos lados.
Yo propongo que ustedes examinen otro curso de accion que
comience con la creacion de una asamblea constituyente que
sirva como instrumento negociador del pueblo de Puerto Rico y
buscar unos consensos para que este pueblo finalmente vote
sobre opciones reales, no sobre deseo y aspiraciones, sobre lo
que es alcanzable. Mientras no se vote sobre lo que es posible
y alcanzable, no vamos a resolver este problema.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallisa follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.100
Mr. Miller. Mr. Morales.
STATEMENT OF EDGARDO MORALES, PROFESSOR OF ORGANIZATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, CAGUAS, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Morales. Buenas. Mi nombre es Edgardo Morales, soy
profesor universitario. Como un ciudadano privado, me preocupa
la forma en que los temas de identidad y cultura aparecen en la
ley que esta ante su consideracion.
Considero que esta ley parte de supuestos erroneos acerca
de nuestra cultura, nuestra historia y nuestra identidad.
Ademas es ambigua en cuanto a nuestras opciones para el futuro,
especialmente la estadidad. La vision de la estadidad que
aparece en esta ley la describe esencialmente como una relacion
juridico- politica que existe entre diferentes jurisdicciones o
estados. Es por esto que los estadistas hacen referencia
constante a los temas de ciudadania y union permanente. Ambos
terminos juridico- politicos. Entiendo que esta nocion de la
estadidad ignora el desarrollo historico de su nacion. Durante
su guerra civil, uno de los factores que hizo posible el
movimiento Secesionista en los estados del sur, era el
[uninteligible] Que la lealtad y la identificacion del
ciudadano era con su estado y no con la Union. Su guerra civil
se peleo para restaurar la union como una realidad juridico-
politica y como una relacion psicologica. Como consecuencia,
durante los ultimos ciento cincuenta anos, su pais se ha
preocupado no solo por las relaciones entre el gobierno Federal
y los estados, sino por asegurarse que sus ciudadanos se
identifiquen a si mismos como Americanos. Mientras que la
estadidad que se propone en esta ley ignora esta realidad
historica, los lideres del pais en Puerto Rico la niegan.
Proclaman que la Constitucion Estadounidense le da el derecho a
los estados a promover el que sus ciudadanos se identifiquen
con aquellos simbolos que los distinguen como pueblos
separados.
En nuestra ultima eleccion, mientras nuestro Gobernador
aparecia en frente de la bandera Puertorriquena en la mayor
parte de sus anuncios, la bandera Americana brillaba por su
ausencia. Por otro lado, los lideres estadistas afirman que no
existe problema con que nuestro equipo Olimpico bajo la
estadidad compita en contra de los Estados Unidos en
competencias internacionales.
Deben entender senores Congresistas, que no estamos
hablando meramente de una competencia atletica. Al igual que en
su pais, nuestro equipo es un simbolo igual que nuestra bandera
y nuestro himno nacional son simbolos. Representan lo que somos
como un colectivo, como una unidad, como una nacion. Nuestro
idioma nos es solo una herramienta de comunicacion. Es un
simbolo que representa nuestra esencia de pueblo Caribeno y
Latinoamericano.
La fortaleza de nuestra identidad nacional nos ha permitido
resistir los intentos por asimilarnos dentro de una cultura y
un sistema politico extranjero, porque despues de todo lo que
ustedes son en Puerto Rico, son extranjeros. Es por eso que los
Puertorriquenos nos referimos a ustedes como ``los Americanos''
o ``los gringos''. Sus noticias aparecen en nuestros noticieros
como
noticias internacionales y su bandera y su himno no estremecen
nada a nuestro electorado. Por eso es que los estadistas no
pueden apelar a los simbolos de su nacion para aglutinar a sus
huestes. Aunque desean la ciudadania, muy pocos desean que se
les refiera a ellos como Americanos.
Para dramatizar este punto, les pregunto que le exh- les
exhorto a que le pregunten a los lideres estadistas ocual es su
pais? oCual es la bandera de su pais? Preguntenles, si son
``Puerto Rican-Americans'', preguntenles si son Americanos. Los
estadistas mas fervientes contestaran inequivocamente. La
mayoria, sin embargo, disgregaran un poco y terminan hablando
de la ciudadania Norteamericana.
En cuanto a esto no han sido claro con nuestro pueblo ni
con el suyo. La verdad es que para muchos de ellos la estadidad
es un matrimonio de conveniencia, un arreglo legal sin amor,
provocado por el miedo a la perdida de las ayudas Federales y
del libre transito hacia los Estados Unidos. Me parece que
ustedes tienen la responsabilidad de clarificar en esta ley lo
que la estadidad significa desde un punto de vista de la
psicologia y la identidad nacional. Esto es necesario, no solo
para nosotros sino para su propio pueblo.
Deben preguntarse si estan dispuestos a resucitar una
vision que fue sepultada con la Guerra Civil, y ha creado una
union que en su esencia seria una entidad multinacional, cuyos
ciudadanos se vinculan a traves de lazos juridico- politicos y
una ciudadania en comun, pero en donde sus lealtades
psicologicas y emocionales, permanecen con su estado o su grupo
nacional. Claro, siempre pueden seguir el curso de la
ignorancia y la negacion. Pueden creer que todo lo que hacen es
integrar una minoria etnica o cultural que ha sido discriminada
politicamente. Sin embargo, no se enganen.
Al considerar la estadidad, deben saber que estan aceptando
en el seno de su union, una nacion Latinoamericana, cuyo
proceso historico comenzo mucho antes que ustedes fueran
colonizados y que ha desarrollado su propia identidad y
cultura. Estaran aceptando en su seno una nacionalidad
Latinoamericana, cuyos lideres de estadisticas- estadistas ya
han proclamado su derecho a proteger su idioma Espanol, no
importa los mandatos del Congreso.
Lo que deben saber, senores Congresistas, es que si la
clausula numero diez de la Constitucion nos protege, segun
alegan los lideres estadistas, tambien nos permite escoger el
idioma Espanol como el idioma del estado de Puerto Rico. Lo
hemos declarado asi en el pasado. Nada impediria que lo
volvieramos a hacer en el futuro. Al no ser como ustedes,
seremos un cancer para su Union, representando y dirigiendo las
fuerzas que habran de desintegrarlos.
La necesidad de que su ley sea clara en cuanto a las
implicaciones de las opciones que habran de redactar y en
cuanto a su concepto de lo que es el pueblo de Puerto Rico, es
tan importante para ustedes como para nosotros, ya que al
tratar de resolver nuestros debates, estaran debatiendo los
temas que son de fundamental importancia para su pueblo.
oQuienes somos? oQuienes queremos ser? oCual habran de ser los
lazos que nos unan? Esten seguros que al intentar definir su
futuro, estaran definiendo el fut- nuestro futuro, estaran
definiendo el suyo propio. Rueguenle a Dios que no cometan un
error. La existencia de su nacion como hoy la conocen, esta en
juego.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morales follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.103
Mr. Miller. Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much. It has been a long time
since I have been called a gringo, although I appreciate the--
--
Mr. Morales. I exclude you from the category.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you very much. I was hoping that you
would give me some relief from that characterization.
You touched on a very important point, Dr. Morales, on
identity and nationhood, yet you have offered as an example the
American Civil War.
It strikes me that even though there is much sympathy and
much empathy for the idea of a national identity and that that
national identity is one that is of primary importance inside
an individual, there are also many other identities in life and
that, in fact, much of the history of the world in recent times
has been moving in a direction that is not exactly comforting
or compatible with nation states as such.
So my question to you is, given the complexities of modern
identity, given the fact that we are talking about one aspect
of our lives and none of these are in isolation--and I am sure
you readily admit as a fellow academic that none of these
characteristics that we take with us are in isolation from
others--and given the reality that at least, as has been
portrayed to me, although there may be many explanations for
support for independence as a political option has remained
relatively stable over time and has declined from earlier
decades, is it not conceivable that your characterization of
identity as a national identity is seen by many people as just
one dimension of their entire political personality and perhaps
not the dominant one?
Mr. Morales. Yes, let me answer that. I am a psychologist,
so we could have a profound discussion about levels of identity
and depths of identity and all those relevant terms.
Mr. Underwood. That is why I am so relieved we are not.
Mr. Morales. The point I am trying to make--or I was trying
to make--in my presentation is that I believe that, really, the
issue here is not about us but it is about your conception of
who you are as a nation.
The question really is whether it is important within the
present framework of the United States and whether it is
important for the Congress to consider your identity as a
nation as a key element in any relationship or an inner
relationship with a future state and the identification of
inhabitants of that state with the idea of being part of the
Nation and being, in a sense, Americans.
My whole point is that, for the last 150 years, the key
issue that has driven most of the policy of the Congress has
been, and it is presently underlined, the whole question,
around English only and other laws having to do with
immigration and having to do with who is an American. I believe
that that is a key point. Now, you have to make a decision
about that. That is my whole point.
What I think is confusing is when you start talking or
making an equivalence between American citizenship and the
psychological identification with being an American. I think
those are two totally different things. I think you should
consider that.
Mr. Underwood. I think it is a point well taken, and I
would hasten to point out that the debate inside the United
States has not fully been resolved either. And although there
are always people that have a very narrow definition as to what
constitutes being American, there are also other more expansive
views.
Mr. Morales. My question is whether you would be willing to
have a state where at least 50 percent of the people do not
feel themselves to be Americans. That is just my point. Is that
acceptable to the U.S. Congress, where half of the population
of a future state, at least half of the population--I am not
including the statehooders in this, but I imagine some
percentage of those would resent being called americanos or at
least they certainly do not call that themselves--would you be
willing to accept that type of state?
Now that is a question I think for the Congress to decide.
What I am suggesting is that you should introduce that as part
of the debate that you are having in your own Nation.
Mr. Underwood. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think everyone who has given testimony, they obviously
mean what they have said, they are very sincere, and I think
their points of view are very, very clear. I have no questions.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
I want to thank you very much. I think the views
represented here and represented on other panels reflect the
political history of this country. That is why I hate to keep
beating a drum to one note here, but this is a very serious
decision, and it should not be taken as anything other than
that. It is very, very serious for the Congress, for the people
we represent and for the people of Puerto Rico; and there is no
way to get around that.
One of the problems I have always had in the past when we
have considered starting this process is that sometimes people
thought this was a free vote. They thought this was something
you could do for politics. You could appear one way or
another--the statehooders, the commonwealthers, the
independents or what have you. I do not think it is that way at
all. I think--if anybody believes that, I think they are losing
the dignity of the political and cultural history of Puerto
Rico. I just think that is fundamental.
I think that you have given us a great deal to think about
and, hopefully, our colleagues in the Congress. Because this is
not a trivial matter, and certainly it is not a trivial matter
when we consider that worldwide dynamics of people in this day
and age. I want to thank you very much for your testimony and
for giving your time to the Committee.
Mr. Ubinas. Senores Congresistas, una pregunta. Le habla
nuevamente----
Mr. Miller. Oh, excuse me, I'm sorry.
Mr. Ubinas. Roberto Cardona Ubinas de la Union Patriotica
Nacional. Todos los deponentes en este panel hemos coincidido
en varios puntos, pero uno en particular. Quince compatriotas
nuestros se encuentran presos cumpliendo condenas- largas
condenas en Estados Unidos por el unico delito de defender la
idea de la libertad en su propio pais. Nosotros interesamos que
ustedes nos digan a nosotros, que ustedes van a hacer ahora con
esta peticion que al unisono le hace la inmensa mayoria del
pueblo Puertorriqueno.
We would like to know, what is your answer to our request?
Mr. Miller. That is quite easy. I have received the
petition, I have received individual letters over the recent
past, and I will do as I do with all those. I will look into
it. I will not speak for others, but very clearly that is my
situation. And those who chuckle do not know my political
history.
I thank you.
Mr. Muriente Perez. Senor Congresista, si me permite a mi
un tanto----
Voice. Nosotros no admitimos eso, habla de ellas un
poquito.
Mr. Muriente Perez. Nosotros, como ustedes, entendemos la
importancia de la situacion politica del pais. Esa es una de
las razones por la que estamos aqui esta manana. Solo quiero
hacer un senalamiento, conforme a esa importancia que se supone
que se le este asignando a esto, el Por Tanto numero cinco de
la Resolucion 1514 XV romano. . . 1514 romano XV de la ONU
establece lo siguiente, muy brevemente. ``En los territorios en
fideicomiso y no autonomos y en todos los demas territorios que
no han logrado aun su independencia, deberan tomarse
inmediatamente medidas para traspasar todos los poderes a los
pueblos de esos territorios sin condiciones ni reservas en
conformidad con su voluntad y sus derechos libremente
expresados, y sin distincion de raza, credo ni color para
permitirles gozar de una libertad y una independencia
absoluta.''
Si ustedes creen, como dice creer, en la aplicacion de la
legalidad internacional para el caso de la descolonizacion de
Puerto Rico, tendrian ustedes que comenzar por aplicar el Por
Tanto numero cinco de la Resolucion 1514 Romano XV que supone
la transferencia----
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Muriente Perez. [continuing] de poderes al pueblo de
Puerto Rico. De esa manera si podemos imprimirle esa
importancia, que usted Congresista Miller dice que tiene este
proceso. De otra manera, lamentablemente prevalece la
unilateralidad del Congreso que usted representa.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. [Presiding] I will call the next panel:
The Honorable Victor Garcia San Inocencio, Mr. Erick Negron-
Rivera, Ferdinand Lugo Gonzalez, Carlos A. Lopez-Rivera, Julian
O. McConnie, and Joaquin Marquez.
STATEMENT OF HON. VICTOR GARCIA SAN INOCENCIO, HOUSE MINORITY
LEADER, PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. We will start the panel now. We will
start with Victor Garcia San Inocencio. Welcome.
Mr. Inocencio. Muy buenas tardes. Nuestro saludo a los
miembros del Congreso, al senor Presidente Actuante.
Antes que nada, quisieramos que para proposito de registro,
sea admitida nuestra ponencia alargada, que obviamente es mucho
mas extensa de la que vamos a leer aqui, que fue sometida el
jueves pasado para que sea admitida en record.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The statement by Mr. Victor Garcia San
Inocencio has been submitted in writing and will be made part
of the record. So ordered.
Mr. Inocencio. Muchas gracias. Saludamos al senor
Presidente y a los miembros de esta comision. Permitasenos
dirigirnos a un asunto crucial debe ser objeto de tratamiento
en la version final de este proyecto. Un asunto crucial mas,
entre los muchos. oComo propiciamos una consulta sobre el
futuro politico de Puerto Rico en la que el asfixiante poder
economico de las corporaciones privadas y el gobierno
controlado por el anexionista Partido Nuevo Progresista, no
influyan indebidamente para favorecer una formula de status
particular. Se trata de un asunto de equidad esencial.
Nuestra historia politica reciente muestra la enorme
influencia que ejercen las personas juridicas en los recaudos
de fondos para las campanas politicas, junto a la utilizacion
de dinero y recursos del pueblo para subvencionar esas
campanas. La autorizacion de fondos y recursos publicos para
adelantar la causa del partido politico que controla el
gobierno.
Es preciso que sus investigadores esten al tanto, de como a
lo largo de nuestra historia politica, el partido politico
incumbente se ha valido del presupuesto y los recursos publicos
para apoyar su posicion politica. El asunto fue tratado por el
Tribunal Supremo de Puerto Rico el ano pasado, concluyendo que
se utilizaron indebidamente millones de dolares por el gobierno
controlado por el PNP para resaltar su imagen.
Se trata de un mal viejo del que no han estado exento
ninguno de los dos partidos politicos que predican la union
permanente con los Estados Unidos. Han tenido derecho otro
union permanente con el presupuesto publico, para adelantar
ventajeramente sus intereses partidistas y status politico.
Segundo punto, el mal de los donativos y contribuciones
politicas de las cam- de las corporaciones publicas. Los
partidos politicos de la union permanente con el presupuesto,
PNP y PPD, no se contentan con este abuso que burla cualquier
aspiracion de que haya un proceso eleccionario o plebiscitario
democratico. Anaden a su mofa, la practica habitual de requerir
a contratistas gubernamentales, aportaciones economicas
cuantiosas para financiar campanas politicas.
Se crea una asombrosa simbiosis corporativa y de partido de
gobierno. Cientos de campanas individuales de alcaldes,
legisladores y de los partidos que ocupan las oficinas
gubernamentales, son financiadas por contratistas y proveedores
a traves de donativos. Lo cierto es, que lo que no se financia
con dinero publico esquilmado ilicitamente, se financia con
donativos corporativos de proveedores y suplidores. Para los
contratistas inescrupulosos, tales donativos se traducen en una
inversion economica de campana que sera recuperada con creces
en el siguiente termino de gobierno.
Punto numero tres, las raices del mal. Lo cierto es que la
politica local al interior de la colonia, contiene un semillero
de corrosion y de corrupcion. Acostumbrados a predicar,
promover e intensificar la independencia economica hacia los
Estados Unidos, los lideres politicos coloniales del PNP y del
PPD se han encargado de hacer lo que halla que hacer para
quedarse en el control de los cargos y han fomentado la
dependencia economica y los miedos a la libertad a traves de
los resortes de control economico.
Numero cuatro, el remedio que proponemos. Sostenemos que
bajo la clausula territorial, ustedes, miembros del Congreso,
deben prohibir los donativos de contratistas del gobierno de
Puerto Rico o el de los Estados Unidos y de las personas
juridicas en general, a las campanas partidistas o de comites
de accion politica dirigidos a favorecer algunas formulas de
status final para Puerto Rico.
Mas aun, sostenemos que el proyecto debe incluir tambien
medidas coercitivas que prohiban la utilizacion de recursos
gubernamentales y fondos publicos para promover directa o
indirectamente cualquier campana de status. Existiria una
excepcion a este principio y seria la de los fondos
expresamente consignados en la ley de plebiscito Federal o
estatal para el uso en campanas.
Una mencion final, urge que se modifique el proyecto para
restringir los donativos corporativos y de contratistas
gubernamentales a las campanas de status. Resulta igualmente
urgente que se controle cualquier gasto gubernamental en
especie, anuncios de dinero publico, para favorecer a alguna
formula de status.
Gracias por su atencion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inocencio follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.110
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Senor Erick Negron-Rivera.
STATEMENT OF ERICK G. NEGRON-RIVERA, TAX POLICY ADVISOR, PUERTO
RICO INDEPENDENCE PARTY, PUERTO NUEVO, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Negron-Rivera. Good afternoon. Mi nombre es Erick
Gustavo Negron-Rivera y comparezco como asesor economico del
Partido Independentista Puertorriqueno. En conversaciones sobre
el Proyecto Young y al igual que ocurrio en las discusiones
plebiscitarias de 1989 a 1991, varios congresistas ya han
empezado al PIP su interes por conocer lo que seria el perfil
economico de la independencia para Puerto Rico. Es mi intencion
resumir los contornos basicos de esa opcion de status.
Durante las decadas de 1950 y 1960, Puerto Rico logro un
gran crecimiento economico, alcanzando en el 1970 un producto
per capita casi similar al de Israel, Italia, Japon y Austria.
En los ultimos veinticinco anos, sin embargo, la experiencia ha
sido muy distinta. Un buen numero de paises independientes que
en 1970 eran mas pobres o mucho mas pobres de Puerto Rico, como
Singapur, Malta, Portugal, Irlanda y Argentina, entre otros,
nos ha sobrepasado en producto per capita a veces por mucho.
A la vez, los paises que en 1970 eran mas ricos que Puerto
Rico, han aumentado considerablemente su ventaja sobre la isla
mientras que esta no ha sobrepasado en producto per capita a un
solo pais desde entonces.
El relativo estancamiento de Puerto Rico frente a tantos
paises independientes no ha sido casualidad. Las ventajas
economicas de la independencia, en efecto, se han multiplicado
como consecuencia del gradual desmantelamiento de las barreras
comerciales y los avances en la inversion trasnacional durante
el ultimo cuarto de siglo.
Hoy dia la independencia en vez de impedirle a un pais
pequeno el acceso a los principales mercados mundiales, le
permite a los paises competir eficazmente en la economia
globalizada, ajustando sus politicas de incentivos a sus
propias necesidades particulares.
En el caso de Puerto Rico, la independencia permitiria
accesar [sic] Otros mercados aparte del Norteamericano con
mucha mayor facilidad que en la actualidad. Al dejar de aplicar
las restricciones Norteamericanas de importacion, tarifa,
cuotas, presuntos requisitos de calidad, leyenda de cabotaje,
etcetera, la isla podria comprar bienes y servicios del
extranjero a un costo mas bajo que el actual, tanto en el
renglon de los productos de consumo como en el de los insumos
agricolas e industriales.
A la vez, la capacidad de suscribir tratados comerciales
con otros paises, haria posible ampliar nuestro mercado de
exportacion, principalmente en el Caribe, America Latina y
Europa. Por otro lado, en el area contributiva, tras la
reciente eliminacion de la Seccion 936, Puerto Rico ya ha
quedado sujeto para propositos de nuevas inversiones, a las
mismas normas Federales generales aplicables a las inversiones
Norteamericanas en paises independientes. Paises como Irlanda y
Singapur han usado estas normas durante decadas para atraer
exitosamente industrias Norteamericanas. Bajo la independencia
mas aun, Puerto Rico podria suscribir tratados de exencion
contributiva con los paises de Europa Occidental, Japon y
Canada, diversificando asi sus fuentes de inversion y
tecnologia.
Si Puerto Rico, usando las herramientas de la
independencia, lograra reducir en tan solo uno por ciento anual
el costo de sus actuales compras de bienes y servicios en el
exterior, ya fuere mediante el acceso a mercados mas baratos o
mediante la sustitucion competitiva de importaciones, se
estaria ahorrando a los diez anos mas dinero del que
actualmente recibe en transferencias unilaterales del gobierno
Federal, es decir, excluyendo derechos adquiridos y excluyendo
los gastos operacionales de las agencias Federales en la isla.
El beneficio de esas transferencias que han convertido a la
isla en un gueto economico, han sido a lo sumo dudoso. Lo que
si ha beneficiado a Puerto Rico, ha sido la cultura de libre
mercado que ha desarrollado en su relacion con los Estados
Unidos. Esa cultura unida a nuestra localizacion geografica,
infraestructura fisica y adelanto tecnico, situa a Puerto Rico
como foco potencial de enlace comercial y liderato economico en
el Caribe.
Frente a las propuestas del ELA y la estadidad, basadas en
perpetuar y aumentar la dependencia que desmoraliza a Puerto
Rico y socaba sus fibras de convivencia, la independencia se
basa en el trabajo digno, productivo y autosostenible. Esa
diferencia fundamental hace de la independencia la mejor opcion
economica tanto para Puerto Rico como para el Tesoro de los
Estados Unidos.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Negron-Rivera follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.114
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Negron-Rivera.
Mr. Gonzalez.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FERDINAND LUGO GONZALEZ,
REPRESENTATIVE, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SAN JUAN,
PUERTO RICO
Mr. Gonzalez. Buenas tardes, senor Presidente de la
Comision de Recursos, senor Comisionado Residente Romero-
Barcelo y a los distinguidos congresistas que estan presentes y
nos visitan.
Se dirige a ustedes el Licenciado Ferdinand Lugo. Primero
bienvenidos al Distrito Representativo numero diecisiete de
Mayaguez, y al area oeste del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto
Rico. Represento en la legislatura el distrito en el cual nos
encontramos y tambien a miles de Puertorriquenos que como yo,
estan indignados ante la poca o ninguna consideracion politica
seria que el lenguaje del Proyecto 856 ha tenido para el pueblo
de Puerto Rico y sobre todo, para su mayor logro politico-
juridico: el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico ha tenido y tiene una tradicion autonomista,
que se materializo por vez primera luego de luchas,
sufrimientos, encarcelamientos y negociaciones en la carta
autonomica con Espana alla para el ano de 1897. Este ano
precisamente, celebramos los hijos y las hijas de la nacion
Puertorriquena, cien anos de haber obtenido nuestro primer
proyecto de gobierno propio, la carta autonomica, que dio
origen al primer gabinete constitucional y gobierno de
Puertorriquenos, inaugurado el 14 de febrero de 1898.
Luego vino la guerra Hispanoamericana y sin ser Puerto Rico
parte del acto belico, fuimos ocupados militarmente por los
Estados Unidos y nuestro primer gobierno autonomico
Puertorriqueno fue desecho por via de la ley congresional
Foraker.
Volvimos de nuevo a la lucha de pueblos, a rescatar el
gobierno propio, el orden constitucional civil, el idioma
Espanol para nuestros hijos, mejorar las condiciones de vida,
restaurar nuestra naturaleza de pueblo dominado y mancillado.
Cincuenta y tres anos despues lo logramos, producto de otras
luchas, sufrimientos, encarcelamiento, persecucion y
negociacion con el Congreso de los Estados Unidos de America
para llegar a un pacto y obtener gobierno propio.
En el ano de 1950, luego de que el pueblo de los Estados
Unidos y la comunidad internacional vieron la fuerza, pujanza y
exigencias del pueblo de Puerto Rico por obtener mayor
autonomia, un gobierno propio y una constitucion, el Congreso
aprobo la Ley 600, la cual fue ratificada por mayoria del
pueblo de Puerto Rico. Posteriormente se perfecciono un pacto
al aprobar el Congreso y el Presidente firmar, la Ley Publica
447 el 3 de marzo de 1952 y completarse un pacto bilateral
entre dos pueblos.
Fue de tal manera reconocido por los Estados Unidos el
pacto y el nacimiento del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico,
que el propio Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos, a
traves de la delegacion Estadounidense, presento ante el
Consejo General de las Naciones Unidas, la posicion de que
Puerto Rico habia superado su condicion colonial y habia sido
investido de los atributos de gobierno propio con su soberania,
como una entidad politica autonoma.
Ese pacto y nueva relacion politica ha sido respaldada por
nuestro pueblo en tres plebiscitos, habiendo sido el ultimo en
el 1993, y ahora el Congreso pretende con este Proyecto 856
hacernos retroceder en la historia, entregar los derechos
colectivos alcanzados con nosotros en asociacion con los
Estados Unidos, y volver al coloniaje de antes de 1952 u
obligarnos a optar por la estadidad en contra de nuestra
voluntad. Obviamente, eso no lo puede permitir este pueblo.
Este proyecto, aparte de ser indigno y denigrante para
nuestro pueblo, esta siendo legislativamente procesado como si
las vistas publicas fuesen un ejercicio investigativo rutinario
del Congreso, y no un proyecto de la seriedad que amerita la
situacion del status de este pais. Advertir a los testigos que
pueden ser bajo juramento tiene el efecto, si no la intencion
de amedrentar a los deponentes, o por lo menos crea una
disgustante opinion sobre los procesos de la Comision y sus
fines.
Senores congresistas, cuarenta y cinco anos despues de
haberse constituido el Estado Libre Asociado ratificado en tres
ocasiones por los Puertorriquenos, ustedes van a entender, van
a tener que entender de corazon, que la nacion Puertorriquena
no quiere ser incorporada como otro estado de la Union.
Exigimos el respeto al pacto establecido en 1952 y vamos en
camino a solicitar mas gobierno propio y mas poderes para el
Estado Libre Asociado. Si ustedes aceptan la definicion
propuesta por el Presidente del Partido Popular Democratico,
aceptan las definiciones propuestas por las otras dos formulas
tan dignas como la nuestra y se comprometen implantarla en un
termino razonable el mandato del pueblo, entonces estaremos
ante un proceso justo, en el cual podemos participar sin ceder
los derechos, garantias, privilegios obtenidos en mas de cien
anos de lucha, por autonomia y gobierno propio.
Muchas gracias, senor Presidente.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzalez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.119
Mr. Young. I thank you.
Carlos Lopez-Rivera.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CARLOS A. LOPEZ-RIVERA, PRESIDENT,
MAYORS ASSOCIATION OF PUERTO RICO, DORADO, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Lopez-Rivera. Muy buenos dias, senores Congresistas. Mi
nombre es Carlos A. Lopez-Rivera, Alcalde de la ciudad de
Dorado y Presidente de la Asociacion de Alcaldes de Puerto
Rico, que contiene el cincuenta por ciento de la poblacion de
nuestra patria. Todos defendemos el Estado Libre Asociado en la
forma en que el Congreso lo definio en el informe y en la
legislacion que aprobo el 10 de octubre del 1990.
Este Proyecto Young es un proyecto enganoso. Llama a las
cosas por nombres distintos a lo que son. A la colonia la llama
Estado Libre Asociado. A la independencia la llama Libre
Asociacion. La trampa es clara. Quienes conocen bien a Puerto
Rico saben que atesoramos nuestra identidad propia, porque
somos una nacion con su propia historia, su propio idioma y su
propia cultura, de la cual es eje fundamental nuestro idioma
Espanol.
De igual manera, atesoramos la ciudadania de los Estados
Unidos, que adquirimos en el 1917 y que hemos honrado y
defendido con nuestras vidas. Si Puerto Rico atesora su propia
identidad a la vez que atesora la ciudadania Americana, tiene
que votar por una formula de status donde dos pilares de las
aspiraciones del sentimiento Puertorriquenos puedan lograrse en
armonia Este proyecto es un proyecto mezquino, pequeno. Le hace
dano a los Estados Unidos y le hace dano a Puerto Rico. Yo no
se de leyes, pero si se que las Leyes 600 del 1950 y la Ley 447
del 1952 hablan de un pacto. Puede haber diferencias sobre la
naturaleza de ese pacto, pero lo que no puede haber es una
ceguera tal que se niegue que en esas leyes se dice lo que
cualquier persona que sabe leer sabe que dicen. Venir ahora con
el legalismo de que el Congreso de los Estados Unidos no tenia
autoridad para hacer lo que hizo o tratar de hacer aparecer a
los Estados Unidos como un pais enganador, mentiroso ante los
ojos del mundo, cuando le informo a las Naciones Unidas lo que
le informo en el 1953, representa un servicio pobre a la
democracia Americana.
En este momento, le planteo a ustedes lo siguiente. oQue
credibilidad nos merece lo que ustedes digan y hagan hoy?
Senores Congresistas, no se puede jugar asi con el destino de
un pueblo, de una nacion.
El Proyecto Young, un proyecto de imposicion de la
estadidad. . . Yo le digo a ustedes los siguiente, el fuerte no
puede abusar del debil, y aqui me refiero a la debilidad en el
sentido de fuerza economica, de poderio militar, porque
moralmente y en orgullo somos tan fuerte como el mas.
La verdad es mas fuerte que el engano. La nacion Americana
es una historia gloriosa, de ese respeto al ser humano y a los
derechos que la asisten. Este proyecto es una negacion y
representa un bochorno para los Estados Unidos. Si you fuese
Congresista como lo son ustedes, me avergonzaria de auspiciar
un proyecto como este.
Les propongo lo siguiente, primero, descarten este proyecto
ofensivo. Segundo, eliminen toda sospecha fundado de que los
proponentes de la legislacion estan parcializados hacia una
formula de estadidad. Tercero, expresen la realidad con una
vision mas respetuosa de la historia politica y juridica de
nuestra patria, Puerto Rico. Cuarto, incorporen a los
propulsores de las tres formulas politicas en la redaccion de
distintos borradores, de los cuales se produzca uno final que
sea aceptable a todos. Quinto, sometan la legislacion
plebiscitaria al modelo de la Ley 600. Sexto, dispongan, que de
no tener ningun formula mas del cincuenta por ciento de los
votos emitidos, se celebrara una nueva votacion entre las
formulas con el mayor numero de votos. Setimo, comprometanse en
aceptar la decision del pueblo en cuanto a la preferencia que
este exprese por cualquiera de las formulas de status,
legislando para que la decision de Puerto Rico sea
autoejecutable. Octavo, una vez se certifiquen los resultados
del plebiscito, el pueblo queda autorizado a convocar una
asamblea constituyente para establecer los procedimientos y
adoptar las medidas necesarias para coordinar con los Estados
Unidos la implantacion de la formula de status triunfante en un
periodo no mayor de tres anos.
Senores Congresistas, es posible que no todos ustedes esten
conscientes de la trampa que representa esta legislacion. Yo
los invito a examinar con detenimiento todo este proceso y toda
esta propuesta. Puerto Rico no se merece este atropello. Esta
legislacion es un acto de tirania. Puerto Rico se merece un
trato justo, honrando la relacion que por casi cien anos hemos
mantenido con los Estados Unidos, relacion que Puerto Rico ha
honrado hasta [sic] La. . . A ofrendar la vida de sus hijos.
Les dejo senores Congresistas, para que hablen con su
conciencia, pero sobre todo, para que sus conciencias le hablen
a su entendimiento. Puerto Rico, Borinquen, nuestra patria, se
lo habra de agradecer.
Muchas gracias.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez-Rivera follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.125
Mr. Young. Senator?
STATEMENT OF JULIAN O. McCONNIE, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW, RIO
PIEDRAS, PUERTO RICO
Mr. McConnie. It is indeed an honor to be talking to the
most important deliberative body in the world, and I know and
expect that attention of such talented persons will lead to a
solution in this matter.
According to instructions, the first thing you have to say
is your status. My preferred status is statehood. I do not
object to the approval of this bill as long as it offers all
Puerto Ricans the opportunity to back their respective
ideologies equitably and democratically.
As a lifelong Puerto Rican statehooder active since the
early fifties as President of Citizens for State 51, which
Carlos remembers well, I have learned to respect the ideals and
sentiments of those who differ with my statehood ideal. After
all, it is from their ranks that additional votes must be
obtained to attain statehood. Therefore, I must strongly object
to the unfair attitude against Commonwealth repeatedly
expressed in the past and the present Young bill, perhaps
conflicting with matters under the control, not of this
Committee.
This clashes with everything that I have been taught during
more than 40 years to the effect that a plebiscite process must
be fair and not mixed with a normal elective process. The
voters are the ones to decide the issues as to the preferred
status, not the Young Committee. As testified on Saturday by
nonpartisan witnesses, the choice, of course, must be within
the pertinent constitutional and legal parameters.
I am glad to see that Congressman George Miller said
Saturday that it must be a fair and open process. That is fine.
We are in agreement. So this Committee has a great amount of
work to do amending the Young bill in order to bring that
about, and I am sure that you will do it. We offer our
cooperation. I don't think this is going to be a short session
nor is it going to be easy. It is hard.
What you have before you is very difficult. I know that.
Nobody said being a Congressman was an easy job. You guys have
to work like hell, and this is a very tough problem. We will
help you in any way we can. We are helping you now with our
limited statement here.
Unfortunately, Saturday's hearing confirmed this is
anything but fair and open. The angry and offensive
demonstrations were to be expected in view of the provocation
of this bill. You cannot strip from the present legal status of
Puerto Rico all pretense of legality without offending many
Puerto Ricans.
To many it would seem that Public Law 600 and Public Law
447 of the U.S. Congress creating and confirming Commonwealth
are still in effect until annulled by the courts or other
proper authorities, which has not happened. The 2-year thing is
not that easy. You can't just say if not, I will go to Congress
and not listen to any law that is passed more than 2 years and
disobey it. This is much more complicated than that.
In this case, that is not enough of an explanation. Maybe
there are explanations, and this bill, this Committee will
bring them about. They have not said so now. You don't even say
whether your bill is valid because Public Law 600 and Public
Law 447 were approved by a different Congress.
It is no small wonder that the Chairman had difficulty
controlling the noisy behavior of commonwealthers and
statehooders. When you provoke a hornet's nest, you are not
going to get flowers and kisses in return. But Chairman Young,
to his credit, handled the matter with restraint and great
patience. Thank you, Congressman Young.
Saturday's hearings confirmed that the sooner the unfair,
improper and unnecessary hostile attacks on Commonwealth are
amended away and all differences of opinion are presented in a
fair and impartial manner, as all the previous status bills
were able to do, I appeared before all five of them, in writing
or in person, and all of them were able to define the issues
and go ahead, the sooner the level playing field that such a
serious matter demands will be created.
It should also be remembered that any victory in a flawed
and unfair plebiscite could indeed be hollow and last only
until its first encounter in court. The ones that don't win
here could be in court the next day, unless this Committee
sticks to what they have to stick to, setting up the rules, but
don't try to decide the issues. Because you have not the
authority. That is what the plebiscite is for. We should also
note the fact that commonwealthers have not completely
eliminated the possibility of their not participating in what
they will consider an unfair plebiscite. They said we are
listening to you, but are not saying we are going ahead with
the whole thing. In all the past bills and hearings,
Commonwealth has participated. So from any objective point of
view, this could constitute a very serious problem.
Because statehood is the Crown Jewel, the Holy Grail, the
Super Bowl of American democracy, it must be earned, and earned
in fair combat. I have held for a long time that the only way
to deserve statehood is by decisively, overwhelmingly defeating
Commonwealth, like Alaska and Hawaii defeated their opposition
to statehood. We Puerto Ricans have not done that. We have not
earned that.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Do you have much longer to go?
Mr. McConnie. No, I don't have much longer to go. Just one
paragraph, and then it is over. I have another statement. This
is shorter.
This will take much more than a mere partisan effort as
shown by the defeat in the 1993 status plebiscite, despite
controlling all the marbles. I know it is very hard, but
somehow you, the Committee, has to distinguish between
nonpartisan idealogy and partisanship. This is not a fight
between the parties. This is between statehood, Commonwealth
and independence, and you guys have to fight this out, not me.
I merely talk here, and you can forget me. But eventually that
is one thing you will have to decide.
What I am telling you is really ideological and not
partisan. So I tell people instead of attacking the loyalty of
commonwealthers to the U.S., it simply must not be continued,
because it is not the actual truth and harms statehood.
I served 30 years in the Army. We did not have any cases of
disloyalty of American soldiers from Puerto Rico for partisan
or ideological beliefs. There is no Puerto Rican Army. As a
Civilian Aide, I served the Army from 1970 to 1984, and have
been Civilian Aide Emeritus since 1985 to date. The said
experience has been continued. There has never been any
disloyalty of any Puerto Rican soldier in the Army with their
uniform on.
I believe and trust that the 200 years of Ballots and not
Bullets of both the U.S. and Puerto Rico will make Puerto Rico
the 51st State, especially if we Puerto Rican stateholders show
the proper respect and admiration for commonwealthers and for
all Puerto Ricans and for those who have chosen to be here and
stay with us.
No one ever said being a U.S. Congressman is an easy job.
It isn't. That is all, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McConnie follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.134
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. [Presiding.] Thank you. Mr. Joaquin
Marquez?
STATEMENT OF JOAQUIN A. MARQUEZ, ESQUIRE, SPRINGFIELD,
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Marquez. Chairman Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Romero, my name is Joaquin Marquez, and I appear before you as
a private citizen. I have been a resident of the Old Dominion,
the proud State of Virginia, for the last 29 years. In the
seminal book, a Nation of Immigrants, Daniel Patrick Moynihan
richly describes the successive waves of immigrants that form
the fabric of our Nation, as well as their legacy.
I am a part of that legacy and a part of that immigrant
wave that has helped build our Nation, the great wave of Puerto
Rican immigrants that is still struggling to earn its rightful
place in the American melting pot.
Although my generation did not land at Ellis Island, it
landed at Idlewild and Newark in search of the same thing, a
better future. My generation's contribution to the general
commonwealth is no less valuable than the contributions of
earlier waves of immigrants that washed upon our shores.
Because of time constraints, I would like to address only
two very sensitive issues relating to the proposed legislation:
who should be allowed to vote in the referendum; and, the
requirement that English be used as the official lingua franca
for the Federal Government in Puerto Rico.
The issue of who may vote may be disposed of very easily.
However much I love my Borinquen, and I come from Humacao, I
cannot in good conscience vote in the proposed referendum
because I am no longer a resident of the island. Only those
persons who will personally have to bear the direct
consequences of the results of the proposed referendum should
have the right to vote. Only those who have a direct stake in
the outcome, regardless of where they were born, should be the
determinants of Puerto Rico's future status.
Let those nonresidents who demand the right to vote by
proclaiming their love for Puerto Rico prove their love by
returning to our island and contributing their sweat, toil and
talent to the building of a better community.
Let me quickly turn to the issue of language. Puerto Ricans
have been enslaved by a political system under Commonwealth
status that has used language to intentionally create an
economic, social, and political ghetto. By failing to teach
English, Commonwealth politicians have erected an
insurmountable barrier to opportunity and progress for Puerto
Ricans. The result has been that at least three generations of
Puerto Ricans have been condemned to economic slavery and
dependence on the island, and particularly, on the mainland.
It is interesting to note that the leading supporters of
Commonwealth all speak excellent English, and even though they
chose to not speak English here, they have attended Ivy League
and other prestigious mainland schools and universities. It is
cruel for Commonwealth leaders to impose the crushing burden of
English language illiteracy on the people of Puerto Rico, while
forcing many to migrate to drug-infested mainland ghettos in
search of meaningful employment.
When Commonwealth leaders say that most Puerto Ricans
cannot read and write the English language well, they are
indicting themselves. Puerto Ricans have not learned more
English simply because Commonwealth leaders have deprived them
of the opportunity to learn the language.
Before Commonwealth was established, English was taught in
all the public schools by teachers properly schooled in the
language, many of whom were retired teachers from the mainland.
The Commonwealth leadership, then headed by former Governor
Munoz Marin, recognized that a fully bilingual Puerto Rico
would have the option of seeking statehood or easily
transferring to the mainland.
In order to preclude statehood and to prevent a brain
drain, they elected to discontinue the teaching of English
coequally with Spanish. Under the guise of preserving our
cultural identity, they thus created an artificial barrier, in
the hope that Puerto Ricans would not seek the full measure of
their American citizenship.
In spite of this barrier, over 1 million Puerto Ricans fled
the Commonwealth to fetid mainland ghettos in search of a
better future. The people of Puerto Rico have come to see the
perfidy of this situation and have increasingly turned to
statehood as the fulfillment of their hopes and aspirations in
their inalienable right to pursue happiness and economic
progress. It is high time that this ugly secret be exposed and
corrected.
If English has not supplanted Spanish after nearly a
century of American domination, I submit it will not do so when
Puerto Rico attains its full rights as a State of the Union.
Puerto Ricans must master the language of Cervantes as well as
the language of Shakespeare in order to realize the full
potential of their God-given talents.
I disdain those who denigrate the abilities and talents of
my fellow islanders. Puerto Rican doctors, lawyers, carpenters,
mechanics, barbers, whether professionals or laborers, are no
less capable than their counterparts on the mainland. They may
just be unable to realize their full worth simply because of a
language handicap. Puerto Ricans need to be apprised of the
terrible price they are paying as a result of a failed
ethnocentric policy imposed by Commonwealth leaders in order to
keep them in a linguistic reservation.
Almost 38 years ago, I appeared in support of statehood in
Puerto Rico before a subcommittee of this Committee's
predecessor, the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,
which was then chaired by Mr. Wayne Aspinall. I was a 17-year-
old student then. At that time statehood was supported by a
small minority of the electorate. What gave me great hope that
in time, in spite of the long odds, my fellow Puerto Ricans
would come to appreciate the many blessings of statehood was
the shining example of your own State's struggle, Mr. Chairman,
to add Alaska's bright star to the constellation of American
stars in our flag.
Ernest Gruening's life-long fight to attain full equality
under the Constitution for all Alaskans had finally borne
fruit. His successful struggle kindled a passionate fire for
equality in me and many of my generation.
I have always struggled in defense of the proposition that
all Americans cannot be equal as long as one citizen is
unequal. The world has turned many times since that day, but
the fire has only grown stronger in me. Let this be the
Congress that brings about full equality for Puerto Rico,
ending the stench of a century of colonialism that stains both
the soul of my people and the conscience of our Nation. Let
this be the Congress that fulfills the implied promise of full
equality through statehood made to Puerto Ricans when
citizenship was granted in 1917.
Let this be the Congress that burnishes our Nation's honor
by proving to a doubting world that the price of admission to
the blessings of full equality under statehood is not measured
by the amount of tax dollars paid, but by the recognition of
our continuing love and commitment to the American ideals of
freedom and democracy embodied in our national Constitution.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marquez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.138
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Marquez.
I would like to make a couple of statements before we go
into the questions. One of them is regarding what has been said
about whether the United States lied or not at the United
Nations. I want to say that my belief and my understanding,
because of what was said, is that the United States lied, but
they didn't lie by themselves. The Government of Puerto Rico
was part of the conspiracy of that lie. The Government of
Puerto Rico supported that lie, and the administration then in
effect in Puerto Rico actually proposed they go to the United
Nations and relieve the United States from having to submit the
reports to the United Nations, because what they said to the
United Nations was that in Puerto Rico, a full measure of self-
government had been achieved. And now I am in Congress, and I
don't have a right to vote on the Floor, and I see there every
day laws being passed that affect Puerto Rico, that obligate
Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico has to abide by them.
So, therefore, there is no full measure of self-government.
Whoever says that there is a full measure of self-government
here in Puerto Rico, we are not telling the truth. Whoever said
it before, didn't tell the truth. It wasn't only the U.S., it
was also the administration in Puerto Rico at that time.
The other thing I would like to say for a historical
perspective is the statements that something is unfair as far
as the Commonwealth is concerned. I think we should be
concerned with the fairness to the people, not fairness as a
status, but to the people. The people of Puerto Rico, when they
are presented with a decision, that the decisions are fair to
them, that they are decisions which are realistic. That is what
we should be concerned about.
If one of the options contains elements that are not
realistic, either constitutionally, legally, or politically, we
should take care that they are not included, and that is why we
should be concerned. We should be fair to the people of Puerto
Rico, not to statehood and not independence and not to
Commonwealth.
And to say that the reason is because the Commonwealth
Party has said that they might boycott this plebiscite, that is
nothing new. The reason that the Commonwealth party had
participated in the prior plebiscites is because they were the
ones that formulated those plebiscites.
When Commonwealth was adopted, the second party in Puerto
Rico was the Independence Party, and they boycotted the whole
process. They boycotted the process for two reasons: They
didn't like the process, and they also knew they were going to
lose; so why go through the process? That is one of the reasons
they boycotted the process.
Then came the plebiscite in 1967. In 1967 there was a
plebiscite that gave the three options, and the two parties
that represented those options at that time, they both
boycotted the plebiscite. Both parties boycotted, the
Republican Party and the Independence Party, and only groups
organized by themselves went to represent their options.
So every time we have had a plebiscite, the opposing
parties have the tendency to boycott it, because they realize
they are going to lose, and that is the only reason there will
be a boycott to a plebiscite.
Of course we learned a lesson in the 1967 plebiscite, and
that is, by boycotting the plebiscite, the Republican Party
disappeared and a new party sprung up, so that is something the
Popular Party will have to look at.
But I want to bring this into perspective, because the
first to boycott is not only that the people might be
dissatisfied with what is said, but also because they feel they
are going to lose. If they felt they were going to win the
plebiscite, I am sure they would participate.
Now I would like to ask some questions about the--to
Ferdinand Lugo Gonzalez.
When I hear your statement, I wonder, ask myself, why, if
you feel that way about the United States, do you want to be a
U.S. citizen?
Mr. Gonzalez. Senor Comisionado Residente, voy a
mencionarle unos asuntos personales. Mi senor Padre, fue
veterano de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, mi hermano mayor
veterano, mi segundo hermano veterano, y este servidor tiene
diecisiete anos de servicios con la Fuerza Armada de los
Estados Unidos. O sea, yo no tengo que estarle probando a nadie
si yo aprecio la ciudadania Americana. No tengo que estar
probandoselo a nadie. Eso es eh. . . Se concedio y no se debe
estar discutiendo Lo que a mi si me preocupa es lo siguiente,
por eso yo planteo en mi ponencia, que respetemos el pacto. Con
mi accion personal, la de mi padre, la de mi hermano, la de mis
familiares, nosotros cumplimos con nuestra parte del pacto y
ahora resulta que en el proceso, fuimos enganados. Ahora
resulta, que del 1952 para aca, no hubo pacto. Ahora resulta
que el sacrificio de los Puertorriquenos se hizo como parte del
producto de un engano.
Aqui no debe estar en ``issue'' la cuestion de la
ciudadania Americana. Se concedio en 1917, los que nacieron
posterior a eso son ciudadanos por el derecho natural. Eso no
es un asunto que debe estar en discusion aqui. O sea, los
Puertorriquenos somos Puertorriquenos, la nacion Puertorriquena
con ciudadania Americana. Lo que a mi me preocupa en todo esto
y yo le respeto obviamente su posicion que usted es el
Comisionado de todos los Puertorriquenos aunque no estoy- estoy
en total desacuerdo con su posicion, pero respeto obviamente,
porque yo cumplo siempre mi parte del pacto. Ahora, me preocupa
cuando la otra parte no la cumple. Bien, entonces me preocupa
por ejemplo en estos momentos, la posicion suya que luce que es
la posicion de esta Comision, si no me corrigen, es que los
Estados Unidos en confabulacion cuando vino a Puerto Rico,
enganaron al mundo.
Las consecuencias de eso van a ser que si resentimientos
hay contra los Estados Unidos en estos momentos y ustedes lo
vieron en el panel anterior, Lolita Lebron, mancillada, danada
en su espiritu. Si resentimiento habia, ahora despues de las
expresiones. . . No, si lo que paso fue que no hubo ningun
pacto, esto todo era un engano, obviamente los Estadolibristas
vamos a ir a los tribunales. Por lo menos yo voy a los
tribunales. Pero va a haber mas resentimiento--en este pais.
Va a haber mas resentimiento en este pais, porque siguen
dividiendo al pueblo de Puerto Rico. Yo tengo la fuerza moral
para exigirle el pacto, le di diecisiete anos de servicio,
todavia estoy en la reserva activa. Mi padre, mi hermano, mi
otro hermano. . . Yo tengo la fuerza moral. Ahora resulta que
no hubo pacto, pues vamos a los tribunales. Pero el problema de
todo esto es que siguen dividiendo al pueblo de Puerto Rico y
eso es mas lamentable porque crea mas resentimiento.
Tambien quiero tocar. . . Aprovechar la oportunidad,
alguien toco el asunto del Ingles. O sea, que los
Puertorriquenos el problema del aprendizaje del Ingles. No, el
problema del aprendizaje del Ingles de los Puertorriquenos. Es
que aqui no se ha ensenado Ingles para que aprendamos Ingles.
Aqui se ha ensenado Ingles para desnaturalizar a los
Puertorriquenos. A mi siempre me llega. . . A mi. . .
Inmediatamente me llega a la mente, el cuento que nos
estuvieron contando de ninos, de Jorge Washington, el que nunca
dijo una mentira. Yo quiero hacer igual que Jorge Washington
que nunca dijo una mentira. Entonces nos estan vendiendo, a
nuestros ninos le han estado vendiendo durante todo el siglo,
de que la mejor forma de ser mejor ciudadano es parecerse a
Jorge Washington en los Estados Unidos. Entonces en el proceso,
en lugar de ensenarles Ingles a los Puertorriquenos
reconociendo los valores de los Puertorriquenos, los queremos
desnaturalizar. Y por eso es que el espiritu del Puertorriqueno
se resiste a aprender el Ingles. No es porque no quiera
aprender Ingles, es porque lo que le estan ensenando es. . .
Simplemente le estan danando su naturaleza. El Puertorriqueno
quiere aprender el Ingles y quiere aprender el Frances, pero es
que en el proceso, no le quieren ensenar Ingles, lo quieren
desnaturalizar. Y todas esas cosas, pues son lamentables pero
tienen que llegar a esta Comision.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. My time is up. I have to turn to the
others.
Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. I have no questions.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. I have one comment to Ferdinand.
You are in the State House? State Senate?
Mr. Gonzales. House.
Mr. Young. Do you have rules?
Mr. Gonzalez. Si.
Mr. Young. The rules apply to everyone.
Mr. Gonzalez. Si.
Mr. Young. I have rules that apply to everybody, too.
Everybody is asked to testify, consent to the same form. That
is the rules of the House, as you have rules in your House.
Don't question my rules.
Mr. Gonzalez. Senor Presidente, este pueblo y los
representantes de este pueblo tenemos el perfecto derecho a
cuestionar los procedimientos, por cuanto durante cien anos,
hemos estado divididos y ahora en cinco minutos quiere que
hagamos una expresion a los efectos de decidir una cuestion tan
importante como es el status de este pais. Tenemos el perfecto
derecho como hombres libres y mujeres libres, a cuestionar los
procedimientos con mucho respeto.
Mr. Young. I haven't asked you a question.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No more questions. That is the rules.
No more questions.
Mr. Lopez. La democracia est coartada entonces.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No, that--that's the rules.
Mr. Lopez. Exacto.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No more questions.
Mr. Lopez. No, porque deberiamos reaccionar a las
expresiones que usted hizo. La democracia esta coartada
entonces.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. That's what--you would say, that's your
freedom to say it.
Mr. Lopez. Una vez mas.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I will call the next panel, Luis Vega
Ramos, Ramon Velasco, Hector Borges, Julio Cezar Lopez Gerena,
Gonzalo Fernos-Lopez, and Angel Ortiz-Guzman.
STATEMENT OF LUIS VEGA RAMOS, PRESIDENT, PROELA, SAN JUAN,
PUERTO RICO
Mr. Ramos. Good afternoon.
We come before this Committee for the third time in as many
years to ask you to enact legislation for the Puerto Rican
Nation to self-determine its sovereignty.
We sincerely hope we have reached a stage where we have
more congressional appearances behind us than ahead of us. Last
year we testified on H.R. 34, on that time which claim to fair
place and today, refer to H.R. 856, we add the following.
Goodwill requires to refrain from offering any territorial
status. If you mean what you say, when you claim you want to
decolonize, you cannot offered unincorporated territory or the
incorporated one, not even as an option to another status. The
options are independence, statehood, and free associated state,
or ``Estado Libre Asociado,'' in Spanish. That is what us and
international law provide for. The options should be clearly
defined in terms of economic and political consequences.
This is particularly important in the case of statehood,
because we are a distinct Spanish speaking nationality that
won't assimilate easily into the American body politic.
Certainly it forbids that two options have the same definition.
That would be highly misleading to the electorate. Each of the
three options should have its own valid text. All Puerto Ricans
must be allowed to vote. Self-determination applies to nations
and not to random groups. Puerto Rico, as you have seen in
these hearings, is a nation, so all of us have a say in this
decision.
Finally, both fair play and goodwill demand a quicker
response and implementation mechanisms. We shouldn't have to
wait for decades and new votes so our grandchildren finally
know if Congress is going to implement our will.
We congratulate the administration and Chairman Miller for
your stand on this issue. We refer you to notes that have been
filed by another witness in this panel, the attorney, Angel
Ortiz. We said last year, let us be totally clear, Estado Libre
Asociado has to be one of the options, but not as it is today,
because in fact nobody is asking for that. Instead, it must be
included as it should be, sovereign, clearly outside the
territorial clause and associated to the United States only by
means of bilateral compact.
We said our proposal represented the majority of the pro-
Commonwealth forces. Recent events have confirmed this. On
March 15th, the youth organization of the Popular Democratic
Party sponsored a definition that was endorsed by prominent
leaders of that party. It is the acceptable minimum for all of
the organizations, and in fact, many of the leaders who have
been here today support that definition. It should be the
building block for an offer of bilateral association to Puerto
Rico.
This definition, which we include in our statement,
establishes Estado Libre Asociado, as a formula based solely on
Puerto Rican sovereignty. This has clear implications for H.R.
856 for the kinds of options it includes.
Let there be no mistake about it; the consensus in the
Popular Democratic Party in Puerto Rico, the consensus of which
is a proud part of, is for the unadulterated Puerto Rican
sovereignty. That means full, free, association.
Much has been argued by the implement of this option by the
retention of citizenship for Puerto Ricans and their offspring.
Even the former Ambassador has expressed an opinion. We did our
homework and found no constitutional impediment for the
inclusion in the compact of U.S. citizenship for new
generations of Puerto Ricans.
I repeat, there is no constitutional impediment for the
inclusion in the compact of U.S. citizenship guarantees for
these and new generations of Puerto Ricans.
Furthermore, two are alternatives for the long-standing
U.S. presence. We submitted a letter to the chairman recently
prepared by our experts that explains in detail our citizenship
proposal. After seeing it, members of the Committee, you will
agree that Puerto Rican sovereignty and U.S. citizenship are
compatible. It is simply a question of political will.
We urge Congress to adopt a policy that is sound and that
is right. The United States has the duty to act. H.R. 856 can
be another drummer in an endless march of follies, or it could
still be the beginning of a beautiful friendship and
partnership between both our Nations. The choice, Members of
Congress, is all yours.
Thank you.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Luis.
Mr. Velasco.
STATEMENT OF RAMON L. VELASCO, ASSOCIATION OF PRO-COMMONWEALTH
ATTORNEYS, BAYAMON, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Velasco. Good afternoon, members of the Committee. I
represent the Association of Pro-Commonwealth Attorneys. The
Association of Pro-Commonwealth Attorneys appears before the
Committee today in order to participate in this congressional
hearing on H.R. 856.
We believe it is important to point out to this Committee
that there are several basic findings included in the bill
that, in our opinion, are incorrect or inconsistent with the
law as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and other Federal
court decisions.
In 1950, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 600, which
enabled the people of Puerto Rico to make a constitution to
cover its internal affairs consistent with the American
democratic tradition of government by the consent of the
governed. The act itself was submitted to and approved by the
people of Puerto Rico.
Public Law 600 declared that when the Constitution was
approved, the organic provisions of the Jones Act would be
automatically repealed. The Constitution was approved by Public
Law 447 as a pact between Congress and the people of Puerto
Rico. Through this process, the people of Puerto Rico achieved
full self-government. The Federal Government's relations with
Puerto Rico changed from being bounded by merely the
territorial clause and the rights of a people the Puerto Rico
as United States citizens, to being bounded by the United
States and Puerto Rico Constitutions, Public Law 600, the
Federal Relations Act, and the rights of the people of Puerto
Rico as United States citizens.
Federal statutes, U.S. Government official positions, and
judicial interpretations provide a clear picture of
Commonwealth. It is a political status that created a body
politic, with autonomy and sovereignty over local matters of a
nature equal to a state. This authority has recognized a
compact that cannot be change unilaterally, because the term
``compact'' implies or presupposes a bilateral agreement.
In view of this history of judicial interpretations and
U.S. Government official positions, we think it should be clear
that Puerto Rico has achieved self-government and that its
autonomy and sovereignty are equal to those normally attributed
to a State. It is therefore a mistake to base this bill on the
assumption that the only alternative to full self-government is
the ones included in the bill.
The Commonwealth created in 1952 is an alternative. It is
not perfect, and can be expanded and modernized. The definition
exalted by the Popular Democratic Party appealed to the goal of
and opens the process of negotiation to clarify, and or expand,
the present relationship.
The concept of self-determination applies to the process of
presenting the alternatives itself. The way this bill is
enacted does not comply with that rule. The bill disqualifies
the present state of the law without any participation of
Puerto Rico.
The final arbiter of these matters is the Supreme Court, as
was announced to the United Nations. When Public Law 600 was
approved by the Congress, the requirement of its acceptance was
dictated to the people by Congress. That same procedure must be
used now.
There is another aspect that should worry us all. The
United States has been consistent, year after year in the
United Nations, in its positions that Puerto Rico's case is
closed. The future development and greater autonomy of Puerto
Rico is both necessary and desirable in a modern and changing
world. However, it is a private matter between two sovereigns
that are associated by a compact.
The United Nations Resolutions Number 1514 and 1541 and
other resolutions require, among other things, the
demilitarization of the territory. This applies to territories
that have not achieved full self-government and are still under
the jurisdiction of the United States. Puerto Rico is not such
a territory and arguing that it is does not serve the best
interests of either the United States or Puerto Rico. It is
unnecessary and can be ill advised and risky.
The enemies of the United States and Puerto Rico may try to
influence this Congress to fall into that mistake. The
presentation of alternatives present under this bill does not
satisfy a majority of the potential voters in a plebiscite. The
existing relationship may devote the need for the court's
intervention to adjudicate the authorities by the premises
included in it.
Statehood is not good for the United States and Puerto
Rico. And neither is it good for our desire to be a distinct
people and your need to be a cohesive natural body. These
things have been pronounced by the Supreme Court on several
occasions.
Puerto Rico is associated with the United States,
permanently bounded by our many common interests. Any bill
should take this into consideration. The Congress should follow
suit since, after all, this is a matter of political will. It
is not foreclosed by legality. We are confident we will win a
fair and just plebiscite. Let us create a fair and
modernization of the compact that would make the next
generation of Americans and Puerto Ricans proud of this
generation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Hector.
STATEMENT OF HECTOR QUIJANO BORGES, ASSOCIATION OF STATEHOOD
ATTORNEYS, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Borges. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
Members of Congress. Welcome to Puerto Rico.
My name is Hector Quijano Borges, and I come before you on
behalf of the Attorneys for Statehood, an organization that
represents thousands of attorneys who believe in the democratic
system of the United States as well as in the permanent union
with the same Nation.
It is a fact that in Puerto Rico, the vast majority of
attorneys, especially the younger generations, treasure our
U.S. citizenship. We also represent the new generations of job
professionals who decide a new future of security, progress,
equality, for our families, our children.
I would like to begin by commending the Committee on
Resources for its contribution in providing a process that
would put an end to the colonial dilemma of Puerto Rico. This
bill reflects the effort of the U.S. Congress to respond to the
aspiration of our 3.7 million U.S. citizens eager to become
Americans.
The Association of Attorneys for Statehood endorses the
seven-point definitions of the statehood contained in this
bill. And in this hearing you have heard the statement of those
who oppose that Puerto Rico should become federated State of
the Union. They argue that statehood represents three basic
problems for the United States.
First, they allege that if Puerto Rico became the 51st
State, it would be dependent State; second, that both our
language and culture are now not compatible with becoming a
State; third, that statehood for Puerto Rico would be extremely
costly for the U.S.
Obviously, those are arguments that only pretend to
manipulate your conscience as well as that of the Puerto Rican
people. Let's take those arguments and discuss them one by one.
I must be clear that, in the ELA, dependency of Puerto
Ricans to work for our problems increase every day. We are much
more dependent proportionally than all 50 States. The so-called
new defi-
nition of ELA proposes equal treatment in Federal programs with
our contribution, a penny, for the Federal Treasury.
Could there be a better example of the dependency than
asking for benefits without assuming any duties? It is a fact
that this definition does not fit in the fair and
constitutional system of the United States. In legal,
constitutional, and practical terms, this definition is not
acceptable.
Furthermore, the perpetration of a colonial status for
Puerto Rico is in clear violation of the basic principles of
international law. History reveals that no one State has become
poorer after joining the Union. On the contrary, experience
tells us that economy of all territories after becoming State
has strongly developed.
Far from becoming a dependent state, Puerto Rico with the
advantage of becoming a bilingual State, and with the assets of
its hard-working people, will become the commercial bridge
between the Spanish-speaking world and the United States. Our
economic development as a State will be notorious.
To say that Puerto Rico as a State will be a problem for
the United States for speaking both Spanish and English
contravenes the constitutional principles that all men are
created equal. Far from being a problem, our bilingualism
enriches our U.S. Nation. So that everyone clearly understands
this point, allow me to continue my statement in Spanish.
Esto lo hago, para que quede tambien meridianamente claro
que no hay incompatibilidad en creer en la estadidad, ser
estadista y ser Puertorriqueno, atesorar el idioma Espanol,
nuestra cultura, tradiciones y religion. Estados Unidos es un
vitral de etnias y culturas, unida por unas mismas creencias,
por unos mismos principios de convivencia humana y democracia,
sin importar el lugar de origen, la raza y el color. Y nosotros
anadimos, sin importar si se hablan o no, uno o mas idiomas.
El hecho de que en Puerto Rico tengamos el Espanol y el
Ingles como idiomas oficiales, en nada afecta a la nacion. Por
el contrario, la enriquece y le da la versatilidad deseada en
un mundo donde las comunicaciones y la computacion han
eliminado las barreras de las distancias entre las naciones.
Estamos en la era de la globalizacion. Los pueblos no pueden ni
deben colocar barreras entre unos y otros. Lo que deben colocar
son puentes de entendimiento y de amistad. Ese es el nuevo
mundo, al cual aspiramos los jovenes profesionales de esta
bendita tierra, las mismas personas que le dicen ustedes que su
formula incluye paridad de fondos Federales sin la obligacion
de contribuciones Federales, son aquellas que insinuan que
Puerto Rico no puede ser estado porque la cantidad de fondos
que recibiria seria muy grande y constituiria una carga para el
presupuesto de los Estados Unidos, como si el problema del
status se tratara de un asunto de dolares y centavos. El
problema colonial de Puerto Rico es un asunto de dignidad
humana. No es, y repito, no es un asunto de dinero o de
negocios. La nacion que ustedes representan, los Estados Unidos
de Norteamerica, siempre se ha distinguido por ser la nacion
mas generosa del mundo.
Nos preguntamos ahora, oes que ese sentimiento de
generosidad, ese sentimiento magnanimo se puede perder? El
permitirle a los Puertorriquenos decidir su destino politico,
final, con formulas realmente descolonizadoras y
constitucionalmente aceptables, incluyendo la estadidad,
tampoco puede ser un asunto de dolares y centavos para los
Estados Unidos de Norteamerica.
Finalmente, queremos llamar la atencion a este Comite sobre
las expresiones vertidas aqui por lo que presentan la nueva
definicion del ELA. Segun ellos, el proceso tiene que ser uno
de consenso, donde la formula que concursen segun aprobadas por
el Congreso, sean aceptables para los proponentes de las
formulas. Sin embargo, nos preguntamos, ocomo se puede
complacer a los proponentes del ELA si la definicion que
proponen es totalmente irreal e inconstitucional?
Mr. Young. Puerto Rico is like Alaska. Just a little more.
Mr. Borges. Definitely.
We believe that statehood is the first commission to the
colonial problem. We want to preserve, protect and make our
U.S. citizenship be permanent, equal to that of Puerto Rico's
brothers and sisters in the United States. We find that can
only be achieved within the framework of sovereignty shared
with the other 50 States of the American Nation. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Borges follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.145
Mr. Young. I love America and I love the process. I have
two opposing views side-by-side.
STATEMENT OF HON. JULIO CESAR LOPEZ GERENA, MAYOR OF HUACAO,
HUMACAO, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Gerena. Good afternoon. We are going to request that
you take our statement in English for the record, but this
afternoon we would like to present it in Spanish.
Mr. Young. Without objection.
Mr. Gerena. Chairman Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Romero-Barcelo,
members of the Committee on Resources, my name is Julio Cesar
Lopez Gerena. I am the mayor of the city of Humacao, located in
the eastern coast of our Island, with a population of
approximately 60,000. Last November I had the privilege of
being reelected to a second 4-year term, albeit with a
municipal assembly controlled by the same party, the pro-
statehood New Progressive Party.
I take much pride in this electoral achievement, as Humacao
had always been a stronghold of the Popular Democratic Party.
Certainly our city has undergone significant changes as well as
many other municipalities around the Island. Throughout the
1970's and 1980's, conventional wisdom was that in order for
the pro-statehood New Progressive Party to win a general
election it had to depend on a strong showing in the
municipalities encompassing the metropolitan area. Since there
were over two dozen municipalities on the rest of the Island,
the pro-commonwealth party had never lost an election. That was
the case of our city in Humacao.
The logic was supposedly that statehood appealed as a
status option to those Puerto Ricans with the mainstream; in
other words, the upper and middle classes that had ready access
to cable TV and the opportunity to study in the mainland in the
United States. Therefore, following this same logic, the pro-
commonwealth party was the party that appealed to the working
classes and the rural poor, as it supposedly continued its
original quest for social justice using the party slogan of
``bread, land and liberty."
Yet a silent and irreversible transformation has been
underway. As the general elections of 1982 and 1996 show, the
pro-statehood New Progress Party, which advocates statehood,
has shown incredible strength in every region of our Island,
garnering 54 out of the 78 municipalities in the elections, 14
out of the 16 district Senators and 30 out of the 40 district
Representatives in 1992, as well as 13 district Senators and 31
district Representatives in 1996.
For many years the economic model for the pro-commonwealth
Popular Democratic Party depended exclusively on section 936.
This incentive showed many limitations. While the pro-
commonwealth Popular Democratic Party was the power between
1985 and 1993, it did not show any effort to nourish the
development of other sectors of our economy and then avoid an
overdependence in the sector of manufacturing.
Still, the extent of such a myopic vision did not end
there, as there was no significant massive infrastructure
development during these years. That is why prosperity could
only go so far, failing to reach in a significant manner many
regions of our Island, including our eastern coast.
As an example, according to the statistics of the U.S.
Census Bureau in 1990, our city of Humacao had a per capita
yearly income of $3,955. To me, the most surprising and
regrettable fact about the figures is that Humacao ranked the
16th highest among the Island's 78 municipalities.
In 1993, the pro-commonwealth party had the slogan of ``the
best of two worlds.'' How can they say that when in 1991, 58.9
percent of all Puerto Ricans lived below the poverty line and
when the gap between Puerto Rico and the per capita income in
Mississippi was even becoming wider?
The efforts of the Rossello administration were health and
education, which allowed us to be fair and to empower even the
poorest of our citizens. As the mayor of a middle sized city, I
know the benefits that statehood would bring to my citizens,
both individually as well as collectively. Our city would
receive the benefit of an increase in assistance to be able to
improve the services provided in housing, health, education,
solid waste disposal, as well as many others.
As a firm believer in the American dream, we know that to
be able to provide real social justice, we need to become the
51st State of the Union. I want to make it clear that I also
favor statehood for Puerto Rico, as it is the only option that
would allow us to stand on our feet. We are statehooders
because we have dignity and we have complete confidence in our
people. We know for sure that we will be contributors for the
future well-being in this great Nation of ours.
Finally, I want to stress to this Committee the importance
of making it clear that under the territorial definition of
Commonwealth, Congress has disciplinary powers over Puerto Rico
as it has over any other territory. Let us proclaim this in the
clearest and least ambiguous terminology and language.
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said in
the case of U.S. vs. Sanchez of 1993, ``Congress may
unilaterally repeal the Puerto Rican constitution of the Puerto
Rican Federal Relations Act and replace them with any rules or
regulations of its choice.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez-Gerena follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.148
Mr. Young. Thank you, Julio. With your indulgence, I hope
to come to your city someday. It is the east side I have not
seen, so I want to do that.
Mr. Gerena. You will be very welcome.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Mr. Fernos-Lopez.
STATEMENT OF GONZALO FERNOS-LOPEZ, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO; AND
ANGEL J. ORTIZ-GUZMAN, GUAYNABO, PUERTO RICO
Mr. Fernos-Lopez. Mr. Chairman, before my time comes, if I
may, I want to make some logistical remarks which I believe are
important for the record of this hearing.
Mr. Young. Without objection, as long as it does not take
too long.
Mr. Fernos-Lopez. No, it is very short. On May 16 and 17 of
1963, the Territorial and Insular Affairs Subcommittee of the
House conducted hearings on certain bills, about eight bills,
all with the same purpose, and the title was ``To establish a
procedure for the prompt settlement in a democratic manner of
the political status of Puerto Rico.''
That was 34 years ago. A commission was created resulting
from these hearings and some recommendations were made and
filed away, and the whole thing remained in oblivion until the
1967 plebiscite in Puerto Rico.
Now, on March 21st I sent to Your Honor the request to
testify in this hearing, and the reply came on April 9th and I
was given 8 days to submit my statement or testimony with 100
copies, and that was quite a lot to write in that short period.
So I must ask Your Honor the indulgence of the Committee for
all the mistakes I may have committed in my statement, my full
statement.
I want to thank you for letting me start, and now you can
start counting my time.
Mr. Young. For your information, we forgive all mistakes
because we make many ourselves. But go ahead.
Mr. Fernos-Lopez. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of
the Committee, I respectfully submit the following verbal
summary of my written testimony. I perceive that the
controversy arising from the definition of commonwealth status
in the bill H.R. 856 is the main disagreement threatening to
create a stalemate situation and thus preventing this bill from
being carried by both congressional Chambers.
It follows that if the House Committee on Resources does
not cede to the already presented Popular Democratic Party's
definition of the new commonwealth, the bill will be dead
before it reaches the House floor for a vote. In that case, we
commonwealth advocates may be compelled to seek redress in an
international forum for an impartial, independent ruling to
resolve the controversy.
First, the Treaty of Paris of 1898 is of doubtful
international validity, because after having been challenged
and sustained in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals of the U.S.
on the grounds that Spain had granted Puerto Rico an autonomic
charter in 1897, the challenge was never raised before the U.S.
Supreme Court, the United Nations nor the International Court
of the Hague for a final ruling.
Second, the U.S. Congress and previous military rule of
Puerto Rico have been reluctant to release the power over the
Island. Mild concessions leaning toward self-government were
granted to Puerto Rico by the Foraker Act of 1900 and the Jones
Act of 1917, yet the Island continued under the ironclad power
of the U.S. Congress until 1952.
Third, in 1950 to 1952, the U.S. Congress legislated to
grant Puerto Rico an irrevocable autonomous self-government
status through a mutually binding covenant, which now seems it
wishes to repeal through bill H.R. 856.
Fourth, in 1953, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations,
Henry Cabot Lodge, appeared before the United Nations General
Assembly to reaffirm Puerto Rico's colonized status since 1952,
and to request the United Nations to exempt the U.S. from
continuing to transmit yearly information to the United Nations
under article 73(e) of the United Nations Charter.
To that effect, on November 27, 1953, the United Nations
General Assembly in plenary session approved resolution 748.
Thus, the U.S. has assumed an ambivalent position concerning
the decolonization of Puerto Rico by granting full self-
government under Public Law 447 and is now disclaiming such
granting through the filing of House bill H.R. 856.
Fifth, I submit that the plebiscite process, if it ever
takes place, should be monitored by a United Nations mission.
Sixth, since U.S. Supreme Court decisions have not
clarified to date the Puerto Rico commonwealth status, a ruling
clarifying the controversy from the U.S. Supreme Court itself,
the United Nations General Assembly, through its Decolonization
Committee, or the International Court of the Hague should be
obtained.
Seventh, I maintain that the territorial clause of the U.S.
Constitution has been erroneously applied to the case of Puerto
Rico.
Eighth, I am proposing a substitute definition of the new
commonwealth to replace the one spelled out in the House bill
H.R. 856, notwithstanding that the Popular Democratic Party has
already submitted its official definition of new commonwealth
status.
Ninth, for nearly a century three separate juridical
entities have been debating to see which one will prevail. All
the while U.S. Congressmen sit back smiling at all the
bickering. I propose that all three entities could be
geographically implemented by proportionately dividing the
Island among the three political parties according to the
percentage of votes obtained in the plebiscite.
This is, of course, a conceptual basis. It is not real.
While this may sound absurd on a geopolitical basis,
conceptually it is very feasible through the sui generis
formula of the new commonwealth status, which would include at
once all the advantages of statehood, independence and
commonwealth, but very few of their disadvantages.
Tenth, I am suggesting a formula or method to determine the
voting rights of the people in a plebiscite.
Eleventh, I am touting the language issued by labeling the
``English only'' posture as xenophobic.
Twelfth, I maintain that U.S. citizenship, once granted,
cannot be taken away.
Thirteenth, in my final statement I emphasize the need to
arbitrate as an independent, impartial forum the controversy of
whether Puerto Rico has attained autonomous self-government
under the covenant of 1952 or still is under the plenary power
of the U.S. Congress pursuant to the territorial clause of the
U.S. Constitution.
Last, I submit that the controversy must be resolved before
proceeding to consider any further House bill H.R. 856. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fernos-Lopez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.160
Mr. Young. Angel Ortiz-Guzman.
STATEMENT OF ANGEL J. ORTIZ-GUZMAN
Mr. Ortiz-Guzman. Good afternoon, members of the Committee.
My name is Angel Ortiz-Guzman, and I testify on behalf of a new
generation of Puerto Ricans who firmly believe in the
sovereignty of Puerto Rico in association with the United
States through the status known as Free Association.
I would like to suggest a definition of Free Association
that will help this Committee to achieve the goal of H.R. 856
of decolonizing and disposing of the Territory of Puerto Rico.
It is time for Congress to act honestly in this matter.
Congress must offer status options valid under international
law. Those options are statehood, independence and Free
Association, which you may call a free associated state. It is
my judgment that an option of Free Association according to
international law must be included in H.R. 856 if Congress
really wants to decolonize Puerto Rico.
In that sense, I suggest the following: There must be a
final disposition of congressional powers over Puerto Rico.
Congress must dispose in a final and irrevocable manner of any
and all remaining power or authority over Puerto Rico under the
terms of Article IV, section 3, of the United States
Constitution.
It is necessary to clarify the nature of the association
between Puerto Rico and the United States. The options of Free
Association and independence should be separated and have their
own definitions.
A Free Associated State must be defined as a sovereign
nation in full free association with the United States by means
of a bilateral compact which can only be amended by mutual
agreement.
The Free Associated State option must be sovereign, clearly
outside the territorial clause, with full authority and
responsibility for its internal and external affairs. The name
of the option is not important, but the substance is.
It is necessary that Congress recognize the full power of
Puerto Rico's government with respect to its territory and
population, language and culture, determining its own relations
and participation in the community of nations and exercising
all the attributes of a sovereign political entity, except
those especially delegated to the Government of the United
States in the text of the bilateral compact.
Congress shall recognize Puerto Rico's power to determine
and control its own nationality and citizenship.
Congress shall recognize, as it did in the Compact of Free
Association of 1986 with the Marshall Islands, that a United
States citizen who becomes a citizen of the Free Associated
State of Puerto Rican and who does not voluntarily renounce his
United States citizenship will retain his United States
citizenship and continue entitled to the same rights and
privileges as any other United States citizen.
Congress must guarantee that the terms of the bilateral
Compact of the Free Associated State can only be determined or
amended by mutual agreement and that the people of Puerto Rico
will give their consent or agreement in accordance with the
terms of the compact and the applicable constitutional process.
Congress shall recognize Puerto Rico's eligibility for
United States assistance to be provided in a block grant
government-to-government basis, including foreign aid or
programmatic assistance, at a level similar, but never
superior, to the present ones.
I also suggest that in the event none of the three options
get a majority by itself but the sum of the votes for Puerto
Rican sovereignty options--Free Association and Independence--
does produce a majority, the process to decolonize and to
dispose of the Territory of Puerto Rico may go forward.
Finally, I urge this Committee to strike out the present
Commonwealth definition included in H.R. 856 and offer a
sovereign Free Associate State or Commonwealth in full free
association by means of a bilateral compact between the United
States and Puerto Rico.
In considering our suggestions, we invite this Committee to
study a series of amendments drafted by PROELA, an organization
in which I am vice president, that will comply with the
applicable criteria for Free Association and self-
determination.
Members of this Committee, there are answers to
colonialism. The United States and the people of Puerto Rico
deserve an opportunity to choose between non-colonial and non-
territorial options in their referendum scheduled for 1998. It
only takes the will to do it.
Thank you.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz-Guzman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.170
Mr. Young. I want to thank the panel.
Carlos, do you have questions?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Yes, I have a couple of questions.
I want to ask Mr. Velasco, if the Congress today would pass
a banking law, can they make it applicable for Puerto Rico
without Puerto Rico's previous consent?
Mr. Velasco. A banking law, yes.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And fair trade laws?
Mr. Velasco. And fair trade laws, yes.
Just to answer your whole question, the only laws that are
not applicable to Puerto Rico made by the U.S. Congress are
those that are locally inapplicable because of geographic or
that kind of laws and also those that do not address the
compact.
Now, what is the compact? The compact is Public Law 600,
the Federal Relations Act, the Constitution of Puerto Rico.
Those are the laws--and 447, of course.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Can Congress pass income tax laws
taxing income produced in Puerto Rico?
Mr. Velasco. Income tax laws?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Taxing income produced in Puerto Rico.
Can they not pass laws?
Mr. Velasco. No, they cannot.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Why are they taxing the companies that
are here in Puerto Rico for their income produced in Puerto
Rico now, what used to be section 936? Why are those taxing the
income produced here if you say they cannot?
Mr. Velasco. Mr. Romero, those companies that were under
936 are U.S. companies.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No, they are subsidiaries.
Mr. Velasco. Excuse me, the subsidiaries are U.S.
subsidiaries that are doing business in Puerto Rico; so,
therefore, those subsidiaries, because they are citizens of the
States where they were incorporated, are under the Internal
Revenue Code; and that is why you can do it.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. But they are taxed here for the income
produced in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Velasco. But they are taxed because they are citizens
of other States, not because they are citizens of Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And when a Puerto Rican earns income
outside of Puerto Rico, they are also taxed by the United
States, right?
Mr. Velasco. Because that income is derived outside of
Puerto Rico. But the income derived inside of Puerto Rico is
not taxable under the Internal Revenue Code. And it is not
taxable, first, because they are not in the Internal Revenue
code; and, second, because it is part of the compact.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. An excise tax, they cannot impose
excise taxes on Puerto Rico?
Mr. Velasco. Excise taxes? Puerto Rico imposes excise
taxes, not the United States. The United States imposes custom
duties.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. How about the rum excise tax?
Mr. Velasco. The rum excise tax--the problem with the rum
excise tax is the Puerto Rico government did not do anything at
the time.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Why didn't they do it afterwards?
Mr. Velasco. They haven't done it.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. They have had 8 years for the Popular
Party Administration, and they didn't go to court.
Mr. Velasco. That is besides the point. The point is, Mr.
Romero, that independent of what they did or didn't, you can't
impose it; and if the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico goes to
court, that is another matter. They didn't do that.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Why don't you file a claim? Why don't
you file a claim and have them return the money?
Mr. Velasco. They didn't do it at the time.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. You can do it now. If you have the law
with you, you can file a claim to have the money returned?
Mr. Velasco. I can't speak for the commonwealthers of
Puerto Rico, Mr. Romero.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. You can speak for the taxpayers.
Mr. Velasco. That is something to be studied at this time.
We are not going to do that now.
Mr. Young. I don't want to cut the gentleman short, but we
are about ready to run out of time, and the gentleman from Guam
is all excited about Free Association, so he is allowed to ask
questions.
Mr. Underwood. I just want to offer some observation since
I know we are at the end of the line. I just wanted to point
out as, obviously, a vitally interested observer of this
process because of the impact it may have on Guam as well as
being a member of the Committee, it strikes me that there are
many fingers being pointed in this process.
All along and throughout the day we have heard about the
status of Estado Libre Asociado has misled the people, we have
heard that statehood status is being offered but it is not
being guaranteed, and many people that are advocates of
independence are saying that people have been made to be afraid
of independence.
And then we hear in the written testimony, at least there
are many references to court cases, some involving Guam, some
involving the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. We have
heard references to the Compacts of Free Association. Yet that
brings to mind a whole series of other issues that are
attendant to it.
Again, even in the process of seeing that or hearing it, I
recognize that some of those things, while not entirely being
inaccurate, they are not entirely accurate as well. The
Compacts of Free Association and the Covenant of the Northern
Marianas are very different from each other. The reference to
continuing citizenship applies to a very small group of people
who happened to be U.S. citizens before the implementation of
the compacts, and that is a very different process coming in.
I just want to point out that it seems to me--and I hate to
go back to this very, very basic point. It seems to me that, of
the entire political status process, at least as we did it on
Guam, is we understood what we were trying to do. I think we
understood what we were trying to do, and we tried to argue it
from what we wanted, and then we are going to Congress and see
what we can get.
Now, if Congress doesn't want to do it, then Congress will
own up to us at that time and make it clear what it wants to do
and what it does not want to do. I submit that, subsequent to
that, the people of Guam are still free to engage in a lot of
things, because I think the right of self-determination is not
extinguished, because people will have that right.
But I do think that making these very glib comparisons, I
always want to know, what happened to the old ELA that we need
a new ELA?
Mr. Ramos. Mr. Underwood, if you would permit a brief
comment on my part, I would agree with you the Marianas
arrangement and Compact of Free Association Agreement are two
different things. The Marianas arrangement is under the
sovereignty of the U.S. We don't want that. The people of
Puerto Rico have said, at least the people who are supporting
the Estado Libre Asociado today, want a relationship with the
United States based on sovereignty for Puerto Rico. That leaves
only the space for a Free Associated State relationship.
With regards to what Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero
was talking about, we can argue about what laws apply and what
laws don't apply today. But under our proposal, it would be
clear that the only Federal laws that would apply would be
those included in the terms of the bilateral compact.
So what we are basically doing here is trying to put some
things back into the discussion of the autonomy formula by
saying, here is a relationship that it is open to negotiation,
and you have political will, and you get some things, and
others don't.
Mr. Underwood. Luis, with all due respect--and I am one
seeking a status that has many similarities to what you already
have, and I fully recognize that--but I really am torn on the
horns of a dilemma in trying to understand all the vague terms
that are being used. I sometimes wonder whether we would be
better off, Mr. Chairman, holding a contest like they used to
hold for various products: Send us your description of
political status in 25 words or less. And then, once we do
that, then you make a choice on that.
Because a statement of political aspirations is not a
statement of a status. It is a statement of a political
program, and that will be part of the discussion and the
campaign. I clearly understand that. I just can't understand
why that has to be part of the definition.
Mr. Ramos. I would have a one-sentence comment. Everything
in our proposal, everything, is validated by previous
precedents in U.S. law and international obligations. Then it
is an issue of political will.
Mr. Underwood. It should not be a matter phrased as a issue
of political will or political aspirations. It should be
phrased as a description.
Mr. Young. The gentleman's time has expired.
We could argue this point. I would like to--before I
dismiss the panel, I would like to suggest two things.
Mr. Fernos-Lopez. I would like to, before you begin, to
mention something.
Mr. Young. I recognize maturity and gray beards, so go
ahead. But don't take too long. We have to catch a helicopter.
Mr. Fernos-Lopez. I am concerned that I have not heard any
testimony here which has stressed the point that the U.S.
Congress under the U.S. Constitution has the plenary power to
grant Puerto Rico anything they want to.
Mr. Young. And you hit a very valid point. I was just going
to come to that.
Mr. Fernos-Lopez. The point is the Constitution itself, and
particularly the territorial clause, when it says that you
could dispose in the way you wish, is so ample that you were
not to be parsimonious, you would be giving Puerto Rico
anything under Commonwealth that could be attained through
statehood or independence.
Mr. Young. We will not disagree with that. The problem we
have is the political reality and what can sell and what cannot
sell in the Congress.
I have made a commitment, I will say this right up front,
that I do not believe that we can have a territory today in
this arena and still be the United States of America. What we
are trying to do is reach some kind of solution to the problem.
I am not going to tolerate the status quo; and I am not,
very frankly, going to use a--no, don't applaud. I am not going
to let someone use a method to go back to where we were before.
One of the things that bothered me is some of the
testimony, and I will tell you I do have a bad back. As you
know, I got rid of one chair today. Gardner threw it off the
wall. But I do not like to be impugned for my motives. This
disturbs me a great deal.
Because this--as Chairman Miller said, this is a very
serious question that affects all Americans, and affects mostly
the Puerto Rican people, but affects all Americans. This is a
chance, I believe, for America to show its great leadership, as
it has in the past; and we are going to continue to pursue a
solution.
Before I do close this and I will ask Carlos to say a few
words, I am going to ask unanimous consent to submit the
statements for the record of the Governor of Puerto Rico, the
Mayor of San Juan, the Mayor of Biyamon and Hernandez-Arana.
[The statements follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.184
Mr. Young. And, in closing, let me thank the University of
Mayaguez for hosting this congressional hearing. I hope all of
you appreciate this. The University did an extremely good job,
especially the president of the University, the chancellor, the
dean, President Maldonahdo, Chancellor Stuart Ramos and Dean
Antonio Santos. I think this was one of the better hearings.
I would like to thank the Puerto Rican Department of
State--they did an excellent job--the Puerto Rican National
Guard, the Puerto Rican State Police, Commissioner Pedro
Tolaydo, for the tremendous support in both Mayaguez and San
Juan.
Let me also thank the Puerto Rican Senate for the
hospitality last night and the cooperation of the three
political witnesses and the participation of all the witnesses
in Mayaguez and San Juan.
And I say this with all sincerity, this has been a good 3
days. I want to compliment all the people here in this great
city and the people who are in the audience that had
differences of opinion, because our job is to listen and to
learn and to make decisions. I am very pleased to say I believe
we have been able to do that.
We will be reviewing all comments and all statements, all
written presentations; and we will deliberate on this, as Mr.
Miller said, for a great deal of time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3229.192
Mr. Young. Mr. Carlos, Mr. Commissioner, you represent this
great, I was going to say Nation, Commonwealth, State, but I
would say he represents the Puerto Rican people very, very
well. If you have a closing statement?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of the people of Puerto Rico, I want to thank you
and Mr. Miller and Mr. Underwood for having taken the time out
from your recess. I want everybody to realize now, Congress is
on a recess until Tuesday; and they have taken their time out
of the recess to come to Puerto Rico because of their interest.
As the Chairman has stated, it is not only for the people
of Puerto Rico. He recognizes, as does everyone else now, and
every day more and more people in Congress are recognizing,
this is important for the United States. This is important for
all of the people of the United States, because the example and
inspiration of democracy throughout the world cannot continue
to have a territory or a colony or have 3.8 million U.S.
citizens disenfranchised. This is impossible in this day and
age.
As we end this century and go into the new millennium, I am
sure the Nation wants to solve the problem as we do. So they
are taking their time and are very serious about it. I am very
confident we will get this bill through the House and be
working toward getting it approved in the Senate.
I want to thank every one of you also for being here with
us today and the panel for their testimony and each one of you
for the wonderful way you approved today. Thank you very much.
Mr. Young. This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
------
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
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