PR Status Plebiscite
PR Status Plebiscite
PR Status Plebiscite
Y 4. R 31/3:104-56
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINATION OF THE POUTICAL PREFERENCES OF THE U.S.
CITIZENS OF PUERTO RICO
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on
International Relations .„„
I
JUN 1 9 J99g
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING pFFICE
2(^766cc WASHINGTON 1996 BOStOf]
: )
.^
PUOHC Uhr^irU
.?n'./prn.ji
-^pl
r^ ' ^
J~' ,
ISBN 0-16-052610-8
PUERTO RICO STATUS PLEBISCITE
Y4.R 31/3:104-56
Puerto Rico Status Plebiscite, Seri...^^
ARING
HE
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINATION OF THE POUTICAL PREFERENCES OF THE U.S.
CITIZENS OF PUERTO RICO
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resovirces and the Committee on
International Relations
I
^^^19 1996
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-766CC WASHINGTON 1996 J^ dOStOll
:
PUOUC UbmrU
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing oMc?''^'*'''^-^^-^^.^.^..,^^!^ DSPt. f
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-052610-8
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, CaUfornia
JAMES HANSEN, Utah
V. EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
J.
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, CaUfornia BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
KEN CALVERT, CaUfornia ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
RICHARD W. POMBO. CaUfornia Samoa
PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
WES COOLEY, Oregon OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, New Jersey Jr.,
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, CaUfornia
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, CaUfornia CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER JONES, Jr., North CaroUna
B. Rico
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas MALTRICE D. HINCHEY, New York
RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JACK METCALF, Washington SAM FARR, California
JAMES B. LONGLEY, Jr., Maine PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENGLISH, Nevada
Daniel Val Kish, Chief of Staff
David Dye, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk /Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
(II)
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. OILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOBY ROTH, Wisconsin TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, IlUnois ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska HOWARD L. BERMAN, CaUfomia
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
DAN BURTON, Indiana HARRY JOHNSTON, Florida
JAN MEYERS, Kansas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida Samoa
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
PETER T. KING, New York SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAY KIM, California CYNTHIA. A McKINNEY, Georgia
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
DAVID FUNDERBURK, North CaroUna ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, Maryland
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
MARSHALL "MARK" SANFORD, South JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
Carolina VICTOR O. FRAZER, Virgin Islands (Ind.)
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
Michael H. Van Dusen, Minority Chief of Staff
(III)
CONTENTS
Hearing held October 17, 1995 1
Statements of Members:
Burton, Hon. Dan, a U.S. Representative from Indiana, and Chairman,
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere 3
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a U.S. Representative from American Samoa .... 4
Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a U.S. Representative from California, and Chair-
man, Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs 1
Gutierrez, Hon. Luis V., a U.S. Representative from Illinois 18
Joint statement of Hon. Don Young and Hon. Benjamin A. Oilman 342
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., a U.S. Representative from Michigan 38
Menendez, Hon. Robert, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey 29
Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, a U.S. Representative from Puerto Rico 6
Serrano, Hon. Jose E., a U.S. Representative from New York 10
Torricelli, Hon. Robert G., a U.S. Representative from New Jersey 22
Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M., a U.S. Representative from New York 14
Statements of witnesses:
Acevedo, Hon. Hector Luis, President of Popular Democratic Party and
Mayor of San Juan 40
Prepared statement 118
Agosto, Hon. Miguel Hernandez, Minority Leader, Senate of Puerto Rico . 80
Prepared statement 162
Berrios-Martinez, Hon. Ruben, President of Puerto Rican Independence
Party and ranking senator 51
Prepared statement 125
Casillas, Jose Antonio, Co-Chair, Cambio XXI 99
Prepared statement 230
Cintron-Oarcia, Hon. Angel M., Majority Whip, Puerto Rico House of
Representatives 88
Prepared statement 169
Farrow, Hon. Jeffrey, co-chair, Clinton Administration Interagency Work-
ing Group on Puerto Rico 64
Prepared statement 141
Ferre, Hon. Luis A., former Governor of Puerto Rico and founder of
New Progressive Party 60
Prepared statement 133
Garffer, Arturo J., Jr. (prepared statement) 345
Hills, Howard L., State Department 76
Prepared statement 145
Irizarry, Hon. Carlos VizcEirrondo, Puerto Rico House of Representatives
. 91
Prepared statement 187
Martin, Hon. Fernando, former senator, and vice president of Puerto
Rican Independence Party 82
Prepared statement 166
McClintock, Hon. Kenneth, Senate of Puerto Rico 78
Noriega-Rodriguez, Hon. David, Minority Leader, Puerto Rico House of
Representatives 92
Prepared statement 192
Ramirez de Ferrer, Miriam, M.D., President of Puerto Ricans in Civic
Action 98
Prepared statement 196
Supplements to statement 209
Rexach Benitez, Roberto F., President, Senate of Puerto Rico (prepared
statement) 158
Rodriguez, Hon. Charles A., Majority Leader, Senate of Puerto Rico 78
(IV)
V
Page
—
Statements of witnesses Continued
Rossello, Hon. Pedro, Governor of Puerto Rico 30
Prepared statement 109
Vega-Ramos, Luis, President of PROELA 101
Prepared statement 235
Additional materied supplied:
Cambio xxi; Testimony before the co-coordinators of the Interagency
Working Group on Puerto Rico on The Future of Puerto Rico, dated
June 22, 1995 245
Cintron-Garcia, Hon. Angel M.: Position statement 327
Newspaper articles 367
PROELA:
Article; "PDP drafts new definition of commonwealth for bedlot" 341
Resolution of the Popular Democratic Party Greneral Council 338
Penchi, Luis: Support that the Commonwealth pay Federal taxes to U.S. . 365
Romero-Barcello, Hon. Carlos:
Article, "Absolute Majority Demanded" (translation) 325
Article, "Exige la mayoria absoluta" 324
Communications submitted:
Goitia Padilla, Francisco Javier: Letter of October 10, 1995, to Mr. Wil-
liam Clinton 363
Granados, Hon. Jose: Letter of October 16, 1995, to Hon. Elton Gallegly .. 354
Hudson, Emmett C: Letter of October 18, 1995, to Hon. Elton Gallegly .... 353
Ortiz, Rafael A.: Letter of October 13, 1995, to Rep. Elton Gallegly 356
Roseborough, Teresa Wynn: Memorandum of July 28, 1994, to Special
Representative for Guam Commonwealth on mutual consent provi-
sions 312
Valencia Aponte, Angel A.: Letter of October 16, 1995, to Hon. Elton
Gallegly 358
PUERTO RICO STATUS PLEBISCITE
I tell the sad story of my father's funeral, where the Puerto Rican
and the American flags were both on the casket and someone said
to me, why is the American flag on your father's casket. I said, he
wanted it that way; he served in the Army, About half an hour
later, he came back to me and said, you know, I had no idea that
the Puerto Rican Army used the American flag.
While we laugh at it and I do myself, that is an indication of the
lack of understanding of a very serious problem, because it is a se-
rious problem. I want to preface this next comment by saying that
I don't ever mean any disrespect to people who are supporters of
the commonwealth, when I say that I believe Puerto Rico is a col-
ony.
I don't say that as a person who is Puerto Rican; I say it as a
Member of the United States Congress, in how I, as a Member of
Congress, treat the island legally, not emotionally, not from my
heart, but legally. It is a colony. It c£innot make its own deals with
foreign countries; it cannot refuse to go to war; it cannot take care
of its borders. That to me leaves no other alternative but to say
that it is a colony.
So then I ask myself, how can this, the greatest Nation on earth,
the one who professes to tell the world how to behave and indeed
uses all its might to do so, continue to hold a colony while, in fact,
not far in an island in the Caribbean, it continues to tell people to
hold election, the same kind of election it refuses to hold in Puerto
Rico for the people to determine their future and their status.
So I, finding myself, Mr. Chairman and members of the commit-
tee, in this unique situation, continue to ask ourselves to deal with
this issue, to solve the situation. Whatever the situation solving
may be, and there are people here who will tell you that solving
the situation is to change the current status. If that is the case, let
it be a decision of the people in conjunction with the Congress, the
same Congress that is the representative arm of a government that
invaded the island in 1898 and hasn't left yet.
Recently, the New York Times had a list of places that we had
invaded or been involved in militarily, and it listed all the Carib-
bean islands and all the Latin American countries, and it dawned
on me that one invasion was missing: Puerto Rico. It dawned on
me that maybe the reason that invasion was not listed is because
it is still in effect and hasn't ended, and therefore, it didn't need
to be part of history.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest the following. If we are truly
going to deal with this issue, here is what I suggest we do. Con-
gress should, once and for all, approve a referendum for the people
of Puerto Rico stating clearly tne options for the status question,
taking full responsibility for the implementation in conjunction
with the people of Puerto Rico, and assuring in the enabling legis-
lation that either a binding vote will be taken or that by a date cer-
tain, the results of that vote will be dealt with on the floor of the
House and in the Senate.
It can't be a vote sponsored by Congress that says, someday in
the future, we will deal with it. It will have to be a vote that says
on a date certain, we will deal with it.
Granted that there is still the issue of what percentage of the
vote what option should win by; granted that there is the question
12
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the ad-
ministration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of
self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these
territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote
to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by
the present charter, the weU being of the inhabitants of these territories."
Towsird this end, article 73 further enjoins members "to take fiill account of the
political aspirations" of the inhabitants of their territories and "to assist them in the
progressive development of their free political institutions". The United States has
not honored this obligation.
It must be noted tiiat a 1953 General Assembly resolution declared Puerto Rico
a self-governing territory no longer subject to article 73 of the charter.
But in 1973 the General Assembly approved a report, adopted by the United Na-
tions committee responsible for guaranteeing self-determination, which regarded
Puerto Rico as still a colonial and non-self-governing territory. Typically, the United
States has suspended cooperation with the so-called "committee of 24" which adopt-
ed this report.
There may be some confusion internationally as to the official status of Puerto
—
Rico. But there shoxild be no doubt in our minds that Puerto Rico is a colony.
It is difficult for me to accept that as a Congressman, I am part of a government
which promotes the right of people around the world to a fiill and free expression
of their political aspirations, out olatantly denies it to the 3.7 million United States
citizens residing in our Puerto Rican colony.
—
As a native Puerto Rican, I resent the fact that the United States ^the greatest,
—
most free Nation on earth ^will not recognize my right to decide the future of my
birth place.
I am ashamed that this Nation grants my brothers and sisters in Puerto Rico the
right to fight and die for the United States but refuses them the basic human right
to determine their political futvire.
paragraph III of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted
Article 21,
with United States support by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, states
that "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of the government;
this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal
and equal suffrage."
The inhabitants of the colony of Puerto Rico have never participated in our "peri-
odic and genviine" elections for the Presidency of the United States. Puerto Ilico's
delegate to the U.S. Congress does not have the same voting power as his colleagues
from the 50 States.
Clearly, the authority which the United States Government exercises over the
people of Puerto Rico is not derived from their will. It is time for all of us to recog-
nize the bond between Puerto Rico and the United States for the colonial relation-
ship that it is. Without the clever rationalizations and embellishments we have ap-
plied for nesirly a century, this policy is clearly untenable.
I urge these subcommittees to adhere to ovu- commitments, to give meaning to our
international pronouncements, to reclaim our rightful place as a mor£d leader.
We have no credibility in the world if we fail to practice what we preach, if we
continue to bear the shame of denying a people the basic human right of political
self-determination.
Therefore, I applaud you all today because you are taking the issue of the status
of Puerto Rico seriously, so the 3.7 million American citizens can fulfill their dream
of obtaining self-determination.
Even though there is no clear consensus as to their ultimate relationship with the
—
United States, the message came loud and clear from the referendum ^to change!
The enhanced commonwealth obtained 48% of the vote; statehood; 46% and inde-
pendence, 4%. In my view, that translates to real change, everyone wants to change.
You are here today in this joint hearing to discuss the outcome of that referendum
and together as the Congress of the United States, through future legislation give
the Puerto Rican people the opportunity to obtain that change in a permanent way!
I earnestly encovu-age you to forcefully seek to have the U.S. citizens of Puerto
Rico given uieir democratic right to meaningfid self-expression, to rid them of their
colonial status, and to honor their choice of a future, within this Nation or among
the nations of the world.
Maybe the best way of resolving this could be through a congressionally-sponsored
referendvun, that clearly outlines all the options available to the people of Puerto
Rico. And, setting forth, if necessary, the rules to govern it. For example, what are
the options and what percentage will be accepted for the winning formiila.
14
The ii^ustice and betrayal of our cherished democratic principles on this matter
must stop. Out of self-respect, and out of respect for these principles, we must give
the people of Puerto Rico self-determination. Otherwise, the basic tenets of our Na-
tion have lost all real meaning.
promise to lower the Nation's deficit in seven years, but it is unfair to do this on
the backs of the Puerto Rican people.
Attacks on economic prosperity are nothing new to the people of Puerto Rico. In
1993 Congress enacted changes to Section 936. Little time has been allowed to ex-
amine these effects. In the short term, we have seen the loss of 11,000 jobs. I can
only speculate that with no compensatory measure or transition plan, a post-936
economy will mean only more pain and economic hardship for the inhabitants of the
island.
In closing, I strongly urge this Congress and the Administration to move forward
diligently on finding solutions that will help solve the political and economic ques-
tions the people of FHierto Rico have struggled with for decades. I am here today
to help find answers to these difficult questions which have gone unaddressed for
so long. It is said that the longest journey begins with one step. We have a long
way to go to find a solution. It is my hope that this hearing is that first step which
will help determine Puerto Rico's future.
Chairmen Gallegly and Burton, distinguished colleagues, I would like, first of all,
to thank the distinguished chairmen of the two subcommittees for the privilege ac-
corded meto participate in the hearing.
I would also like to thank the distinguished chairmen for their commitment to the
cause of achieving self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico.
Congress acqvured the sovereignty over Puerto Rico in 1898, by the ratification
of the Treaty of Paris that transferred Puerto Rico to the United States as repara-
tions, some may say "booty", for the war with Spain.
The first half of the century was characterized both by naked colonialism and by
the struggle of the people of Puerto Rico for their democratic rights.
In 1950-1952 Congress granted Puerto Rico a greater measiire of self-government,
while retaining the sovereignty accorded Congress under the Treaty of Paris and the
Constitution's territorial clause.
Our country, bom of a revolutionary war of independence does not take too well
to the role of colonial ruler. Moreover, our constitutional form of government rejects
anyiJiing colonial, fi-om the acquisition, to the administration, ana more to the mat-
ter before us today, to the disposition of colonies.
In 1989, the three presidents of the mso'or political parties on the island issued
a joint letter that stated that Puerto Ricans had never been formally consvilted by
Congress on their destiny and that the time had finally come to do so.
For a while. Congress finally seemed to have accepted the responsibility. The
House approved H.R. 4765, "to enable the people of Puerto Rico to exercise self-de-
termination", and the Senate considered, but failed to approve, S. 712, in 1991.
With Congress failing to act on the matter, in 1993, Governor Rosello presented
to the Puerto Rican le^slature a bill to conduct a Puerto Rico-sponsored status con-
sultation, or a "plebiscite".
The Commonwealth and Independence parties, both minority parties in the Puer-
to Rican legislature, had their amendment to the Governor's plebiscite bill defining
the victor as the status formula that obtained 50% plus 1, defeated by the pro-state-
hood new Progressive party's legislative majority.
The numerical results of the November vote are known by all.
The simplest way to describe the results is: the Commonwealth won.
But now we do not need congressional hearings to examine results in such a fash-
ion.
Anyone who followed closely the process of the status consultation knows there
is much more behind simple numbers.
What do the results mean?
In my opinion, the high rate of voter participation indicates there is a desire bv
the people of Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue so that it can unite to work
towards economic development and the solution of social ills. Clearljr, Puerto Ricans
of all political parties want this Congress to treat them with dignity and respect,
and for Congress to face its moral, legal and historic obUgation to the people of
Puerto Rico.
Second, Puerto Ricans voted to affirm their nationality, their distinct identity, lan-
guage and culture.
Third, the November 1993 vote indicates a desire to change the current arrange-
ment of the Commonwealth in the direction of greater powers of self-government
and autonomy. In other words, it covdd be stated that, although the current arrange-
ment is still colonial, for it still falls under the unilateral Jurisdiction of Congress
and the Constitution's territorial clause, the promise contained in the concept of a
between two sovereign peoples, of a real firee and associated State, en-
bilateral pact
joys the support of a plurality of Puerto Ricans.
Fourth, Puerto Ricans value their Americem citizenship, and secvired ties to our
Republic, which is another way of saying that Puerto Ricans voted for a true bilat-
er^ pact between two sovereign peoples that allows them to retain the hard-earned
rights they enjoy under the American Constitution, contained in the citizenship,
while retaining their distinct Puerto Rican sovereignty, culture and identity.
Fifth, Puerto Ricans rejected the pre-"Republican revolution", welfare-rich. Fed-
eral largesse, Spanish-speaking, "jibaro", "estadidad es para los pobres" (statehood
is for the poor) statehood position.
Sixth, there is a small minority that supports my own personal preference for
Puerto Rico, the independence option. In my opinion, this is the only option which
is truly guaranteed to the people of Puerto Rico, and to any people, under inter-
national Taw.
As I stated before, Messrs. Chairmen, the people of Puerto Rico want to solve this
terrible situation that binds the people down and prevents the Puerto Rican Nation
from emerging as an economically strong, socially nealthy, democratically advanced,
friend of the United States in our western hemisphere.
20
What is expected from us by the people of the island, is that we take this respon-
sibility seriously,and that we stop expressing platitudes about our support for self-
determination and other lofty goals, and to proceed to take action.
Congress failed to act in 1991, and in 1993, the people of Puerto Rico took matters
into their own hands and organized for themselves a formal consultation on the sta-
tus question.
What are we going to do about the results?
Are we going to analyze them to death while we find excuses not to act on the
express wishes of the people of Puerto Rico?
Are there problems with the November, 1993, consultation?
Sure there are.
If you go back to the statements I made before the Insular Affairs Subcommittee
in 1993, you will find that I am in favor of adhering to international law in solving
our colonial problem in Puerto Rico.
I also favor a process to solve this issue where the U.S. Government, and espe-
cially tiie Congress, recognizes its moral and legal responsibility towards Puerto
Rican self-determination.
The political victory of the Commonwealth in the 1993 referendum is a reality to
which the Administration has responded with the creation of the interagency work-
ing group on Puerto Rico.
This hearing today constitutes, I hope, the start of a process of Congress meeting
its obligation of responding to an expression by the people of Puerto Rico.
While studying history is always useful, it is, in my opinion, not constructive to
the solution of Puerto Rico's status issue if Congress were to respond to the ex-
pressed desires of the people of Puerto Rico merely with an historical analysis of
the limitations of the existing arremgements.
The issue before us, in my opinion, is how we find a creative road to a consensus
that builds upon the results of the November, 1993, referendvun, and moves the
process forward.
Puerto Ricans are not only a bunch of people united by their common United
States citizenship.
Puerto Ricans are a Nation, an historically constituted, stable entity, with their
own Latin American, antilean culture, its own history, language and identity. P*uer-
to Rico is not a territory to be populated by immigrants on their way to "E Pluribus
Unum", on their way to developing themselves into a civilized unit, readying them-
selves to join the union in the future.
I find it is irresponsible of some of my colleagues to foster the hope of statehood
for Puerto Rico, wnen we know there has never been the sentiment in Congress to
favor that option. To do so, in my opinion, serves only to foster division among Puer-
to Ricans.
Puerto Rico only has the right to independence. Any other arrangement can only
be arrived at by mutual consent with the United States.
But in the spirit of reaching consensus and of moving the process of self-deter-
mination of Puerto Rico forward, I ask those of my colleagues who sincerely believe
that statehood is the best alternative both for Puerto Rico and the United States,
to make a self-enacting offer of statehood to the island. That is, make an offer of
statehood that if accepted by a majority of the people of Puerto Rico, a majority de-
fined however Congress wishes to define it, be self-enacted as the entrance of Puerto
Rico to the union. If no one in Congress is willing to do this, then it is clear there
is no such a thing as an alternative to statehood.
Let us then find a way, a creative way to move the process forward.
I am in support of the Administration's proposal to look for a consensus formula
to do just that.
As we approach a century of United States sovereignty over Puerto Rico, it would
be a grave crime against our democracy if our response to yet this latest expression
of the will of the people of Puerto Rico were to he responded to by our Congress
with platitudes about the right to self-determination, perhaps some non-constructive
condemnation of the shortcomings of the cvurent arrangement, and no action to
move the process forward.
I ask all nw colleagues to look behind the simple numbers and to hear the voices
of millions of Puerto Ricans asking for dignity, for respect, for equality, and, more
important, for true self-determination to enable them to put behind them this sad
chapter of our history so they move forward to meet the economic and social chal-
lenges of the 21st century.
and Alaska, and that several attempts have been made to grant
statehood to these former territories and the Congress kept turning
it down.
I that from previous hearings that we have held on this
know
issue, some people take offense to that, and I just want to point out
that these are some of the factors involved here.
Because the Puerto Rican people may want statehood, does that
mean that Congress has to grant them statehood? I think this is
where the issue becomes very ticklish or you might say stickish,
when it comes to say that whose will is really being proposed here,
and I just want to share that concern.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I think that is a fair point. Of course, Mr. Chair-
man, it is important to recognize that a vote by the Puerto Rican
people for statehood is the beginning of a process, not the end of
a process.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
Mr. TORRICELLI. It is a request for association. That request then
is debated and voted upon in this institution.
What I think is critical, that it be clear in Puerto Rico when this
happens, however, that this Nation is indeed indivisible. A vote for
statehood happens but once in all of history. The current changes
in the Congress, those of us from New York and New Jersey are
grateful for this, because we assume there are some people who
would like to reverse our previous assent to the union.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentleman. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Torricelli. These kinds of questions
remind me of when we were trying to get all the 13 colonies to
agree on one nation, and John Hancock mandated that it had to
be a unanimous vote and they had a very contentious debate over
that, so these kinds of questions go all the way back to the found-
ing of the republic.
Thank you, Mr. Torricelli.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Excuse me.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Torricelli, we have always been dis-
cussing the issue of Puerto Rico because of the status dilemma, the
status issue, but I would like to discuss it from another point of
view, the serious problem of disenfranchisement.
Weare 3,700,000 U.S. citizens and we are disenfranchised. Do
you we are participating in the democratic process in
feel that
Puerto Rico or are we denied the participation in the democratic
process?
Mr, Torricelli. Well, this, of course, gets to the question of
some of the desires of the Puerto Rican people. I am proud of my
country, as indeed most people are. I would hope that if the Puerto
Rican people were to choose statehood, it would be granted. I be-
lieve that it is not a proper relationship to be in political associa-
tion with another people without them having a full set of political
rights.
I am personally uncomfortable with the relationship between the
United States government and Puerto Rico because of the issue of
full political rights. That is my personal view, but I also will say
this in defense of our government.
26
If we set forth this process that Mr. Burton and I have outHned,
and the Puerto Rican people choose not to pursue statehood, but
vote for the status quo, I respect their judgment. I think that is a
fair expression, but then I don't think we should be faulted again
for whatever politic rights are or are not granted.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Torricelli, in the south of this Nation,
there was a majority of the people, most of the States, were keep-
ing the minority disenfranchised, and the Federal Grovemment de-
cided to intervene to undo that injustice.
Now, in Puerto Rico, if the majority of people have so far kept
the others from voting, disenfranchised, does that make it any less
valid because it is not racially motivated? Does that make it any
more valid because it is not racially motivated, or are those people
that are U.S. citizens and want to have the right to vote, are they
entitled to it in a democracy?
Mr. Torricelli. They are certainly entitled to do it, although as
your friend, I wouldn't want to leave you with the analogy of estab-
lishing voting rights by sending in United States government forces
to do so. I know the politics of Puerto Rico.
The analogy may not hold, but the point is certainly valid. If a
vote is to be held, plebiscites are regularly scheduled, then while
this is a question for the Puerto Rican people, it is a responsibility
of the United States government to ensure that the vote is also
free, fair, and open with full participation.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. But let me again go to the question of
whether it is only the responsibility of the people of Puerto Rico.
Are we, as a Nation, responsible for implementing democracy?
Are we not telling other nations that they should implement de-
mocracy? Are we not telling Cuba that they should hold a plebi-
scite? Yet, we are telling the people of Puerto Rico, if you don't
vote, that shouldn't matter. If you don't want to vote, that is £dl
right. You can disenfranchise your minority.
Mr. Torricelli. Of course, that is the very reason why Mr. Bur-
ton and I have offered this legislation.
I define it something like this. How the people of Puerto Rico
vote is entirely their affair. Whether they have a right to vote is
a basic human right, and it is everybody's affair.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. That is very important; that is what I am
driving at.
I think we as a Nation have to get involved in the disenfran-
chisement. Now, if we are disenfranchised, we obviously are not
Am
self-governing. Is that correct? I correct in saying that?
Mr. Torricelli. I think that would be fair.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. So if we are not self-governing, that
means that we are misrepresenting the position of Puerto Rico be-
fore the United Nations, because we say Puerto Rico is a self-gov-
erning commonwealth and we are not, because we are subject to all
kinds of laws, immigration laws, tariff laws. We are subject to in-
come tax laws. We are subject to immigration laws. We are subject
to labor laws, minimum wages, the bankruptcy laws, all kinds of
laws that are passed by this Congress where we lack full represen-
tation, so we are not self-governing.
27
Isn't it about time that we went to the United Nations and say,
United Nations, it is not true. Puerto Rico is not self-governing. Let
us do something about it.
Mr. TORRICELLI. The something about it is to have a regular
plebiscite and at the end of that process
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Is that enough?
Mr. TORRICELLI. In my judgment, it is. At the end of a plebiscite,
the people of Puerto Rico have either endorsed for the current sta-
tus in which they are really ceding aspects of their sovereignty vol-
untarily, or they are seeking equal psirticipation in the union and
wanting full political rights, but I am not comfortable with it if
that judgment has been made in history because of a military con-
frontation a century ago.
I am comfortable with it if the judgment has been made by the
people of Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. So it is all right if they vote to be slaves
or to vote to be a colony?
Mr. TORRICELLI. The}^ are not voting to be slaves.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. To be a colony.
Mr. TORRICELLI. You vote for a political relationship. The State
of New Jersey also does not have full sovereignty in all issues. We
joined the union and ceded some powers to other States and to the
larger union, retaining some for ourselves. We did so voluntarily.
It is obviously my personal view that if I were a citizen of Puerto
Rico, in that plebiscite, it is well-known, I would vote for statehood
for many of the reasons you were saying, full political rights.
I don't understand people having a choice between full political
rights and choosing a lesser status. I personally don't understand
that.
What I began my statement by saying is, that is not my decision
at this point. That is a decision for the people of Puerto Rico. What-
ever they decide is fine with me.
Mr. Burton. Congressman Romero-Barcelo, thank you very
much.
We need to stick to the five-minute rule, because we have a huge
schedule ahead of us.
Mr. Underwood. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Congressman Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, and I don't want to prolong it, be-
cause I know a lot of people from Puerto Rico came to ask very im-
portant questions.
My understanding of a plebiscite has always been that a plebi-
scite has consequences, and that the consequences must be real
and immediate. One of the things that is regularly frustrating in
representing a small territory is that if you hold a plebiscite, what
is labelled a plebiscite, in actuality, you are just holding a public
opinion poll, which really has no immediate consequences, and this
separates the meaning of the term plebiscite as is practiced inter-
nationally in terms of effectuating a political status change from
those which have been employed in the territories by the Federal
Government, and I am hopeful that your legislation and Mr. Bur-
ton's moves it in the direction, not obviously of making it totally
binding, because we recognize that within the current framework,
it doesn't make it so, but I wish that some statement to that effect
20-766 - 96 - 2
28
than two-thirds of the island's total of 78, and our party captured
two-thirds of the seats in both chambers of our State legislature.
Following my inauguration in January 1993, we set to work at
once on drafting legislation for a political status plebiscite. In view
of the magnitude of our recent general election triumph, many of
my fellow advocates of having Puerto Rico become the 51st State
strongly recommended that we play hardball with the plebiscite.
I was urged to do the same thing that the pro-commonwealth
Popular Party had done a quarter-century earlier, at a time when
it was in full control of the machinery of government: that is, ram
through the legislature a plebiscite bill under which the party in
power would define all the options and structure the proceedings
in whatever manner would be most conducive to guaranteeing suc-
cess for the political status alternative that the party in power was
supporting.
This, after all, was the sole precedent we had, dating back to
1967. From a purely cynical standpoint, those arguments certainly
had merit. Nevertheless, I flatly rejected them.
Instead, I insisted that the backers of each option be allowed to
describe their respective political status alternative in whatever
manner they deemed appropriate, with no substantive restrictions
or interference of any kind either from the government or from the
party in power.
Furthermore, as additional measures to safeguard the principles
of fairness and equity, I insisted that the plebiscite law allot to
each of the three sides equal amounts of public funding for voter
orientation and I likewise insisted that the law impose a freeze on
media expenditures by government agencies and public corpora-
tions throughout the 60-day period immediately prior to the voting
date.
All of those measures were duly incorporated into Law Number
22, which I signed on the 4th of July, 1993. However, another
measure that I proposed was omitted from Law 22, and in the light
of what has failed to transpire since the plebiscite, that measure
is worthy of mention.
As submittedto the legislative assembly, our plebiscite bill in-
cluded language providing for a gubematorially-appointed commis-
sion that would be dispatched to Washington, DC following the
plebiscite. That commission would have had the responsibility of
negotiating with Congress on modifying Puerto Rico's political sta-
tus in accordance with the ballot description of whichever status
formula was endorsed by our electorate. The negotiating commis-
sion was to be composed of persons selected by the political party
that had backed the winning formula.
The members of my party had no problem with that idea, but
both of the opposition parties were dead set against it. Con-
sequently, in the interest of tri-partisan unity, that proposal was
deleted from the final bill.
This brings us to Sunday, November 14, 1993, when, faithful to
Puerto Rico's profoundly democratic traditions, nearly the totality
of our voting age population was duly registered and 74 percent of
those who were registered went to the polls and cast their ballots.
32
If you are ableto unscramble all the riddles into something that
makes coherent sense, then you will be able to respond affirma-
tively to my seven questions, the seven questions that are raised
by the Popular Party plebiscite definition of "commonwealth".
If you believe, as I do, that 97 years of peaceful struggle and 78
years of patriotic American citizenship are more than enough to
prepare a United States territory for permanent self-definition,
then by all means, tell us that. And if you do tell us that, may your
words be accompanied by action; may you do one more thing, one
very important thing. I urge you to reaffirm the long-standing com-
mitment of the Congress of the United States to Puerto Rican self-
determination; reaffirm that commitment by formally advocating
that self-determination be exercised without delay in a perma-
nently definitive manner.
What I have in mind is a govemment-to-government dialog, initi-
ated by Congress, to arrange for the holding of a federally man-
dated plebiscite which will offer reality-based self-determination
options that are unquestionably and emphatically acceptable to
both Congress and to the White House.
As I conclude with that simple request which is eminently rea-
sonable and firmly grounded in the democratic principles and val-
ues to which I alluded at the outset; as I conclude with that re-
quest, allow me also to express on behalf of the people of Puerto
Rico my most sincere appreciation for your interest, your concern
and your statesmanship.
The people of Puerto Rico await your response. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rossello can be found at the end
of the hearing.]
Mr. Burton. Thank you. Governor. Let me start off the com-
ments and questioning by saying that we appreciate your very elo-
quent remarks.
I was in San Juan about six months ago, and I gave a speech
regarding this issue. We talked about a lot of other things, but
statehood was one of the issues.
Section 936 was part of my discussion, and I said during the
speech that 936 in all likelihood will be phased out by the Congress
of the United States over a period of time, and we will try to do
it in a manner that is as equitable as possible to make sure that
companies that employ Puerto Rican Americans do not leave the is-
land.
However, since that speech was made, the fact is that the Senate
Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee
have taken steps to phase out the 936 program, and so the ques-
tions that you raised during your remarks are very valid.
The fact is that we have a huge budget deficit in the United
States of America. If we don't get control of that budget deficit, in
all likelihood, we are going to pass on to our children and our
grandchildren and our posterity a debt so great that they will
never be able to dig themselves out.
So we have made a commitment to the American people and the
people of Puerto Rico that we were going to balance the budget
over a seven-year period, and that is one of the real bones of con-
tention in this Congress during this debate that is taking place
35
Puerto Rico does not have the luxury that maybe Alaska and Ha-
waii did of neutralizing that political weight by saying that one
State would come in as a democratic State; the other would come
in as a Republican State, but I think that granted that is a consid-
eration, that is a real consideration, we would hope that the basic
question is responded to.
—
If again and some of our political adversaries in Puerto Rico say
—
that statehood would not be granted well, if that is so, again, say
it. That is what we are here about.
Mr. ROSSELLO. Yes, and I think that there has been, as I men-
tioned before, a historical precedent where the three poUtical par-
ties in Puerto Rico petitioned Congress to do that, and the Con-
gress went to great lengths to try to come up with a response.
It almost made it, almost.
Mr. KiLDEE. Almost.
Mr. RosSELLO. Almost made it, and I think it would not be a
Mr. Burton. Thank you. Governor. I just have one more brief
question, and we will let you yield the floor.
I gather from your remarks that you believe that the opposition
Commonwealth Party, in particular, misrepresented these options
to the Puerto Rican people during the process of the balloting.
Mr. ROSSELLO. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. That is all I wanted to get clear.
Thank you very much, Governor. We appreciate your remarks.
Mr. ROSSELLO. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Our next witness will be the Honorable Hector Luis
Acevedo, the President of the Popular Democratic Party, and the
Mayor of San Juan, with whom I had a nice visit just recently. Mr.
Mayor, it is nice having you with us.
You are recognized for ten minutes.
These men, who were friends of Puerto Rico, have included Henry
CroU; Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.; Rexford Tugwell; Harry S. Truman;
Dwight Eisenhower; and John Kennedy. These men understood
that there were alternatives in Puerto Rico to hunger, humiliation,
or assimilation.
Puerto Rico came to be part of the United States at the end of
the last century. Since that time, the forces of our culture, an econ-
omy in need of development tools, and the forces of stability and
migration had prevailed over the decades.
The quest for an elected Senate and House, the quest for an
elected governor, the quest for the creation of our own constitution
and our own autonomy have been the great political developments
of this century.
To my understanding, Mr. Chairman, the Puerto Rican people
cherish some fundamental values.
First, our distinct cultural identity, not as a minority, but as a
homogeneous and proud peoDle; the American citizenship, a bond
that is very much esteemed by our people; the desire for social jus-
tice and economic development that provides decent jobs and looks
out for the less fortunate; the freedom of movement to travel to and
from the United States without limitations; loyalty to democracy
and the principal of equality of the human being.
The last 50 years, Mr. Chairman, have seen a rapid development
in the political, social, and economic conditions of Puerto Rico.
When I was born 47 years ago, the average life expectancy was 48
years of age; today, it is 74. There were then 10,000 university stu-
dents in Puerto Rico; today, there are more than 160,000. The per
capita annual income was less than $500 per year; today it is more
than $6,000 per year. Few people owned homes; today, there is a
higher home ownership rate than in the United States.
42
already that right in their covenant since 1976, and it is one of the
aspirations of Puerto Rico to participate in that program progres-
sively, if we had the participation in more than 90 percent of the
Federal programs that apply to Puerto Rico.
Mr. Burton. SSI comes out of the general revenues and not out
of the Social Security trust fund.
Let me just make a couple of observations that you might want
to comment on. Since the 936 program was started, we have spent
about $3,000,000,000 on that program, and the manufacturing sec-
tor in Puerto Rico is around 100,000 jobs, approximately the same
number today as when 936 was created back in the 1970's.
Today, the unemployment figure in Puerto Rico is pretty close to
the same figure that it was when 936 tax credits started, and the
tax credits have increased by over 200 percent in the last 15 years.
The final thing is that the moneys that are paid to employees
from the companies in Puerto Rico under the 936 program pri-
marily go to the higher income people, and not the lower income
people. Is it, in your opinion, cost-effective for the 936 program to
be there, especially in view of the fact that there has not been an
increase in employment among the 936 companies in the past
seven or eight years, and the unemployment rate remains pretty
constant?
Mr. ACEVEDO. First, let me state that the jobs in the 936 sector
and the income do not go to the higher income people. They are the
middle class of Puerto Rico. Second, the manufacturing industry in
Puerto Rico is exactly the most important factor in our private sec-
tor economy.
For every job that we have in the manufacturing industry, what
they the reproductive factor of other jobs, the multiplier effect
call
is around two other jobs for every job we have in the manufactur-
ing industry. It is the highest participation in the economy, and I
will say the following.
About six months ago, President Clinton and seven other great
leaders of big countries in the world met to specifically study the
creation of jobs in the industrial society. What has happened in
Puerto Rico through obligation of congressional mandates, the
labor-intensive industry has been progressively coming out of the
United States and Puerto Rico, and if you look at the statistics, the
same number of jobs do not represent the same people.
The increment, we lost about 12,000 jobs in the labor-intensive
area, and we want those 12,000 jobs in the high tech area, which
the number, what we have to think is what will happen if we
would not have had that alternative to Puerto Rico. It is not
116,000 jobs. It is all the other jobs that are related to that type
of manufacturing industry.
So it is a multiplier effect. Forty percent, 42 percent of our gross
national product comes from the manufacturing sector in Puerto
Rico. Different in the United States, that is only 18 percent. So
what happens to the manufacturing sector in Puerto Rico has more
than twice the effect that it has in the United States.
Here in the States and in Europe the manufacturing sector has
stabilized itself because of mechanization, and that is why, if you
maintain the same number of emplo3mient, it is because you have
46
comes between the Congress and the United States and the people
of Puerto Rico.
I will say the following, that when you hear those persons who
in their right have said that there are plenary powers regarding
Puerto Rico, I challenge them to amend the Puerto Rican Constitu-
tion here, and we will take them to court, because you cannot
amend unilaterally the Constitution of Puerto Rico. That is part of
a compact that was the position of the United States at the United
Nations, including a congressional delegation, and the law is clear.
It says in the nature of a compact, Law 447 says it is a compact
between the people of Puerto Rico and the United States.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would like to offer this as a statement or
question that one of my colleagues of the subcommittee has asked
me to ask this of you, and I am sure that you have the appropriate
response. This is from Congressman Tim Johnson, and I just want-
ed to share with you his concerns about Section 936 of the IRS
Code.
Mr. Johnson comes from an agricultural State, and many farm-
ers in his district have been forced to absorb cutbacks in Federal
services and tax preferences as part of the Federal Government's
efforts to reduce the deficit. He believes that his constituents have
been forced to bear a very unfair proportion of these cutbacks, and
this is one of the reasons why he is supporting the phaseout of Sec-
tion 936.
He has nothing against the efforts to encourage development in
Puerto Rico and certainly nothing against the people of Puerto
Rico, but the fiscal realities facing the country are such that it is
going to require significant cutbacks for everyone.
He states that many of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle
have been seriously considering the validity of Section 936. You
know the current efforts by the Ways and Means Committee to
phase out Section 936 and I would like to ask your opinion of an
enhanced, comparable status, can you shed some light on this in
terms of how the commonwealth party
Mr. ACEVEDO. Thank you very much for that question, because
I would like to say that in the cuts of Medicare (and we pay the
full share of Medicare), we are going to be cut on jobs, employment
training programs, which the city of San Juan administered. We
are going to be cut in the same way, so we are having the same
cuts but at the same time, the way all those social benefits go are
going to hurt Puerto Rico, and hurt it more than many societies,
because we have a higher poverty rate than most other societies
that are affected by that law.
At the same time, the tool for not being on welfare, for not being
a part of that program of welfare, is the tool of creating employ-
ment. There is not a single initiative to create employment for
Puerto Rico in that legislation, and at the same time, they are tak-
ing the main tool for the manufacturing sector of Puerto Rico.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Mayor, I hate to cut you short on this,
but because of my time, let me just add this to your concern, that
to my knowledge, I think my district is the only other one, other
than Puerto Rico, that relies very, very heavily on Section 936, and
—
48
the bottom line, Mr. Mayor, what will be the results of the Puerto
Rican economy without Section 936 right now?
Mr. ACEVEDO. I think we will lose thousands and thousands of
jobs. People will start collecting unemployment benefits, which will
raise the amount of benefit you will have to pay, so they are not
going to save that money. Companies will start making new prod-
ucts outside of U.S. jurisdiction.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, if I may because of my time,
can I ask if you could submit for the record, please? I would be very
much interested as to the impact of the termination of Section 936
to the Puerto Rican economy.
In other words, if the Congress will do this, whether it be a
phaseout or a complete rescission of Section 936, what impact will
it have on the economy?
Mr. ACEVEDO. I will do that. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Mayor, welcome. Mr. Mayor, first of
all, I would like you to tell me, when you said in the plebescite bal-
lot that guaranteeing our progress and security as well as that of
our children within the status of equal political dignity based on
the permanent unity between Puerto Rico and the United States
encompassing a bilateral pact that cannot be altered except by mu-
tual agreement, what did you mean by that? Does it mean the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as it is now?
Mr. AcEVEDO. Yes, sir. I believe that that would not be a self-
serving question from the former Mayor of San Juan to the present
Mayor.
I would like to say the following. The process that has been es-
tablished by Congress^
Mr. Romero-Barcelo, No, excuse me. I am not asking about the
process. I am just saying, your meaning here, are you
Mr. ACEVEDO. If I may answer the question, I will not interrupt
any question, but I would like to give the answer, because if not,
you can answer by yourself.
Mr. Rpmero-Barcelo. No, all I want to do is guide the question
so that you answer my question and not get on left field. You start-
ed by the process.
Mr. ACEVEDO. I will answer the question the way I will answer
my question. I respect that you make your question as the way you
want to make your question.
I will say that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was adopted in
the nature of a compact between a status, what the law says that
the United States and a congressional delegation went to the Unit-
ed Nations to say that this is
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Is 936 a part of that compact?
Mr. Acevedo. Mr. Chairman, if he wants to answer for me, I
don't have any problem, but I will not let anyone answer for me
the questions that are asked for me, sir.
You tell me if you want my answer or you want his answer.
Mr. Burton. Just let him answer the question, and then you can
follow up with another question, Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Yes, I know that, but the only thing is
that he is using the time.
49
The dawn of the 21st century hardly seems the appropriate time
to bring literally from the dead the question of secession into
back
the American political scene. Quebec, Ireland, Lithuania, Bosnia,
Chechnia serve to underline the often unpredictable, sometimes ex-
plosive but always disruptive nature of nationality conflicts. One
should not underestimate the power of ideas such as federalism;
but blood, language, and land are closer to home. Senator Dole and
Speaker Gingrich, in proclaiming the primacy of the English lan-
guage as an indispensable, cohesive force in U.S. federalism have
shown that they are well aware of these problems.
The fundamental issue for the United States as regards Puerto
Rico is what type of juridical and political relationship Congress is
willing to establish with a people who constitute a distinct nation-
ality, who inhabit a distinct and separate territory, who speak a
different language as you have well noticed here today, and who
unanimously aspire to maintain their own identity.
By rejecting statehood and favoring some form of sovereignty
separate and distinct from that of the United States, Puerto Ricans
have answered that question for you in a manner consistent with
your best interests. As regards statehood, Congress should take no
for an answer.
That separate sovereignty is the correct alternative becomes even
more evident now that Congress is on the verge of drastically alter-
ing or eliminating Section 936 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
Imagine, just imagine the post-936 scenario, as one of you ques-
tioned one of the people who sat here this afternoon.
The post-936 scenario with two senators and six or seven rep-
resentatives; Puerto Rico, already heavily dependent on welfare,
would become a chronically depressed ghetto State, and its congres-
sional delegation a permanent lobby for increased welfare pay-
ments as the only alternative to massive migration.
What Puerto Rico requires is not more welfare, but more eco-
nomic power and flexibility to develop wage, labor, investment, tax,
and commercial policies that respond to our needs and not to those
of the vastly different U.S. economy. Statehood, which demands
uniformity, would permanently impair such possibilities. Only sep-
arate sovereignty can provide for such alternatives.
Congress should face the Puerto Rican problem now, not in a
piecemeal basis responding from one crisis to another as it is now
doing in 936, but through an integrated, coherent response that is
mindful of the long-term consequences of any such decision.
How should Congress respond or go about such a task? Congress
should legislate to offer a choice between a sovereign, noncolonial,
nonterritorial free associated State and independence, an inalien-
able right which therefore must always be present as an option. I
remind Congress that only two years before the Declaration of
Independence, George Washington was still saying that, "Independ-
ence is not desired by any thinking man in North America." That
was in 1774.
We propose the creation of a joint committee of the U.S. Con-
gress to draft the terms and conditions both for independence and
for a bilateral pact between the United States and the free associ-
ated State of Puerto Rico in accordance with applicable principles
of international law and the U.S. Constitution. After due consulta-
53
constitute a very solid basis for the development of a policy for the
U.S. -Caribbean relations, one of the principles of which should be
that intimate economic relations must not imply cultural and polit-
ical assimilation.
Under statehood, Puerto Rico would never be seen as a bridge
between the Americas. Puerto Rico would more likely be perceived
as an American Trojan Horse in the midst of Latin America, a per-
manent extension of the U.S. border into the Caribbean.
Finally, let me add that whatever specific course Congress may
decide to take, above all, it should speak clearly to the Puerto
Rican people regarding the status of Puerto Rico. As Patrick Moy-
nihan said on the Senate floor a few years ago, "The fundamental
issue is whether Puerto Ricans want to become Americans, or
whether they want to retain their separate identity."
In light of the Senator's most accurate description of reality, you
should make clear the evident conclusion that as long as Puerto
Ricans are Puerto Ricans with their distinct identity and language,
Congress as a body cannot seriously consider statehood.
Furthermore, Puerto Ricans should be told the truth concerning
their present status, that commonwealth is a colonial status, an
unincorporated territory, and that Congress could only enter into
a bilateral pact with a separate sovereign body politic.
If Congress fails to speak clearly, the result will be the continu-
ation of colonialism by inertia, and tomorrow or the day after, you
may have to face an embarrassing statehood petition, not because
Puerto Ricans will want to become Americans, but because depend-
ence and subordination will surely take its toll.
The solution to the Puerto Rico status problem is within your
grasp. There may be other procedural alternatives to the one we
have proposed today, but in the long run, they will respond to the
same interests and realities I have analyzed.
The end result will undoubtedly be the same, an inevitable
course toward separate sovereignty, but the process will surely be
more painful and costly.
Congress finally should do well to heed some very sound advice
from William Shakespeare many centuries ago. He said, and I re-
peat today:
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
quy he gave before the battle with the French, but I won't get into
that right now.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Go ahead.
Mr. Burton. It is a great soliloquy. It is one of the greatest in
the English speaking language. I just thought I would throw that
in as an aside. If you have a chance to read it sometime, I think
you will appreciate it.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. I have read it.
Mr. Burton. Let me ask you just three quick questions. Are you
advocating that if Puerto Rico became independent, the Puerto
Rican-American citizens should give up their citizenship?
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. No, I am not advocating that. If you
want to know the opinion of my party regarding U.S. citizenship
for Puerto Rico?
Mr. Burton. I don't understand. If they become an independent
nation, how can they be citizens of the United States?
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. No, I am not the one advocating that. It
is the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on
that matter, and those citizens who were born citizens before the
republic comes into a practice if Puerto Ricans so decide would re-
main as American citizens, not because Puerto Ricans want or
don't want, but because the U.S. Supreme Court has said so.
Mr. Burton. I see. So they would still be eligible for all Amer-
ican benefits but be members of an independent country.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Like today, there are American citizens
in France, in Italy, in Colombia, and they are available for benefits
from the United States.
Mr. Burton. I am not sure that is going to fly with the U.S. Con-
gress, but that is an interesting concept.
Now, regarding keeping the nationality, I don't think anybody in
the Congress is advocating that people in Puerto Rico give up their
heritage. I think English, though, is a required subject in all the
schools. Am I correct? They have to have two years of English in
addition to Spanish?
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. In Puerto Rico?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. I think more than two years of English.
Mr. Burton. So the fact of the matter is that English is a fluent
language in Puerto Rico so that wouldn't be a problem.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. No one in this Congress except ex-Gov-
ernor Romero and the three congressmen could get elected in Puer-
to Rico without knowing Spanish. Seventy-five percent of the Puer-
to Ricans don't speak nor understand English.
Mr. Burton. Seventy-five percent of Puerto Ricans do not speak
nor understand English?
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. After 100 years of colonialism by the
U.S.
Mr. Burton. But it is a required subject in their education.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. That is correct. You can imagine how
they teach it and how they learn it.
55
Mr. Burton. That is interesting, too. The Federal courts and all
the Federal offices to which Puerto Ricans go when they have a
problem are required to use English.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. No, no.
Mr. Burton. They don't use English?
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. No, no. All the Federal offices in Puerto
Rico except the Federal court use Spanish.
Mr. Burton. I am talking about U.S. Federal courts.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Yes, U.S. No, the U.S. Federal court
aside, all the other, the Social Security office, for example
Mr. Burton. I know, but when they go to check on U.S. benefits
in the U.S. offices in Puerto Rico, they all speak English there.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Oh, no. Everybody speaks in Spanish.
Everybody speaks in Spanish everywhere in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Burton. That is not the information I received. In our offices
down there, English is the language that is spoken.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. You received incorrect information.
Mr. Burton. We are talking about in a court of record.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. In the court of law, of course. There are
translators when Puerto Ricans go there in the U.S. court.
Mr. Burton. Let me get back to one more thing. All students in
all the schools are required to learn English, in addition to speak-
ing Spanish as the main language
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Spanish is not the main language; Span-
ish is the only language.
Mr. Burton. Yes, but they are required to learn English.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. It is like bilingualism the other way
around in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Burton. Are they required to learn English in the edu-
cational system?
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Oh, yes, they're required to teach Eng-
lish. That is correct.
Mr, Burton. Do you really believe that the Puerto Rican people
would want to be independent if it involved the future generations
not being U.S. citizens?
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. But of course. If I did not believe that,
I wouldn't struggle for independence.
I remind you of George Washington's quote. Fifty-three percent
voted against statehood which is the only guarantee for that con-
tinued process.
Mr. Burton. I read those results, and I think I saw that 48 per-
cent voted for commonwealth and 46 percent voted for statehood,
and only four percent voted for independence.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. I think you are adding some figures there that may
not be clear.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. What I am telling you, if I might com-
ment, is that if people really believe that this statehood alternative
were the correct alternative, they would have voted for statehood.
The headline of the New York Times was statehood rejected, be-
cause it was rejected.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Faleomavaega.
56
The fact that you have an accent doesn't make it any worse.
Charles Boyer was famous because he had an accent, so there is
no problem with having an accent.
As a matter of fact, it can be attractive. Maybe you put some of
it to work.
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. The thing is that Henry Kissinger came
to the U.S. House. The Americans went to the Puerto Rican house.
That the difference.
is
He camehere, and the people here were home.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I agree with that, but I think that when
we come here, we should also learn English and try to be more pro-
ficient in English when we are here, because we are in their House,
too.
But just for the record, what was the result of the plebiscite in
1967? I know it, but I just want it for the record.
59
against statehood.
There might be other procedural alternatives. I am proposing the
procedural alternatives this Congress will come back to, because
this Congress would never accept Puerto Rico as a State for the
reasons I gave, so what I am
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Do you think we are less?
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. No, no. I think some Puerto Ricans
think we are less, but I don't think we are less.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Then why should they not accept us?
Mr. Berrios-Martinez. Because the United States has some na-
tional interests to look after, and they don't want to buy a national-
ity's problem for themselves when they have been spared that prob-
lem.
The United States has created out of many people one; the Puer-
to Rican people is a different people. It would be e pluribus doom
not e pluribus unum, and that fight you fought more than 140
years ago. That is why Puerto Rico will not be accepted as a State.
But if Congress is willing to accept Puerto Rico as a State, they
should say so. What I say is that I am convinced that whenever
they are faced with the issue, they are going to say no for the same
reasons I would say no, if I were American, but Congress should
speak clearly before anything else, whatever the procedural alter-
natives, whether they include statehood or not, whether they in-
clude commonwealth or not. Congress should speak clearly to the
Puerto Rican people, and that, I think, we can agree on.
Mr. Burton. We are running way behind schedule, and the
chairman has returned. I am going to turn the gavel back over to
him for a while.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Berrios-Martinez,
I apologize for coming running in here at the 11th hour, and look-
ing at the list we have remaining, the 11th hour is more like the
first hour, so we appreciate you making the trek here to testify be-
fore the committee, and appreciate your patience, and we have sev-
'ir\^ncii
60
of the weight and the might of the late Congressman Phil Burton's
activities,and if I might say it casually, but I just wanted to ask
your comment, because you are talking about 20,000 people there
as opposed to 3,700,000 U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico, and I wanted
to ask your comment on the SSI issue affecting the people of Puer-
to Rico, and the fact of the matter is, NMI is the only U.S. territory
that currently receives SSI benefits.
Mr. Farrow. Well, I think. Congressman, you have pointed to
the answer to that question.
This is really an issue of determining the funding for the pro-
gram in the context of the total and fiscal intergovernmental ar-
rangement and relationship between the Federal Government and
Puerto Rico.
Fully extending SSI to Puerto Rico would have a five-year pro-
gram cost of nearly $5,000,000,000, and an estimated administra-
tive cost of $225,000,000. That is a major increase over the current
levels of assistance.
In 1990, the Senate Finance Committee approved an extension
of SSI to Puerto Rico under the commonwealth arrangement in a
status bill on a phased-in basis over a period of years at lower ben-
efit levels that they felt were appropriate in light of Puerto Rico's
income levels. That approach also included shared costs between
the Federal and commonwealth governments.
The Administration is willing to explore such options for provid-
ing increased aid to the aged, blind, and disabled in Puerto Rico
with the Congress and the government of Puerto Rico, particularly
in the context of a comprehensive look at Puerto Rico's status and
the benefits it receives from other programs. It should be noted
that the Administration's Welfare Reform Bill would have in-
creased the current block grant for aid to the aged, blind, and dis-
abled in Puerto Rico, as well as to families with dependent chil-
dren, by 25 percent, with further increases for inflation, in contrast
to bills that are before the Congress that would only increase the
grant by half that amount, and would do so with no provision for
increased costs.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Farrow.
Mr. Farrow. Thank you. Congressman.
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Farrow, and I appreciate your statement from the President's Of-
fice.
Mr. Farrow. Thank j^ou.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Farrow, there is an acknowledgement
that there is a status problem in Puerto Rico. Is that correct?
Mr. Farrow. Yes, in my statement, there is a status issue, clear-
ly from what we have heard today, a status debate in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And it is a status problem dilemma. Is
that correct?
Mr. Farrow. There is a dilemma.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And how does the President feel about
disenfranchisement of the 3,700,000 U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico?
Does he feel that that is a problem or not?
68
are willing to work with the committee and the other committees
of the Congress, with the leaders of Puerto Rico, the range of the
leaders, to provide a process that will resolve this debate.
I don't think we have ever gotten that process agreed to before,
and I believe that is why we are in the situation we are now, be-
cause we don't have a clear process for resolving the questions that
involve both Federal actions and Federal decisions as well as deci-
sions by the people.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I would hate to go through the same proc-
ess that we did in 1989, 1990, and 1991, the same futile process.
Mr. Farrow. I hope that we bring a process to fruition, if there
is a consensus that can be developed in Puerto Rico for doing so,
and between the Congress and the President.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Chairman, I ran out of time, but I
think it would be important to take a look at the ballot and see
those commitments that were made on the ballot, what the White
House thinks about them.
Mr. Gallegly. If there is no objection, do you think we could
probably get through that in about five minutes?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I will try.
Mr. Farrow, in the ballot in 1993, the commonwealth supporters
guaranteed irrevocable U.S. citizenship and common market and
common currency and common defense with the United States.
That means that they guaranteed the irrevocability; it means that
Congress cannot revoke U.S. citizenship for those still unborn in
Puerto Rico, constitutionally.
Mr. Farrow. I can't foresee any basis for revoking the citizenship
of Puerto Ricans under the current political status arrangement.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. You cannot see any basis for revoking it,
but I am saying constitutionally, can Congress revoke it for those
that are not born?
Mr. Farrow. I don't know that the Supreme Court has made
clear the state of the law in that.
If you would like, we can respond to you in writing.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. What did the opinion that was asked be-
fore say?
Mr. Farrow. I am sorry?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The opinion that was asked before of the
Justice Department, what did it say?
Mr. Farrow. Which opinion is that?
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. At the last hearing.
Mr. Farrow. I am not aware of the opinion.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Of the Justice Department?
Mr. Farrow. Yes.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No, that was CRS. You are correct. The
Justice did not make it; it was CRS.
So you don't know whether there can be a guarantee of irrev-
ocable citizenship?
Mr. Farrow. It is inconceivable that Puerto Ricans who have
been citizens since 1917 would not continue to be citizens. It is in-
conceivable to me.
If you want us to look into a question, we will do so for you.
71
the cost of SSI and how to provide increased aid to the aged, blind,
and disabled in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No, I am asking specifically, Supple-
mental Security Income. Are they willing to extend it to Puerto
Rico?
Mr. Farrow. And our answer is, Congressman, that we would be
wiling to work with the appropriate committees of the Congress
and the government of Puerto Rico to address the issue of cost of
providing increased aid to the aged, blind, and disabled in Puerto
Rico.
As you know. Supplemental Security Income applies to the Com-
monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and there have been
proposals in the Senate Finance Committee
Mr. Romero-Barcelo [continuing]. You and I have discussed
that the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas is very small, and
that the cost is insignificant, but that the cost for Puerto Rico
would be so great, and in light of the present deficit situation, it
would be inconceivable that this would happen.
That is what we have discussed, you and I.
Mr. Farrow. What we have discussed is that cost is the main
impediment, and so therefore, because of our concern about the
current situation, we are willing to address the cost issue coopera-
tively with the government of Puerto Rico and the appropriate com-
mittees of the Congress.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. You have recognized to me personally
that the cost of SSI would be too great to consider at this point in
time, and that the mood in Congress is not to grant any SSI for
Puerto Rico, and that it has not been considered.
Is that correct, what I am saying, or is it not?
Mr. Farrow. I would speak to the Administration's position, not
the Congress' position, and the position of the Administration is
that we are willing to work to increase aid to the aged, blind, and
disabled in Puerto Rico, addressing the cost issues with the govern-
ment and with the committees of the Congress of jurisdiction.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. When you say addressing the cost, where
is the money coming from?
Mr. Farrow. How to pay for the increased aid.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And that includes Puerto Rico?
Mr. Farrow. For Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. How Puerto Rico would pay for it.
Mr. Farrow. We would discuss it with the government of Puerto
Rico and the committees.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And about the protection of other prod-
ucts for agriculture, did you discuss that also to extend protection
to other products in agriculture?
Mr. Farrow. Yes.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. In addition to coffee? Do you know how
coffee is protected?
Mr. Farrow. Yes.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. To give Puerto Rico the authority to im-
pose tariffs on other agricultural products in view of NAFTA?
Mr. Farrow. Congressman, as I have talked to Puerto Rican
leaders of both parties, it has been clear that there is a desire for
measures to reinvigorate the agricultural sector in Puerto Rico as
73
I would explain, though, that what the President has done with
respect to Puerto Rico, and that is that he set up an interagency
framework that includes several offices within the White House
and all of the departments, so the Domestic Council is represented
on our interagency group by the Deputy Director of the Domestic
Council; the National Security Council is represented by the Senior
Director for Inter-American Affairs; the National Economic Council
is represented. Those are the three policy councils in the executive
office of the President.
The Office of Management and Budget is represented. It is co-
chaired by myself and by Marsha Hale, who is the President's As-
sistant for Intergovernmental Affairs and Director of Intergovern-
mental Affairs, but it is an interagency effort that involves several
White House offices and departments, as opposed to being an ele-
ment of just one White House or executive office or departmental
office.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Would it be fair for me to say that if this
committee were to have any dialog or any official discussions as far
as the Administration's official position in dealing with the con-
cerns and the needs of Puerto Rico, that your interagency council
is the lead group as far as Administration position dealing with the
affairs of Puerto Rico?
Mr. Farrow. The President formed the interagency group to deal
with a range of issues that involved Puerto Rico. In addition to my-
self and Marsha Hale, we have senior level officials in all depart-
ments, so there is a primary contact person in every department
for Puerto Rican matters.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But for a comprehensive response, Mr. Far-
row, you would be the person that would speak officially on behalf
of the Administration as far as Puerto Rico is concerned.
Mr. Farrow. Yes, sir, and we would coordinate the responsibil-
ities and the response of all of the individual agencies.
Mr. Faleomavaega. On the eve of a presidential election, to say
it mildly, can you give us some kind of a time schedule of whatever
future plans the Administration has in mind in terms of the issues
affecting Puerto Rico, one being the status issue? Can you give us
an idea of what the Administration has in mind between now and
next November?
Mr. Farrow. We are working on a range of issues. Obviously,
just personally, the Section 936 amendments that have been pro-
posed by the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate and Fi-
nance Committee have occupied a lot of my time recently, and also
the time of our representatives of the Department of the Treasury,
who include the assistant secretary for tax policy and the deputy
international tax counsel.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So basically the bottom line, the Adminis-
on Section 936 is in basic opposition to the Ways
tration's position
and Means current efforts to gut it?
Mr. Farrow. We do not favor those proposals.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Far-
row.
Mr. Farrow. Thank you. Congressman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrow can be found at the end
of the hearing.]
76
only Congress is able to speak for itself, and in a case like this, in-
dicate what is viable in the definition of a status formula and what
is not.
Only Congress might be able to even go as far as saying that a
given status alternative is not viable, because they so see fit. Be-
cause of our current territorial relationship with the United States,
the rest of us, especially those in Puerto Rico, can only have well-
founded opinions but nothing more.
It was our naive belief that public debate was going to be able
to neutralize any attempt of misinforming voters by the inclusion
of false and unrealistic elements in any given definition for a status
formula. We were wrong.
As Congressman Don Young later said on the House floor, "The
law's genuine intent to be fair unintentionally fostered a weakness
by permitting historically unprecedented hypothetical status defini-
tions on the ballot."
The campaign that followed the enactment of the law in July was
very inspiring and educational, yet tough and disheartening in
other ways. To no one's surprise, the campaign aroused much en-
thusiasm in our electorate, regardless of ideology.
On the other hand, on most occasions, it did not provide good op-
portunities for serious debates between the advocates of the three
status formulas. Sadly, many issues and facts were distorted or
simply made up, as misinformation was the rule of the day.
On November 14, 1993, the plebiscite was held amid high expec-
tations among supporters of the three ideologies that this vote
moved us right on the track toward a final resolution of our cen-
turies-old status dilemma. The specific results of the vote have al-
ready been mentioned, so I will continue.
For us, these results were quite disheartening. Nonetheless,
something quite significant had also happened.
Twenty-eight years ago, on July 23, 1967, a plebiscite of local ini-
tiative, very similar to the one in 1993, was held in Puerto Rico so
that our people could express their preference as to the three sta-
tus options. The results for that event showed commonwealth with
60.41 percent support among those who voted. Based on those re-
sults, advocates of commonwealth always claimed
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Majority Whip, I am sorry. I hate to in-
terrupt and I was trying to give you a little more leeway, but can
you summarize it, please?
Mr. Cintron-Garcla.. We are quite concerned that such lack of
action by the PDP may provide a further lease on life for our cur-
rent status relationship with the United States, which as of No-
vember 14, 1993, is devoid of any possible consent on our part.
Nonetheless, this lack of action on their part gives the impression
that they are trying to avoid any congressional expression or action
into thismatter at all costs.
I have no further time, so I am able to answer questions later.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cintron-Garcia can be found at
the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Your statement will be made part of the
record.
Mr. Cintron-Garcia. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Representative Irizarry, please proceed.
91
20-766 - 96 - 4
92
The first item was that Puerto Rico wishes to maintain Section
936 of the Internal Revenue Code because of the many thousands
of jobs that it creates for Puerto Rico, and because it has generated
an economic cUmate favorable for investors in Puerto Rico. I am
well aware of the changes being made and the unfortunate con-
sequences that these changes being made in the Congress could
have for the economy of Puerto Rico.
I want to state in no uncertain terms that I favor the perma-
nence of Section 936 in Puerto Rico, because it has been an agent
of growth and development over the last few decades. However,
given the nature of the political and economic climate in Washing-
ton, DC, today, in which the people of Puerto Rico are not fully in-
formed or participants on their future economic development, I
would like to bring to your attention one additional policy rec-
ommendation that could have a favorable impact on the economy
of Puerto Rico; that is the ability of the government of Puerto Rico
to enter into commercial treaties with other countries of the world.
The new economic world order and the new economic realities
were that all of the countries of the world have become partners,
require that Puerto Rico immediately, in order to enhance its com-
petitiveness, enter this world economic order with the power to
enter into commercial relationships with these countries.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we should work together to find
ways such as the one that I have proposed to continuously increase
the competitiveness of Puerto Rico and in that way, generate the
necessary jobs to keep our economy moving as it has moved con-
tinuously under the commonwealth status. If we generate jobs and
depend less on welfare programs, it is good for Puerto Rico and it
is good for the United States of America.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Irizarry can be found at the end
of the hearing,]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Mr. Noriega-Rodriguez.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID NORIEGA-RODRIGUEZ, MINORITY
LEADER, PUERTO RICO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Noriega-Rodriguez. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee.
My name is David Noriega-Rodriguez, not David Noriega-Her-
nandez. I am the Minority Leader of the Puerto Rican Independ-
ence Party in the House of Representatives.
On November 14, 1993, the people of Puerto Rico expressed their
wishes to end our colonial territorial status under the United
States Constitution. It is essential now that the United States Con-
gress express itself with total clarity as to what options it would
consider for Puerto Rico's decolonization. Congress should act re-
sponsibly in order to discharge its constitutional obligation to dis-
pose of the territory.
Furthermore, until such time as our subordinate and dependent
status is resolved. Congress must take urgent and concrete steps
to avoid aggravating our economic dependence.
Puerto Rico needs political powers to develop and implement new
policies that will remedy our dependence while rescuing Federal
taxpayers from the edge of the bottomless colonial welfare pit.
93
While you continue to dismantle the benefits for Puerto Rico of In-
ternal Revenue Code Section 936, you should simultaneously ad-
dress the deterioration of our economy with concrete action on sev-
eral issues.
Puerto Rico needs more economic instruments and power to enter
into tax treaties with capital exporting nations other than the
United States; to institute separate wage, labor, and tsix policy; to
develop infant industry and local capital accumulation; to eliminate
the offshore shipping laws; among many other development tools.
Economists estimate that Puerto Rican consumers are paying
over $500,000,000 every year in excess of what they would have to
pay if Puerto Rico were exempted from the application of the Unit-
ed States shipping laws. We import most of what we consume, and
export most of what we produce. Thus, the need to reduce the cost
of shipping goods is of the highest priority.
You are not in the process of deregulating the maritime transpor-
tation. If you finally deregulate, you should reform your coastwise
shopping law to at least eliminate the monopoly in the maritime
transportation in the offshore areas. Otherwise, you will leave a
monopoly without regulation, and that, in my view, is an invitation
to abuse.
Several important business organizations in Puerto Rico have
met with me to discuss their interest to secure Puerto Rico's ex-
emption from the application of the coastwise shipping laws.
Among these are the Puerto Rican Manufacturers Association, the
Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce, the Importers Association and
the Retailers Association.
Therefore, on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico, statehooders,
commonwealth supporters, independentistas, I formally request the
revision and total elimination of these shipping laws' application to
Puerto Rico.
Finally, I must emphasize that Puerto Rico needs the powers to
enter into commercial and tax treaties with other countries. As our
party has pointed out seversd times, when our economy enjoyed the
full benefits of the tax-sparing mechanism provided by Section 936
in the era before NAFTA, when only Puerto Rico had free access
to the United States market, Puerto Rico became the welfare cap-
ital of the hemisphere.
While, in my view, only separate sovereignty can provide all the
instruments and powers necessary to respond to our needs, you
have the power, under the Territorial Clause, to implement some
specific concrete measures to alleviate our colonial plight.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Noriega-Rodriguez can be found
at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much. I yield the chair back
to my good friend from Indiana, Chairman Burton.
Mr. Burton. I want to thank you very much. I really appreciate
my Democrat colleague not taking advantage when all the Repub-
licans were out of the room.
I want to thank the panel very much. We appreciate your partici-
pation. Does anyone have any questions?
94
cause of the serious economic and social needs that Puerto Rico is
faced with.
I say this in all sincerity, and I just wish that there was a sense
of a constancy on the part of the Congress to say, we are here, we
are going to give it to you.
Next year, we might have a whole new panel, and I will be frank
with you, we may not even have some of the members of the sub-
committee here addressing the issues affecting the territories, so I
just want to give you the sense of reality that I wish I could be
more optimistic for you gentlemen depending on the Congress for
answers, because it has been my experience that we fall way below,
and it is not because I judge critically the Members, but it is just
the institution and the way things operate here in Washington. I
wish I could be more positive, gentlemen. Thank you.
Mr. Gallegly. The gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. Burton. I can't believe that the phasing out of the 936 pro-
gram over five to ten years is going to be apocalyptic for Puerto
Rico.
The unemplo5mient rate has not changed over one percent since
the beginning of the 936 program. It is the same, almost identi-
cally, as it was when 936 was put in place.
In addition to that, GAO did a study and they don't just come
up and throw figures at the wall. The study indicated that the im-
pact on the economy might be as many as 3,000 jobs overall. How-
ever, they said that a lot of the slack is going to be picked up by
subsidiaries and subcontractors of companies that are down there;
and many companies won't leave in the first place, because they
have a tremendous amount of investment in Puerto Rico in infra-
structure, in equipment and plants. So it is not going to be the end
of the world if 936 is phased out in an orderly way.
In addition to that, the amount of money that we spend for each
job in Puerto Rico, the average worker in Puerto Rico under the
936 program gets about $25,000 a year, but it costs the government
of the United States $100,000 for that $25,000 to be paid. We have
spent $3,000,000,000 on the program, and about one-fourth of it
has actually gone in salaries to the workers.
The bottom line is that there might be another way to skin the
cat, to make sure that the Puerto Rican economy does not suffer,
and at the same time maybe even expand, and one of those ways
is to make Puerto Rico a super-enterprise zone, and there are ways
for us to do that.
I hope that the message, and I know that it is late in the day,
but I hope that the message back to Puerto Rico is not that we are
callous toward Puerto Rico because we want to save the taxpayers'
money by phasing out the 936 program.
What we want to do is make Puerto Rico more independent from
an economic standpoint, like many of the States, stand on its own
two feet, and we think this could be accomplished with a lot less
tax dollars.
Finally, I think that the argument for statehood and the argu-
ments that I read need further airing. That is a decision to be left
up to the Puerto Rican people, but the bottom line is, I think the
936 program is going to be passe; it is going to be phased out, but
that won't be the end of the world.
96
jobs would sign form letters with letterheads from the companies.
The actual Democrat party chairman announced her candidacy
from the steps of one of these 936 corporations.
This, plus what we said about definitions, show that Congress
must set constitutionally definite ballot guidelines and ground
rules for future status plebiscites. We recommend that as a result
of this flawed experience, Congress establish a policy statement
that statehood or independence are our only real options. It must
also approve legislation authorizing a status plebiscite for Puerto
Rico and that the status described will tell us how it will affect the
basic principles I mentioned at the beginning of my statement.
Ballot definitions have to be reviewed before any plebiscite, with
a view toward Congressional implementation, since any future
plebiscite must be free of misleading ballot provisions.
We also propose that the plebiscite must be binding, both on
Congress and Puerto Rico, but the economic fallacy of Section 936
needs to be replaced immediately with an economic development
plan along the lines suggested by Congressman Don Young;
empowerment zones, wage credits, capital grants, full enterprise
funds. Federal program parity, and taxation of island residents.
You pay, you play.
Combined with the almost $4,000,000,000 savings from the 936
tax credit, the U.S. Treasury would see no diminution in revenues,
nor will Puerto Ricans see any change in their tax burden, as pro-
gram costs are shifted to Washington.
In conclusion, the 1993 plebiscite was so fatally flawed that the
results are null and void. The only status option constitutionally,
politically, and economically viable that ensures the three goals for
which 95 percent of the United States citizens in Puerto Rico voted
for is statehood.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement and appendix to statement of Dr.
Ramirez can be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Jose Antonio Casillas.
STATEMENT OF JOSE ANTONIO CASILLAS, CO-CHAIR, CAMBIO
XXI
Mr. Cassilas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honorable Chairmen
Gallegly and Burton, and Congressmen, we are Attorneys Jose An-
tonio Casillas and Emilio Soler Mari, Co-Chairs of Cambio XXI, a
Puerto Rican nonprofit, nongovernmental civic organization, found-
ed on September 24, 1994, to promote education in the political re-
lationship between Puerto Rico and the United States.
We appear before you to propose to your committees that in ful-
fillment of the popular will of the electorate of Puerto Rico ex-
pressed in the plebiscite held in November 1993, Congress enact by
legislation a bilateral compact between Puerto Rico and the United
States as a result of the consensus of the ideas and will toward the
21st century.
The definition of the alternative that won a plurality of votes in
the plebiscite asked for the adoption of such a bilateral compact be-
tween Puerto Rico and the United States, so that our people can
develop their future by their own means and resources. This will
be the only democratic, moral, and proper response to the result of
100
It has been clear that the petition made by the people of Puerto
Rico is to have its own sovereignty and associate through the sov-
ereignty that comes of our inalienable right as people to the United
States not to be under the sovereignty, under the plenary powers
of Congress. That is precisely what we wished to avoid.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Chairman, this is very important.
Are you authorized to speak on behalf of the commonwealth sup-
porters?
Mr. Vega-Ramos. I am authorized to speak on behalf of PROELA
and of my mind. And of my convictions.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. You are saying that the request being
made on the plebiscite was to have sovereignty. Is that what you
want to put on the record?
Mr. Vega-Ramos. Let me, if I may, be a little more specific.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Just answer. You said that this relation-
ship was based on the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico.
Now, I want you to repeat that you are sure of that, that the people
of Puerto Rico, according to the plebiscite, want sovereignty?
Mr. Vega-Ramos. Now, can I explain my remarks. Resident
Commissioner? Thank you very much.
The people of Puerto Rico voted for a relationship that can only
be amended by mutual consent. In the international sense, you
have to have your own sovereignty to enter into a compact, and
then you will be binded by the terms of that compact, and if I may
refer, since you wanted to know the Popular Democratic Party's
stance on it, I refer you to a resolution of the 17th of November
107
the kind of discussion that goes on in Puerto Rico and how con-
fused it is.
You can imagine what voters are faced with in an election proc-
ess, so we have a lot of faith that this Congress will at least at the
end help us clarify exactly what we can vote for, and what can be
our final status.
Mr. Gallegly. I think that one of the most important things
that we are all faced with today is to see that there be an end or
every effort made to end the division between the people of Puerto
Rico and resolve this issue.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the Chairman yield?
Mr. Gallegly. Yes.
108
Statement by
i*T j^O****"^'
Committee on Resources
and the
The statehood option attracted 46.3% of the vote - well above the
39% figure recorded in 1967.
Independence was endorsed by 4.4% of the electorate.
Blank or disqualified ballots accounted for less than 1% of the
total number cast
The confirmation of a trend was apparent. For the first time since
the 1952 adoption of the"commonwealth" nomenclature, a majority of
Puerto Rico's voters had formally manifested their desire to replace
"commonwealth" with a more traditional and indisputably permanent
political status; the once much-heralded "commonwealth" experimenf
had lost its mandate.
No longer could the United States affirm, at the United Nations or
any other global forum, that the current political status of Puerto Rico
in
Congress of the United States convey to the people of Puerto Rico its
reaction to the proposals which a plurality of our voters endorsed in an
act of democratic self-expression on that Sunday, November 14th.
I therefore invite you and urge you to examine those propositions
carefully and then to inform the people of Puerto Rico of your response
to each and every item on the Popular Party's plebiscite menu — clearly
and directly, one by one.
We respectfully request of these subcommittees that they inform
the Puerto Rican people by responding to the following questions raised
by the Popular Party definition of "commonwealth":
I come here as President of the Popular Democratic Party, which represented the
Commonwealth option in the 1993 plebiscite. As you all know, that option won.
We come here as a people, a proud people with its own history, its own language, its own
culture enhanced over the centuries. A people that has struggled for over 100 years for
greater self-government, democracy, and the enhancement of the Puerto Rican culture and
values.
I come here well aware of my peoples' reality, their virtues and their problems. My people
are resilient. They have overcome military and colonial regimes. They have survived the
application of benevolent and forced assimilation. They are proud of their language, even
though at one point in our history our children were taught in a language that was not their
own.
119
I come here as part of a people that have struggled with the prejudice of the colonial
mentality that thought that democracy could not flourish in the tropics, that our language was
a patois and that we were not prepared for the progress and respect we desired.
I come grateful to men of vision from the U.S. These men, who were friends of Puerto Rico
have included Henry Croll, Theodore Rooseveh, Jr., Rexford Tugwell, Harry Truman,
Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy. These men understood that there were alternatives in
Puerto Rico came to be part of the U.S. at the end of the last century. Since that time the
forces of our culture, an economy in need of development tools, and the forces of stability
The quest for an elected legislature, the quest for an elected governor, the quest for the
creation of our own constimtion and our autonomy have been the great political developments
of this century.
people.
• The desire for social justice and economic development that provides
limitations.
The last fifty years have seen a rapid development in the political, economic, and social
conditions of Puerto Rico. When I was bom 47 years ago, the average life expectancy was
48 years of age. Today it is 74. Then there were 10,000 university students; today there are
more than 160,000. The per capita annual income was less than $500, today it is more than
$6,000. Few people owned homes, today there is a higher home ownership rate than in the
U.S.
At the same time, 2/5 of our population lives in the U.S., most of them in very poor
conditions. Our economy is still developing, however. We have only a 46% participation in
the workforce (in the U.S. it is 66%) and unemployment of almost 15%. Almost a third of
121
our jobs are related to a production program of industrial incentives of which the now-
We value and treasure every job we have. We have worked very hard with the help of the
U.S. to provide decent jobs for our people in our land so they will no longer be forced to
migrate to the U.S. And in this respect, Mr. Chairman, Commonwealth has served Puerto
Rico well, for ONLY under Commonwealth are certain economic tools available to us.
We want a culture of work not of welfare. That is why we cannot understand how it is
possible that this Congress moves to cut welfare and at the same time cuts the program that is
responsible for almost a third of our jobs. In sum, Mr. Chairman, Commonwealth has
served Puerto Rico well, and the people themselves have consistently recognized this reality.
troubling to the Puerto Rican people when the U.S. Congress attempts to tear-down that
The only answer has to be improvisation. The lack of a consistent federal policy regarding
Puerto Rico and its economic development greatly harms our people.
We formally request from you today a program for enhancing what we have accomplished so
far, not for impoverishing our people. We do not wish to become the poorest state of the
Union. We hope to become the richest Island in the Caribbean ~ a model for others in the
122
region to look to for inspiration. We look to Congress for an economic development plan for
Puerto Rico that gives continuity and predictability to our economy. We need an Act for the
Economic Development of Puerto Rico that takes into account our special circumstances, our
competitiveness, our production costs, all in relation to other jurisdictions. We request that
you take no action against our incentives until you have the whole picture of the
To subject the jobs and the quality of life of my people to improvisations of the moment is a
The left hand cannot destroy what the right hand is constructing. The promise of a society of
workfare cannot be constructed with actions that destroy jobs and eliminate incentives for
investment. The true test of politics is not the amount of words, but the improvement of the
In terms of political development, our road has been a rocky one. The normal tension
between the concentration of power in Washington and in the states or Puerto Rico has been
a continuity in our history. We see with great hope the movement of block grants and the
limits on unfunded mandate as a welcome initiative, that takes into account local initiatives
Lets talk about the plebiscite. In 1950 and 1952 Congress and the voters in two referendums
in Puerto Rico approved a process to enhance self government and to approve the
The U.S. government, with a congressional delegation asked the United Nations in 1953 to
withdraw Puerto Rico from the list of colonial dependencies based upon the exercise of the
In 1967 and in 1993 different governments have called for two plebiscites — Commonwealth
won both.
Through 1989 and 1991 the political leadership of Puerto Rico jointly requested from
results. That support failed to produce a law because there was no consensus in Congress for
its approval.
In 1993 the Governor and the NPP unilaterally called for a plebiscite. They even changed
the date for the most partisan considerations. They called for it, got it, and lost it. Then
they sabotaged the implementation, did not assign a single cent, opposed the creation of a
presidential task force and continued to propose statehood against the will of our people.
20-766 - 96 - 5
124
The agenda of the Commonwealth is one that unifies the efforts of Puerto Ricans.
Throughout the years different governments have tried and won parity in different federal
programs. Governor JFerre and Commissioner Diaz initiated the effort for parity in the food
Stamp program. Governor Hernandez Colon and Conunissioner Benitez got the fmal
approval with an appropriation. So what we are asking today was exactly what we had imtil
1982.
Regarding the SSI, I call your attention to the Northern Marianas' participation fiilly in this
So what we are missing is the political and economic will to produce the same results.
This committee has a singular opportunity, it can take sides in the controversy or become a
beacon of understanding.
In 1989 the presidents of the three Puerto Rican political parties, petitioned
the U. S. Congress for federal legislation to solve Puerto Rico's political status.
chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, regarding this matter. I told
him: the real issue before all of us is whether the Puerto Rican nationality; which
sovereignty or towards statehood That was the issue then and that is the issue
now.
Years later and in light of the ensuing congressional paralysis, Puerto Rico
took up the suggestion made by several U. S. senators and held the 1993 status
Now, faced with the referendum results, this Committee should address itself
to the same question I posed to Senator Bennett Johnston six years ago. Which
The Puerto Rican people have already spoken. Congress should therefore
move in the direction of the petition made by the Puerto Rican people, particularly
when the will of the Puerto Rican people in this case coincides with the national
126
The November 14,1993 referendum on status gave the people of Puerto Rico
Commonwealth) and Independence. The absolute majo ity of the Puerto Rican
people (SB^) rejected statehood and petitioned the U. S for one form or another
of .sovereignty for Puerto Rico . Of that absolute majority, 4.5% voted for
independence and a plurality, 48.9%, opted for a Free iAssodated State based on
a bilateral pact with the U. S. - that is to say a juridical relation that caimot be
unilaterally altered by Congress in the exercise of its pov ers under the Territorial
Rico's sovereignty.
It should not come as a surprise that many in Codgress were thankful that
statehood was defeated. Otherwise Congress would lave been faced with a
statehood petition which it would have been forced to refuse for very powerful
Some would have you believe that Puerto Rico's problem is one of civil
Puerto Rico poses a problem not of individual rights, but of the collective rights
127
of a people; of the right of a distinct nationality to govern itself in its separate and
distinct homeland.
generate an explosive conflict of nationalities within the United States . The dawn
of the 21st century hardly seems the appropriate time to bring back, literally from
the dead, the question of secession into the America political scene. Even Puerto
Rican statehooders insist that Puerto Rico become a state without compromising
nationality conflicts. As concerns the American federal body politic. Puerto Rico
is a non - compatible donor. One should not underestimate the power of ideas
such as federalism: but blood, land and langua ge are closer to home.
the English language as a cohesive force in U. S. federalism, have shown that they
The fundamental issue for the U. S. as regards Puerto Rico is what type of
who constitute a distinct nationality, who inhabit a distinct and separate territory.
128
who speak a different langua ge, and who unanimously aspire to maintain their own
identity.
distinct from that of the United States, Puerto Ricans have answered that question
Congress now has the opportunity, in accordance with the will of the Puerto
Rican people, to steer the ship of Puerto Rican nationality in the correct direction;
Even when our economy enjoyed full 936 tax privileges and preferential
entry into the U.S. market in pre-NAFTA days, Puerto Rico become the welfare
together with two senators and 6 or 7 representatives, for that is what statehood
implies. Puerto Rico would become a chronically depressed ghetto state and its
What Puerto Rico requires in order to develop is not more welfare but more
economic powers and flexibility, economic tools and decisions that respond to our
needs and not to those of the highly develop U.S. economy. Nations, like persons
Puerto Rico needs more economic instruments and power to enter into tax
sparring treaties with capital exporting nations other than the U.S. while making
use of the foreign tax credit; to institute a separate wage, labor and tax policy, to
develop infant industry and local capital accumulation, to eliminate the offshore
shipping laws, among many other development tools. Statehood which demands
Congress should face the Puerto Rican problem once and for all; not in a
piecemeal basis, responding to the most recent crisis as is now the case with
section 936, but through an integrated, coherent response that is mindful of the
How should Congress go about such a task? Our proposal is simple and
right which therefore must always be present as an option. I remind you that only
130
two years before the Declaration of Independence, George Washington was still
saying that "Independence is not desired by any thinking man in North America".
the terms and conditions for the independence of Puerto Rico and for a bilateral
pact between, the United States and the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico, in
constitution. After consultations with the President of the United States, Puerto
offer. The people of Puerto Rico would then vote on the form of sovereign self
government of their choice, not later than July 25, 1998. A full century of U.S.
colonialism is more than enough, both for the colonizer and the colonized.
I must also point out that the outcome of this proposal would constitute a
solid basis upon which to develop a policy for the relations between the United
intimate economic relations must not imply cultural and political assimilation.
Under statehood, Puerto Rico would never be seen as a bridge between the
Americas; as a state of the American Union Puerto Rico would more likely be
131
specific course Congress may decide to take, you should at least speak clearly and
Regarding the status of Puerto Rico as Senator Patrick Moynihan said on the
Senate floor a few short years ago: "The fundamental issue is... whether Puerto
identity. " In light of the Senator 's most accurate description of reality, you should
make clear to Puerto Rico the evident conclusion: that as long as Puerto Ricans are
Puerto Ricans. with their distinct identity and langua ge. Congress as a body cannot
Furthermore, Puerto Ricans should be told the truth regarding the present
United States: and that Congress could only enter into a bilateral pact with a
separate sovereign body politic . As regards independence, which is a right and not
a privilege, I have no doubt that we would be able to agree on the terms and
colonialism by inertia. This would be contrary to the results which many of you
intend, as well as to the will of the Puerto Rican people. I need only remind you
that the present status, Commonwealth-as-is, was not even on the referendum
ballot.
The solution to the Puerto Rico status problem is within your grasp. If you
do not respond favorably to the referendum results and speak clearly to the Puerto
Rican people, you may have to face an embarrassing statehood petition tomorrow,
not because Puerto Ricans will have met the criteria advanced by Senator
today but they will in the long run respond to the same interests and realities. The
end result will undoubtedly be the same, a firm and steady course towards separate
sovereignty, but the process will surely be more painful and costly.
Congress would do well to heed some very sound advice from William
Shakespeare:
TESTIMONY OF
THE HONORABLE LUIS A. FERRE
BEFORE THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
AND THE NATIVE AMERICAN AND INSUU\R AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
REGARDING THE
CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON
THE 1993 PLEBISCITE RESULTS OF PUERTO RICO
-I-
Good Afternoon.
I served as Governor of Puerto Rico from 1969 to 1973 and I appear before you
on behalf of Puerto Rico's New Progressive Party, which I founded in 1967 as result of
the plebiscite held early in the same year following the recommendation of the U.S.
PR. Status Commission of 1964. The platform of the New Progressive Party stated that
The political status plebiscite that was conducted on November 4, 1993, must
The quest for statehood has strong historical, political and moral precendents.
During the Spanish colonial regime puertorrican patriots and citizens suffered great
abuses and developed great enmity towards Spain. Coincidentaly, Puerto Rico's trade
with the United States, particularly sugar, was most important. As a result, puertorrican
leaders became familiar with the democratic traditions of the United States and
developed great admiration for them, to the extent of even considering possible
annexation.
Cuba started it's war of independence in 1895 and was joined by the United
States when the latter declared war on Spain in 1898 after the sinking of the Maine.
of the occasion to invade Puerto Rico and contrary to its intentions towards Cuba, to
retain it because of it's military significance to the defense of the United States
interests in the Carribbean. It decided to do so, because it was well informed of the
i
135
-2-
United States vessels attacked Puerto Rico on July 25, 1898 and american
forces landed in Ponce, July 27,1898 after the Spanish forces surrendered and
retreated fowards San Juan. Amercian troops were welcomed enthusiastically by the
citizens of Ponce, who lined the streets to cheer them, led by the puertorrican patriots
who had suffered from the colonial abuses of Spain. Not a single shot was fired
Upon landing, General Nelson Miles, who accepted the enthusiastic welcome,
published and distributed a proclamation which in part read: "Our military forces...
bring you the fostering arms of a free people, whose greatest power is justice and
humanity to all living with-in their fold... They have not come to make war on the
people of the country... but on the contrary to bring protection, not only to yourselves,
but to your property, promote your prosperity and bestow the immunities and blessinos
people as a moral commitment by the United States that Puerto Rico would be
citizenship. Accordingly, both the political parties that participated in the elections in
1900 under the leadership of the two most important Island leaders, Barbosa and
enacted the Foraker Bill to establish the first civil goverment in Puerto Rico which did
not give U.S. citizenship to its inhabitants, it acted in contradiction to the established
tradition of accepting territories only to become states, as per Judge Taneys Dictum
the people of Puerto Rico did not loose confidence in the ultimate spirit of justice of the
136
-3-
United States and persisted in what they believed was their right to become U.S.
citizens because of the moral committment they understood which resulted from their
acquiescense during the United States invasion and the promises made by General
Miles on behalf of th United States.
Congress finally approved the Jones Act of 1917, granting U.S. citizenship to
the people of Puerto Rico. The people of Puerto Rico considered this as a firm
because statehood is a constitutional right of a U.S. citizen, and also a matter of civil
rights.
In what I consider was a mistaken effort to prevent Puerto Rico from paying
Puerto Rico, denying it the right of incorporation of acquired territories which had been
traditionally established.
This distinction opened the way to the enjoyment of tax exemption, which has
Congress. This condition of uncertainly has been a perpetual menace to our economic
development as compared to the firm progress of the States of the Union, which is
This is why we have insisted in becoming a state to gain the stability that results
from equal political rights, with representation in Congress. We do not want privileges.
We want equality, equality in our rights and equality in our duties. That is the way of
american democracy in which we have been brought-up to think and cherish. That is
Mr. Chairman, since I came back from college at M.I.T. to work in Puerto Rico, I
-4-
respresenting the Lions Club of Puerto Rico and expressed the need to admit Puerto
Rico as a state so that it could protect its interests against concessions to foreign
countries as states could do. At that time I realized how important it was to inform the
Members of Congress about Puerto Rico, since the knowledge they had was indeed
could with information about the right of Puerto Rico to become a state and was able to
including Senators Chavez, Langer, Burke and King, became advocates of statahood.
In 1945, I traveled to Washington, via airplane fron San Juan to Haiti, to Cuba
and to Miami, and hence by train up-here, to oppose the Tydings Bill for the
maintained that to solve our economic problems, through our own effort and enterprise
we had to be given the same tools that our fellow American citizens have in
Continental U.S.: equal rights under statehood, to enable us to protect our economic
interests in that very place -Congress- where economic policies are established.
In 1950, the U.S. Congress enacted Law 600 to authorize Puerto Rico to draft a
constitution under the Territorial Clause, in the manner of a compact. I was a member
Congress and the President went into effect in 1952. It clearly stated Puerto Rico
would be subject to the Federal Relations Act, which it was understood meant subject
But the leaders of the Popular Democratic Party, began a series of moves to try
to obtain a release from the Territorial Clause under a lait-accompli" strategy, that
138
-5-
tried to make Law 600 look like and irrevocable surrender of soverignty by Congress
result of these actions and the objections it raised, Congress decided to appoint a
Commission to look into the matter. We maintained the Popular Democratic Party was
trying to deceive the electorate in Puerto Rico, claming advantages for the
Commonwealth status over statehood that were clearly untrue and unconstitutional. It
also affrimed that statehood would be economically catastrophic for Puerto Rico.
These are the arguments and advantages that were incorporated by them in
their definition of Commonwealth in the ballot of the recent plebiscite, subject of these
hearings.
In 1964 the United States-Puerto Rico Status Commission was created and I
had the privilege of been appointed on behalf of the statehood position. One of its
conclusion reads, "Economic studies indicate that sustained economic growth, under
the present status and continuation of the special economic arrangements will make
Commonwealth. The statehood forces rallied under my leadership and that of Mr.
Romero Barceio and others, and we increased our voting strength in a such manner,
that four months after the Plebiscite, we organized the New Progressive Party, on the
platform of Statehood and won the 1968 election. As a result. I was elected Governor,
The growth of the statehood forces have been overwhelming since 1968. The
P.N. P., the statehood party which I represent as its founder, has won three of the six
elections since then. It is today in control, with Governor. Resident Commissioner, and
a two-third majority in both Senate and House of our Legislature, elected by 938,969
139
-6-
votes, which is 49.33 % against 45.34 % for the Popular Democratic Party.
We feel that Puerto Rico is ripe to become a state after almost a hundred years
of apprenticeship and to assume its full political rights and responsabilities. During all
this century, more than 200,000 puertorricans have served with distinction in all the
wars that the U.S. has been involved and in several cases with higher casualties than
some states. More than 2,000 puertorrican soldiers served in the recent Gulf War,
amongst which was a grandson of mine in the 1st Armored Division. Several, such as
Fernando Luis Garcia who gave their lives heroically in the line of duty, have been
Spain; Admiral Diego Hernandez, who was in command of the Mediterranean Fleet;
Major General Pedro del Valle commanded the U.S. Marine Corps, First Division in
the Pacific; General William A. Navas, Jr.. who is Deputy in command of the National
Guard. Dr. Antonia Novello served as U.S. Surgeon General and Dr. Enrique
America to enrich its economy and its culture. There are about 2,000,000 puertorricans
living throughout the Nation, doing constructive and creative work as factory workers
thousands of teachers and professors in schools and universities, amongst which are
In the Arts and Humanities our rythms and melodies have contributed to enrich
american music; our great actors like Jose Ferrer and Raul Julia have been american
favorites. Justino Diaz and Pablo Elvira have been great voices at the Metropolitan.
In the area of civil goverment, amongst many others. Judge Juan Torruellas,
Chief Justice of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals; Judge Jose Cabranes is
140
-7-
member of the U.S. 2nd Circuit of Appeals and, Mauiice Ferrd, has served as Mayor of
Miami.
In the area of sports we have contributed with many baseball players amongst
which Roberto Clemente has been included in the Hail of Fame; Gigi Fernandez is a
As a personal note I could mention that I have been awarded the Hoover Medal
by my engineering peers and have been honored with the Presidential Medal of
Freedom by President Bush. And last, but not least to show how much Puerto Rico is
imbedded in american life, it was the puertorrican judge of the Southern District of
New York, Sonia Sotomayor, who as a fearless jurist, decided a few months ago to
issue an injunction that could breal< the deadlock in the baseball strike, and by doing
so, sent the baseball players back to give americans, after more than a year, the
enjoyment of their favorite sport. Nobody could be part of America, more than this
fearless and competent jurist of 40 years of age. She was the true image of the
Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come for Congress to live up to the
commitment of equality under which we were brought into its fold. It is time to do justice
I left a year ago only because the issues that are the subject of
this hearing prompted President Clinton to have policy concerning
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico developed and coordinated. .a
.
His own vision of how the status dilemma should be solved was
laid out in the Democratic Platform: It pledged support for a
choice made by the people acting in concert with the Congress.
And the fact is that the decisions have not been made by our
government ... and cannot be presumed. As Senator Johnston, who has
done so much to try to resolve this matter, has said: "These are
not extraneous details, they are the core issues which dictate
the choice [open to Puerto Ricans]... No one can know what the
answer of Congress will be until these questions are presented."
144
SOPPLEMENTAL SHEET
WITNESS INTORMATION
NAME: Jeffrey L. Farrow
ADDRESS: Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico
U.S. Department of Commerce Building
Room 6061
Washington, D.C. 20230
TELEPHONE: (202) 482-0037
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
-2-
. .
147
I have made this statement before, and it is more true now than
ever: For Puerto Rico and the U.S. it is midnight at the ball.
It is time for all of us to unmask and be truthful about what the
real choices are for Puerto Ricans
For forty years there have been those in the federal government who
have pretended that the commonwealth achieved full self-government
in 1952. While this enabled the U.S. in 1953 to have our largest,
most populous and strategically indispensable territory removed
-3-
.
148
from the U.N. list of non-self governing areas, federal law and
policy toward Puerto Rico remained anchored in the bedrock reality
that Puerto Rico continues to be an unincorporated territory as
defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the "Insular Cases."
-4-
d
.
149
In my own view, before the people of Puerto Rico can freely express
their wishes as to the form of decolonization they prefer in an
informed act of self-determination, the following discrete points
of political and legal analysis, svumnarized and enumerated here
but presented more fully in the subsequent two parts of my
testimony, should become part of the political status debate:
-5-
.
150
-6-
151
-7-
.
152
8. The real issue that should have been decided on November 14,
1993 was how best to achieve first class citizenship. The choices
to so that are two: 1) equality of burdens and benefits, rights
and responsibilities, known to be attainable by U.S. citizens of
Puerto Rico through statehood; 2) establish Puerto Rican
citizenship through separation from the federal union and
commencement of a new era through a treaty-based relationship. The
third option for Puerto Rico is to continue to pursue enhancements
of the so-called "commonwealth" relationship in a manner which
preserves the present status but seeks Congressional permission for
increased federal benefits which hopefully would mcdce up for denial
of equal legal and political rights and the lack of real self-
government.
153
For forty years Puerto Rico has struggled with a political debate
over whether its current status, which in English is called
"commonwealth" but is referred to by its political supporters in
Spanish as "free association," is something legally and politically
distinct from territorial status. The U.S. Supreme Court has
iniled that Puerto Rico remains subject to the plenary powers of the
U.S. Congress under the Territorial Clause in Article IV of the
U.S. Constitution. Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980).
-9-
154
While there are some federal court decisions in which the court
accepted the theory of a f ederal/conraionwealth "pact" in non-binding
background commentary, and while something as invasive as repeal of
the constitution by Congress would be viewed by many as bad faith
by the federal government, in the application of federal law and
policy to Puerto Rico the federal position continues to be based
upon the view that Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory
subject to the Territorial Clause.
-10-
155
-11-
20-766 - 96 - 6
156
-12-
.
157
CONCLUSION:
-13-
158
Less than a year before the first anniversary of the Estado Libre
Asociado its founder. Governor Luis Munoz-Marin, stated in his Message
.
And clarifications have been badly needed and have been repeatedly
asked from Congress since the very beginings of the Estado Libre
Asociado 43 years ago.
When the first three attempts to clarify the nature of the Estado
Libre Asociado failed in 1953, 1959 and 1961, Governor Muhoz-Marin
gave a fourth try.
it In Kennedy dated July 10, 1 962,
a letter to President
he stated:
attempt at clarification also failed. And the fifth one led by Governor
Rafael Hernandez Col6n through the so-called 'New Compact Bill' struck
out in 1976.
These major efforts to clarify the nature of our relation with the
five
USA failedbecause, since its enactment in 1950, Congress and the
Estado Libre Asociado supporters have entertained totally different ideas
as to the meaning of Public Law 600, enacted 'in the nature of a
compact'. Is the "compact' the basis of congressional authority in Puerto
Rico or is that authority still based 'on the territorial clause of the
Constitution?
members had in mind in 1 950 when they enacted Public Law 600. Very
often congressmen ask where in the Constitution one might find the
Congress' authority to enter into a binding compact with american citizens
in a territory granting them at perpetuity powers tradionally exercised by
Congress under the territorial clause.
161
And now here we are again, for the sixth time, asking for
meaning of the "compact" and the juridical and
clarifications as to the
moral nature of the Estado Libre Asociado We certainly are where we
.
In the event that the Estado Libre Asociado voted upon in 1 993 is
not an option, suggest that you create a Congressional Commission to
i
clearly define feasible status alternatives that could take us to the end of
the line in the up-to-now never-ending status debate.
162
I appear before these subcommittees as the Senate Minority Leader representing the Popular
Democratic Party. I was the President of the Party at the time of the 1993 plebiscite.
The history of the Puerto Rico-United States relationship is one of frustrated Puerto Rican
attempts to attoin political progress. It is not imtil 1950 that significant progress was
achieved.
Public Law 600, providing for the organization of a constitutional government by the people
of Puerto Rico, became operative upon its approval in a referendimi with the people of
Puerto Rico. That law was adopted by the Congress as a compact by the people of Puerto
Rico. As a result of this initiative, Puerto Rico adopted its own Constimtion, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was created as a body politic not subject any longer to the
plenary powers of the Congress. At the time, it was understood both by leaders in Puerto
Rico and in the United States that the Commonwealth had the possibility of further
development within the basic relationship established within the compact. Many efforts have
On the other hand, while the United States has been reluctant to consent to further political
development of the Commonwealth, we must admit that it has been more generous as far as
providing tools for our economic and social development. The unique relationship between
Puerto Rico and the United States has made is possible for Puerto Rico to obtain parity with
the States in most social programs and has allowed the United States Congress to legislate to
complement our economic development efforts, mainly Section 936, which has been pivotal
Commonwealth as it is: a status based on a bilateral compact, with irrevocable United States
citizenship, fiscal autonomy, international sports representation and cultural identity. In other
words, we described the uniqueness of Puerto Rico and of its relations with the U.S. Those
Based on them, we presented four proposals to further our economic and social development.
These are: reformulation of Section 936, parity in SSI and the Food Stamp Program and
tariff protection for our agriculture. All of these proposals are within the legal and
constitutional framework within which Congress can act. In other words, there are no legal
budgetary constraints. We are also aware of international trade agreements which may
reduce the possibilities within which tariff protection may operate. But if there is the
164
political will and if budgetary constraints were not present, all of these proposals are viable
We are conscious that in the same manner that you may purpose amendments to our
Constitution and it is within our prerogatives to accept or reject them, it is within your
We acknowledge that some people believe that a new plebiscite is the answer to the 1993
plebiscite. Some leaders in Puerto Rico think that we should have plebiscite after plebiscite
until their stams preference wins. And only when that happens, then there will be is an act
of self determination. They are wrong. The people of Puerto Rico already went through an
act of self determination and in a democracy the only response is to abide by the will of the
people.
Other leaders, mostly in the states, in good faith believe in another plebiscite. I must again
state that the answer to the plebiscite is not another plebiscite. Whether the Congress reacts
favorably or not to the 1993 plebescite is not the end of the Commonwealth status. We may
have to continue our long journey, but our will to remain a nation with its own cultural
identity and language, proud of its heritage will not diminish nor fail.
We will follow our quest for further political and economic development. We will face with
courage and determination the rocks on our path with our deep conviction that we shall
165
prevail. Long after all of us have vanished from the public scene, Puerto Rico will still be
Puerto Rico, proud of its own culttiral identity, loyal to the principles of democracy and to its
American citizenship.
17 October 1995
Lx)ngworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
166
of the Internal Revenue Code may have a saving grace, lit serves to highlight -in
an illuminating and dramatic manner- two crucial issues that by far transcend the
In the first place it clearly shows that policy regarding Puerto Rico is being
made, or what is the same, that Congressional action is! taking place that deeply
affects the p>olitical relationship between Puerto Rico anid the United States, and
the economic development perspectives of Puerto Rico irH the short and in the long
run. TTiat these Congressional initiatives will have concjrete policy consequences
is not open to question although today is not the occasion to debate them or their
merits; it seems to mc more important to raise the issu^ of whether the decision
The question of what should be the fiscal relatioiliship between the United
States and Puerto Rico is not one that should be focused solely on budget
balancing considerations as if 936 were merely another t^x break, among so many,
167
for the Fortune 500. It may well be, but that should be the conclusion as opposed
to the premise; and a conclusion arrived at only ajfter having determined that the
policy.
I submit that the question at issue, U.S. tax polidy towards Puerto Rico,
question of what should be the relationship between the HJnited States and Puerto
will then be the classical case of the tail wagging the dog, of policy by default;
The second issue pushed to the fore by the crisis relating to Section 936 and
which should serve as food for thought lo those in Congress who have primary
jurisdiction over Puerto Rico's political status is that the reaction of the Puerto
It is not the differences that stand out, but the common denominator: the
Populares, like some Soviet scientist after the Chernobyl melt down, are surprised
that everyone isn't willing to go back to business as usual. The statehooders like
Governor Rossello have found religion in a special Enterprise Zone with a 60%
168
wage credit for which only Puerto Rico could qualify convinced that at long last
they have found a loophole to the tax uniformity clause itoat will make statehood
realists if nothing else, prefer to put our faith in the time honored tax
arrangements, improved upon if possible, that have worked excellently for our
principal competitors such as Ireland and Singapore, in sjpite of they being higher
States, and that the uniform rules that apply here cannot apply in Puerto Rico
Let this spontaneous and revealing consensus serve as a starting point, as far
the 1993 plebiscite. As to other aspects of the issue, do be sure to have your
response translated into Spanish because seventy five percent of the Puerto Ricans
don't understand English. And, as the long time President of the Puerto Rican
Republicans told Senator Robert Dole recently, if you can't live with that, don't
Legislative Assembly
House of Representatives
The Capitol
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901
Testimony of
The role that you play in this process is essential in order for
the People of Puerto Rico to know the viability of the Commonwealth
formula that garnered a plurality of the votes in the aforementioned
Plebiscite. The need for such a response on your part was
acknowledged by Congressman Don Young on September 30, 1994,
when he said on the House Floor that "[i]t is essential to a meaningful
self-determination process for the United States House and Senate to
provide the people of Puerto Rico a sense of the Congress concerning
the viability of the elements of the [C]ommonwealth formula
171
In such a case, you are the only party in this process who can
provide the basis for a more level playing field; primarily because of
your inherent role in this process, but also because as an institution
you are widely respected by the people of our Island regardless of
their pohtical beliefs.
through this Treaty that Spain ceded to the United States the island
of Puerto Rico, as well as several of the insular possessions in the
Pacific Ocean. More importantly though, the second paragraph of
Article IX of this Treaty recognized that "[t]he civil rights and
political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby
ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress. "^
Thus, Article IX is an acknowledgment of the plenary powers that
Congress has over any territorial possession as determined by the
3
Territorial Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
3 U.S. Const, art. IV, sec. 3, cl. 2. "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of
and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
Property belonging to the United States;..."
''
Organic Act of April 12, 1900, c. 191, 31 StaL 77.
172
For quite a few years nothing much changed, until 1947 when
Congress granted Puerto Ricans the right to elect their own
governor, 'o
6 Id., p. 339.
"^
The Act of Congress of Mar. 2, 1917, c. 145, 39 Stat. 951.
'0 P.L. 362 of August 5, 1947, 61 Stat. 770 (1947); also known as the Elective
Governor Act.
relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. No court has
ever held that the Territorial Clause does not apply to this
relationship, and several cases from the First Circuit after Harris
have reaffirmed that the clause applies.
'5 David M. Helfeld, "Congressional Intent and Attitude Toward Public Law 600:
The Constitution and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico," 21 Rev. Jur. U.P.R. 255
at 307 (1952). Almost identical statements can also be found in Stanley K.
LaughUn, Jr., The Law of United States Territories and Affiliated Jurisdictions,
p.344 (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, 1995), and in the case of United States
V.Sanchez, 992 F. 2d 1 143, 1 152-3 (1 1th Cir. 1993), reh'g en banc denied 3 F.3rd
366 (1993), cert, denied Sanchez v. United States, 1 14 S. Ct 1051 (1994).
'^ Juan R. Torruella, The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico-The Doctrine of
Separate and Unequal, p. 159 (Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, 1985)
(emphasis in the original).
These three options are very important, because they are the
only decolonizing status formulas sanctioned under International
Law. The three subsequent principles in Resolution 1541 (XV) went
on to describe both Free Association and Integration.
" S.B. 320 and H.B. 694, 12th Legislative Assembly, 1st Ordinary Session (1993).
of Puerto Rico will nominate the members of a Commission that shall deal with
the Congress of the United States in order to begin the process that would
provide for the implementation of the will of the people of Puerto Rico. The
names of those who will become members of this Commission shall be
submitted to the Governor by the Party or Group whose status formula won the
Plebiscite. The Governor will establish this Commission by means of an
Executive Order." (unofficial translation)
.
178
was our naive belief that public debate was going to be able
It
2"*
140 Cong Rec. (daily ed. September 30, 1994)
(statement of Rep. Young)
10
180
26 Id., §18.
27 Id., §22.
11
181
to leave behind.
Let us take a look now at the process that was set in motion by
Act. No. 22. Keep in mind that the ballot for the Plebiscite of
November 14 contained three different status alternatives. Yet, none
of the three alternatives asked for a vote in favor of our current
relationship or the status quo. At the same time, it is important to
28 Id., §27.
12
182
Puerto Rico wanted to make certain that such was the case, as more
than fifty percent of the voters rejected the status formula associated
with our current relationship.
13
183
But why would this be so? Do they fear that Congress may
reject many of the provisions that they included in the definition of
their status formula? Let us then look at the definition itself, to see
if we can find any answer there.
It read as follows:
Commonwealth
A vote for Conunonwealth is a mandate in favor of:
Guaranteeing our progress and security as well as that of
our children within a status of full political dignity, based
on the permanent union between Puerto Rico and the
United States embodied in a bilateral pact that cannot be
altered except by mutual agreement.
14
'
184
'
' English version of the Commonwealth fonnula definition presented to the
voters in the Status Plebiscite of November 14, 1993 (unofficial translation).
15
185
16
186
What are the options now, for you and for us?
3* Id
17
187
STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE
CARLOS WeZCARRONDO IRIZARRY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AMD INSULAR AFFAIRS
AND
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
OCTOBER 17, 1995
for Severe Colberg, the House Minority Leader, who could not
Commonwealth formula.
This option of political association was defined in the
C:\WP5I\0099\0099I329
20-766 - 96 - 7
188
The position of the United States for the United Nations has
Nations, and to the people of Puerto Rico that Puerto Rico ceased
1993 plebiscite, now the time has come for the leadership of a
Puerto Rico and favored by the voters in 1993 . Along with the
people of Puerto Rico and the United States, there were four
C:\WMI\0099U)09»I329
189
the people of Puerto Rico and for the future economic development
changes being made in the Congress could have for the economy of
with other countries of the world. The new economic world order
and the new economic realities were that all of the countries of
that we should work together to find ways such as the one that I
C:\WP51\00WV0O991329
190
Puerto Rico and in that way generate the necessary jobs to keep
welfare programs, it's good for Puerto Rico and it's also good
relationship has worked well for the United States and for Puerto
serve well if both parties, the United States Congress and the
Puerto Rico. One of those fundamental tools has been Section 936
C:\WP5I\0099\00991329
191
the world. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity.
C;\WM1\0099\00991329
192
STATEMENT BI
193
Representatives
On November 14, 1993, the people of Puerto Rico expressed
the territory.
into tax sparing treaties with capital exporting nations other than
development tools.
194
over $500 million every year in excess of what they would have to
invitation to abuse.
has pointed out, when our economy enjoyed the full benefits of the
NAFTA, when Puerto Rico had free access to the U.S. market, Puerto
195
Thank you.
196
'Cestimony
of
Miriam J. Ramirez De Ferrer. MP*
before the
Subcommittee On Native American And Insular Affairs
Committee On Resources
and the
Subcommittee On Western Hemisphere
Committee On International Relations
* Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer is president and founder of Puerto Ricans in Civic Action, a non-partisan organization
worlung to secure political and economic equality for the 3.7 million United States citizens resident on the Island.
Since 1982. Dr. Ramirez has spearheaded the lobbying efforts of the group in the U.S. Congress. She was
instrumental in scaling back Section 936 tax exempt benefits in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
Section 936 plays a significant role, and influence, in the political and economic life of Puerto Rico.
Dr.Ramirez a full time Ob-Gyn physician with the Department of Health in Mayaguez.. She and her husband,
Dr.Tomas Ferrer, have seven children.
.
197
Mr. Elton Galeqiv. Mr. Dan Burton, and Mr. Young. Honorable Chairmen of these committees
Members, and friends.
It is an honor to have been invited to testify before this unprecedented joint hearing of these two
subcommittee's which have jurisdiction over Puerto Rico on such a historical issue. commend I
your interest and sincere efforts to address the issue of the self determination of the United
States citizens in Puerto Rico.
This is indeed a historic occasion and given the results of the 1993 status plebiscite, whose
process and ballot options you are reviewing, the committee's findings may well authoritatively
determine the future relationship between the 3.7 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico and the
United States, which has governed us since 1 898.
SUMMARY
1 95% of the voters overwhelming endorsed three principles:
• permanent union with the United States,
• guaranteed American citizenship
• and economic equality with the rest of the fifty states.
3. Section 936 companies influenced workers to vote for commonwealth, which endorsed 936 in
its ballot, by threatening loss of jobs if statehood prevailed.
4. Despite economic extortion, commonwealth, the status quo, was rejected by a majority of
first time in over forty years.
voters for the
5. Congress must set constitutionally definitive ballot guidelines and ground rules for future
status plebiscites whose results will be implemented.
STATEMENT
Far from clouding the issue on status, the island residents in 1993 overwhelmingly endorsed
three principles to govern their future relationship with the U.S. Over 95 percent of our residents
voted for statehood and commonwealth which promised:
• permanent union with the U.S.
• guaranteed American citizenship
• and economic equality with their mainland counterparts.
Arid,upon closer analysis of the independence ballot language, it's clear that all Puerto Ricans
cherish these rights and goals and seek to perpetuate them.
)
198
The plebiscite bill provided for each political party in Puerto Rico to define each status
alternative ( See sample ballot
While the statehood proponent's ballot directly addressed the realization of these goals through
the constitutional process, neither the commonwealth nor the independence language were
legally, politically or economically viable.
It is self-evident that the disingenuous nature of the ballot language set forth by supporters of
They were, and remain, intellectually dishonest attempts to gain voter support through rhetoric^
and pie-in-the-sky promises that have little or no connection with reality.
Indeed, the commonwealth ballot provision was nothing less than a promise of statehood without
the obligations attendant, namely federal taxation. Voters, having been told this lie often enough
and long enough have come to believe, with Congress' acquiescence, that indeed they could
have their cake and eat too! it,
It's utterly disingenuous to capture voter ballots by promising residents a pseudo-Puerto Rican
statehood status by disregarding and riding roughshod over the U.S. Constitution. They can't
have it both ways: self-government with all the benefits of American citizenship; protection and
economic integration without the obligations of federal franchise and federal taxation.
If commonwealth proponents argue, that Puerto Rico represents a nation whose culture and
language is different from the U.S., then they should seek independence.
They renege the responsibilities and loyalties to the United States, and then brazenly demand all
the benefits of American citizens under the United States Constitution, conveniently overlooking
the fact that our Constitution does not provide for divided loyalties.
in this vein the commonwealth party's ballot proposition clearly demonstrated the fiction of
,
Puerto Rican self-rule under the U.S. Constitution by endorsing its enhancement and the
mutuality of interests between the party and Section 936 companies. Calling for 936's extension
was the not so subtle suggestion broadcast, that a vote for status quo was a vote for job security
I
The frKtqjendence Proposition: 1|
The independence proponents were not any less than disingenuous in their ballot language.
Independence promised :
amounted to nothing less, once again, than the proposition of statehood without taxation. Just
under another legalistic rubric.
In essence both of the above ballot provisions promised more than they could deliver. They
pandered to what were thought to be the voter's basest instincts. All the rights and benefits of
statehood without any of the burdens, taxation in general This was not lost on Congress,
following the plebiscite's results.
The only ballot provision that was indeed accurate in its description was statehood. A
straightforward statement of the objective. The fact that it managed to gamer over 46 percent of
the vote against self-serving verbiage enveloped campaign promises and economic
in extortion
is a testament to the integrity of our people and their commitment to American ideals.
Having established the uniformity of interests endorsed by the voters in the 1993 plebiscite, and
explored the fallacious language contained in two of the proposals, would be remiss if did not
I I
touch on the process under which the balloting was conducted The evidence is overwhelming
that corporate powers interested, not in Puerto Rico's future, but in their own bottom lines, found
all too willing allies among commonwealth proponents vktiose own interests lay in political survival
This observation should not come as a surprise to anyone, after all we have seen every election
in Puerto Rico influenced by Section 936 In league with the Commonwealth proponents. Section
936 companies regularly threaten employees with job losses, plant relocation's or automation,
every time ballots are cast pitting commonwealth supporters against statehood or independence
proponents
Further, thesesame resources are mobilized every time Section 936 is examined by Congress.
Our newspapers run full page company ads, letter writing campaigns are instigated, marches
organized, both in Puerto Rico and the mainland, again brandishing the same threats change if
And, these threats are not made in a vacuum. Hand in hand are the commonwealth advocates
who place 936's continued existence at their disposal, in arguing against any changes in the
status quo. Their party platform incorporates 936 as the economic backbone of our island, and
their opponents are targeted as anti-labor.
Not unlike the sugar barons who opposed Hawaiian statehood, the 936 companies with their
annual $4 billion tax breaks had a large stake and financial motivation to oppose any changes in
the status quo that would threaten their taxpayer financed corporate welfare handouts. Similarly,
the lifebiood of commonwealth, a constitutionally flawed mirage of bi-lateralism, elevated
expediency and politics above principle. The survival of each was and is dependent on
maintaining the status quo.
Therein lies their mutual admiration and interdependence To witness these forces acting in
unison requires little imagination. All throughout the 1993 plebiscite campaign the 936
companies operating independently and under the umbrella of their lobbying organization, the
Puerto Rico USA Foundation, ran ads, letter writing campaigns and financed employee actions
aimed at preserving 936 which, coincidentally, was under fire from the Clinton administration.
Taking to the floors of 936 factories they preach to the converted the economic consequences
that would befall them and their employers should the opposition gain power or the status quo
changed Such efforts were not lost on employees, who were told that changes in 936 might
mean plant closings and relocations and increased automation leading to job losses. The ads
and company rhetoric reported daily in island newspapers hammered these themes home even to
the most naive among us.
Nor was it lost on these same employees voting in the plebiscite, that the commonwealth ballot
specifically endorsed, not just the retention of 936, but its extension. It did not take a degree in
:
201
political science to connect the dots: voting for the status quo, e.. commonwealth was the only
i ,
way to protect jobs.There could be no mistake that the connection between 936, commonwealth
and the status quo was Inseparable.
Iask, how can supporters of the status quo claim legitimacy from this tainted ballot process? My
response: Under these conditions it was nothing less than a miracle that economic extortion
coupled with political demagoguery failed to carry the day by a majority vote. Commonwealth, for
the first time, was rejected 51 percent of the voters
It is best summarized by Senator Simon and Representative Young who concluded that
"
the winning enhanced commonwealth promises were neither politically, economically,
nor constitutionally viable".
(The same could just as easily have been said of independence had it prevailed.)
• statehood is the only legal, politically and economically viable option which provides the
singular vehicle to achieve this end.
• Commonwealth was rejected by 51 % of the voters:
But miracles do not happen in a vacuum Most Puerto Rican voters are politically and
economically savvy enough to recognize a con job when they see one. They know that their
future and that of their children, in fact all future generations of Puerto Ricans, is inexorably tied
to a permanent relationship with the U.S. And that relationship can only be based on sharing in
the benefits and obligations of full citizenship and full participation in the constitutional processes
that provide the basis of the American dream.
They need to know that the current status quo, a veritable limbo situation in which Puerto Rico is
neither fish nor fowl, with respect to its has undermined their desire to be
political legitimacy,
equal citizens of the United States, politically and economically. They need to understand that,
so long as they are excluded from the national political process that provides representation in
Washington, they will also be denied equal economic opportunities, equal participation in federal
programs and equal voice in their own destinies.
PLEBISCITE LESSONS
The only status option constitutionally, politically and economically viable that ensures the
achievement of Puerto Rican's goals, as indicated in the 1993 plebiscite, is statehood. Both
commonwealth and independence are long on rhetoric but, all too knowingly, unable to deliver on
their promises.
Given the circumstances surrounding the plebiscite, and the ballot language options, both of
which prejudiced the outcome, what should committee members and the American public
202
conclude from the 1993 vote and what expectations should they anticipate coming from the
Puerto Rican people?
It's self-evident that the issue of Puerto Rican status w/ill not go avi-ay Equally compelling is the
conclusion that with the inevitable phase-out of Section 936. economic interests will no longer
play a significant role, as they have in the last 25 years, in thwarting the self-deterministic views
of the Puerto Rican people, by threatening their livelihoods if they vote against the status quo.
936 tax credits and nearly 100 years of American rule, all that can be said is that our average
standard of living is better than Haiti'sl
or delay an authoritative resolution of the destiny of America's longest held territory and its 3.7
million US. citizens.
Allow me to remind you that Puerto Rico has been a U.S. possession, subject to the Territorial
Clause of the US Constitution since 1898, w/hich has been interpreted by the courts in the
Insular cases to mean that Congress has sole authority to determine how the island is governed
Although this authority has been clear for nearly 100 years, a myth has been perpetuated that
Congress and Puerto Rico's United States citizens can bypass the clear language of these laws
and interpretations to grant self-governing authority to Puerto Rico. This fiction is the basis of the
'commonwealth' arrangement entered into in 1952.
Puerto Rico, after nearly one hundred years of American rule, remains one of the last of the
world's colonies That it is maintained and countenanced by the West's bastion of self-
determination and democracy exacerbates the hypocrisy That this is self-evident is readily
gleaned from both the Treaty of Paris in which Spain ceded Puerto Rico, the Territorial Clause of
the U.S. Constitution and numerous judicial interpretations in the Insular cases.:
Clause
Territorial
'The Congress shall have Powers to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations
respecting the Territory, or other property belonging to the US" (Article IV, Section 3, CI. 2)
Treaty of Paris
'The civil rights and the political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby cede to
the United States shall be determined by Congress." (Article XI, Para 2).
Insular Cases
203
'Yet this body, Congress and many in P. R. all of wfiom should know better, have for over forty
years perpetuated a fiction that the supreme law of the land and court rulings related thereto,
self-evident on their face, can be circumvented to serve narrow political and economic objectives.
At a time when America has beenhailed as the champion of democracy and self-determination,
the conqueror of evil empires and the tribune leading newly freed peoples, its not too much to ask
that its elected representatives set a world example closer to home. We cannot expect the world
to blindly follow our lead when the same rights and freedoms we pledge to others are denied to
citizens here.
Puerto Ricans have fought for America in every war since 1917 - and made the supreme
sacrifice defending freedom abroad They have the right, they've earned it, to finally know if,
when and how, they can achieve final equality with other citizens and with the fifty states.
It is incumbent upon Congress to let us know where we stand. It's not enough after nearly 100
years to tell us that the United States is unwilling or unable to define the conditions for our entry
into the union or for independence. It's not enough to go on with the charade of commonwealth -
- a political status not dissimilar to an emperor without any clothes.
Unless and until Congress assumes its responsibilities, Puerto Ricans will continue to be subject
to status proponents that promise the sky with never any possibility of delivering anything.
Secondly, it's not enough to even set the parameters for status selection. Congress must also
agree to abide by the legitimately aspired results If a majority of voters select one of the feasible
status alternatives, Congress must assent in advance, to its expeditious implementation.
OthenA/ise this body will be no more responsible than those on our island who offer empty
promises.
This means, of course, that whatever hurdles are inherent in any of the propositions, they must
be cleared prior to a status vote. Each status option and its language, if that choice becomes the
voter's own, must be reviewed with a view toward Congressional implementation, through the
appropriate legislation.
In the case of independence, for example, Congress may state under what on-going political and
economic relations it might grant Puerto Rico its complete autonomy. However, Puerto Ricans
should be under no illusion that such conditions are anything but general guidelines and be
forewarned that any and all negotiations to that end will only take place after a Puerto Rican vote,
since one Congress can't bind another.
As commonwealth, Congress must be honest with our people and let them know just what the
for
and various treaties have said about such an arrangement's efficacy. If
Constitution, the courts
we want complete autonomy within the U.S. orbit, it's an impossibility If we want veto power over.
Finally, if we truly believe we are a nation apart, we can't pledge allegiance to the U.S. and the
flag for which it stands. There is no room or accommodation under the American flag fortwo
.
204
loyalties even though there is, Indeed, room to accommodate and protect the cultural differences
of the great mosaic that is at once both the strength and attraction of the US
And statehood is to be the choice, then Congress owes us the duty to admit P R as the fifty-
if
first stateDiscussions about language and cultural differences, party orientation, economic
assistance, geography and other distinctions -- without a difference - must be resolved
beforehand And, candidly, they have been resolved favorably in previous instances where
putative states bearing similar challenges to national uniformity were deemed fit to enter the
union
These committees, charged with oversight over our island territory, must begin the final
authoritative dialog that leads Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans to a final and conclusive closure of
the relationship between the island and Washington which has been its ruler since 1898. is a It
large and historic responsibility and one which congress, the mainland American people and the
3.7 million U.S. citizens of our island can no longer shirk.
We look to you to find the facts and set the policies that will help us chart our course It was for
these hard decisions that you were elected You should look to us to make the ultimate decision
that will determine whether after nearly 100 years of American rule we will finally embrace union
with the new world's leader, or set sail on our own independent course. This is the hard decision
we must make under definitive guidelines; It is one we are prepared to make after 500 years of
colonial status.
CONCLUSIONS
1 that the circumstances under which the 1 993 plebiscite was held, and the ballot
provisions describing two of the status options were so contaminated by external coercive
factors and pie-in-the-sky promises as to be so fatally flawed, so to render the results null
and void.
2. ...any future plebiscite must be free of both misleading ballot provisions and any
intervention by economic interests committed to the status quo who can use the workplace
to coerce job holders to vote not on principle but for principal.
3. ...it is clear that Puerto Ricans legally have only two legal status choices, statehood or
independence They must decide which will provide the democratic guarantees they have
fought for and the economic opportunities they deserve.
4. Congress also has only two choices with respect to the future relationship of the U.S.
with Puerto Rico;
• a legal obligation to recognize the reality that there is no middle ground between Puerto
.
205
It is clear that the 1993 plebiscite was null and void with respect to determining the will of the 3.7
millionPuerto Ricans, all American citizens, who reside in the United State's oldest territory, the
100 year old colony of Puerto Rico.
RECOMENDATIONS
1 Congress should establish the policy that Statehood or Independence are Puerto Rico's only
options.
The myth of commonwealth, an extra-legal fabrication, foisted upon 3.7 million U.S. citizens was
created to whose benefit ?
• Commonwealth serves political interests in Puerto Rico who covet power more, than
serving the interests of its constituencies: without this fiction they would be
powerless.
• Finally, commonwealth serves Section 936 companies economic interests since any
change in Puerto Rico's status would end the tax credit: without this fiction the $3-
$4 billion in annual tax credits extracted from the U.S. Treasury would be lost.
But Washington must not abdicate its responsibilities even under this enlightened approach. It
must come to grips with constitutional reality and recognize that commonwealth is a myth and tell
chosen. Congress is morally obligated to grant statehood, the last imprimatur of parity with the
fifty states, having bestowed citizenship and demanded of us the supreme saaifice in five wars.
206
Correspondingly, we have earned that star No American territory has remained a colony as
long as Puerto Rico, without obtaining entry into the union No United States citizens have given
so much of their commitment to the US
constitution for so long and yet have remained second
class citizens in their own land
If Congress is unwilling, by its overt actions over the past 100 years, to abide to a decision of the
Puerto Rican people, through a process of self determination, to seek entry into the union, then
we must prepare to go it alone We have earned the right to a fifty-first star. Congress has held
It out, there must be no reneging on that promise.
Make no mistake !
• Congress by refusing in 1993 to level with the Puerto Rican people as to what rights and
obligations were entailed in their status options, evaded its constitutional responsibilities
under the Territorial Clause
• As a pre-condition for that status plebiscite, and for any others in the future, it must clearly
enunciate what every first year law student knows to be true:
4. There is no middle ground between statehood and independence unless you're for
colonization
And. Congress must say in no uncertain terms that it will abide by the results. Unless Congress
is willing to categorically state that it will seriously entertain Puerto Rican statehood if that's what
the voters decide, to have us go through another plebiscite is an empty gesture and an exercise
in futility.
It goes without saying that any future plebiscite must truly reflect the freely determined will of the
voters, having cast their ballots according to matters of conscience To assure that end,
influence from corporations whose tax exemption is tied to the status of Puerto Rico must be
eliminated both tacitly and factually from the self determination process.
Further, during the transition from Section 936 to the new economic stimulus package, corporate
and individual contributions on behalf of any economic interest must be prohibited in any political
campaign or plebiscite involving the island's status. Only in this manner can voters freely exercise
their right to determine which, if any, status option is appropriate.
Section 936, an economic failure, must be replaced with an economic development plan along
the lines suggested by Representative Young: enterprise zones, wage credits, full federal
program parity and taxation of island residents.
The truth be told that Section 936 has been an economic failure It has neither created the jobs
nor the industries to drive Puerto Rico's economic development. The 936 companies
207
acknowledge as much when they claim economic success, at a price of $4 billion a year in
taxpayer dollars, by comparing Puerto Rico's per capita income to that of Haiti' At a cost to the
U.S. Treasury of $70 billion since 1973 one would expect that Puerto Ricans would enjoy a
standard of living better than half Mississippi's, but that is not the case.
Thus, we are pleased that the House Ways and Means Committee has determined to end
Section 936. Thus, 936 companies will not have an interest in preserving the status quo and
elections will be free of the economic coercion that has distinguished past contests and
influenced workers in their choice of status options.
However, we recognize the need to provide for an orderly economic transition from Section 936
tonew development options. Congress should look closely at one such proposal that
Representative Young has talked of introducing.
in exchange for 936 he would phase-in full state-like programs and encourage
for Puerto Rico
private sector growth through capital grants for infrastructure development and through private
and non-profit enterprise funding to spur new industries.
Young's proposal also subjects island residents to federal taxation. Combined with the $3 billion
savings from the 936 tax credit, the U.S. Treasury would see no diminution in revenues. Nor will
Puerto Rican's see any change in their tax burden as program costs are shifted to Washington.
During the transition period, to assure that 936 companies remain neutral. Congress should pass
legislation prohibiting hard or soft dollar corporate contributions to status plebiscite campaigns in
Puerto Rico. Any use of corporate funds or services or facilities or materials should be
prohibited, either directly or indirectly, to one or more parties to the contest or in any way
independent of such parties to influence the outcome of any such vote.
With 936 reformulated, Puerto Rico will enjoy dynamic new economic growth that will prepare it
fora new plebiscite, in wrfiich either statehood or independence will be the sole options. Without
the influence of 936 economic interests, the people of Puerto Rico will finally be abie to freely
express their wills and choose the option of statehood that best fulfills the status to which they
have aspired, earned and been promised.
Thank you..
12
.
208
Supplemental Sheet
SUMMARY
1. Voters ovenvhelming endorsed three principles: permanent union with the
United States, guaranteed American citizenship and economic equality with
the rest of the fifty states.
2. Commonwealth and Independence ballot language were constitutionally and
politically unattainable, as they promised statehood without its obligations.
3. Section 936 companies influenced workers to vote for commonwealth, which
endorsed 936 in its ballot, by threatening loss of jobs if statehood prevailed.
4. Despite economic extortion, commonwealth, the status quo, was rejected by
a majority of voters for the first time in over forty years.
5. Congress must set constitutionally definitive ballot guidelines and ground
rules for future status plebiscites whose results will be implemented.
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX
or
TESTIMONY
OF
of Committee on Resources
and the
P.0.B0B 5115
Mayaguez J>.R.oo68i
210
Status
definitions
STATEHOOD
211
fitciiv
V57
^OPUL^R DEMOCRATIC PARTY
riNANCtOrFICE
0««r
Th* euccoo; of the upcoal n« Mov«mber « election* In rxierto
aios c«n b«! • wat*rih«4 lor coapAalas with oparatlno subcKllarloa
.
en Cka i aland. y^
i/
>« yOT fcw. tfte prerwnt t»» taegntl** projraw. both uixler *"
loca l 1.^ »'"«'' «' "^Jt s5 9U of the T BS at.tut««. .,. p ir:;-.-
T»«>.? tr.c«nti.«. ar« the kay to yaur bot rdm "
Hna raaviUa In
ruartorrlcan oparatlons.
Popular Oeoocritlc Party 1« coinoitted to the contl-
Tfce
nt«r=« of Con»on«calth atat.ia. H« fe-1 th*t conp.nlea
«lth
rating aulialdlartea kere der:>r»e the industrial and ao-l«l ope-
ellaatf. ol orier and atablJlty. aa veil aa the
alnccre. hon«.ct:
«ov«rnaent aupport traditional under Popular Oai*o=ratlc
cdnlnls-
cracloa* stnca Operation Boetatrap.
u* are reqaersln^ contributlsnc from coBpanlea.
executlvaa.
•ad oiser lntareat<d iDdtviduals to help tha Popular Demoeratte
Partj' oairay the esat ot winning tt>a opcomlnfl
etcctlona. Th«
ratara of Rjfa^l NernXndei Ccl6n to tha govaraorch Ip. couplal
"Its 9ur already etaar •ajorlty In tha Sanata and Houaa of
?«prnscntat|v«c. will ensure tl\i 7raaarvatton of a prospereuc
totltical cllaat* lor yoor company.
fvartorrlean law allgwa conpanles a* veil mm Individuals to
d«na(9 up to ai, 300.00 each to a political party or candidate
durlr.) an election yoar.
Si tf ce rely yoMr
^ON LA ESTADIDAD
ESTADOUBREASOCIADO
*^
Ji
O t-1 3
•^ U
*> U
.
S
u £
*^
« *>
m x> 3
LOMEJORDEDOSMUNDOS «
9 e
S
c
an e
S« i
5(^*3^
M CongresQ bdvlrtib que.
i 100,000 EMPLEADOSdeBripresas 936;
1^ jSe quedqran eh la carie!
Sobr© 3,500 empleos y sobre 590 mnionei
ya se han visto afectados por cierres y cancelaci6n de proyoctos,
debido a la dmenaza de la estadidad.
iAtERTAI
JU EMPiEO
PELiGRA
1
214
Over 3,500 jobs and more than $90 million have already been
affected by closings and cancellation of projects, due to the
threat of statehood.
t
I
216
aK^ <M
^
• 2
• «
^
1
o
217
LA ESTAblDAD
TECUESTA
IMPUESTOS FEDERALES QUI
PAGARAS BAJO LA ESTADIDAD*
gaselina
218
Vote Commonwealth
219
Not to Re
mC Section
NEW YORK POST ELDIARIO/LAPRENSA
New York. NY NewYotKNY
June Jun» 13. 1993
13, 1993
"„. Gov, Cuomo wtmed "-. the ihOne of the Pijrade
tbtl people who relied on this yfcar - Puerto Rieo'i
jobs that are tied to Section QniTuiBnleanial - was.
-
inlanid, particularly .
. .r-ttanrtuEvdDiX'.i
. wewYorli." " '
20-766 - Qfi _ ft
220
primaril)' on llght,labof '^tensive manufacturing. We know ofno community that ftas effected such
a reversal of its eoonomlc evolutioiv
^
• Snce the isld-(evei\lies.S^iTUtUonAR«i<c«t\c\tluMo( Puerto Rico have ItwRasinglyeommltted
their human and iitfrastruciure resources to sophisticated, krtowledge-intenalve industrJca. This
was net a whimstcal choice. Thi very togic o( oui dTvelopmem proceii, with rising labor cMtt «nd
^O
dramatic improvements In our human resources, led naturally in this direction. Now, we caniwt ^
rvnouixcc the dynamic betwllts that come from being at the iotciront of Mw technologies and
competitive new products.
Treasury has not prepared an in-depth study of the impact its proposals will have
on the Puerto KJco economy. Treasury's statements on the sul^ect are not founded
on an analysis of the importaiuie of Section 936 to the Puerto Rico economy. 936
CQiporaticjns generate, directly and indirectly, 45% of private employment in Puerto
Blco, pay half of all corporate taxes, and hold one-third of total deposits in 6\t bank-
ing system.
Studies and surveys conducted in Puerto Rico indicate 0\at )ob losses caused by the
Admiiustration's proposals would ran^ between 55,000 and 100,000 representing .
between 8% and 14% of all private-sector en^loyir^nt. These number* bofl down
to many Puerto Rican families whose well-b(dj\g depends on the outcome of Ais
process.
The economic system based on Section 936 provides benefits to both Puerto Rico
and the United States, and is a key element in the Puerto Rico/U5. partnership.
The proposed changes to Section 936 are not merely an increnuntal adjustment in
taxes, but a radical change in our economic structure. Sound policy making re-
quires a fuD understanding of the derivative effects of such a change.
222
'. ^fl, L
Doiiii-;
b MILLION
^mi:ki(ans
LI VI -WHO
MAvmr.r.N
/\i^KrL)TO
SACRinci-
rur.Mosr
jvinnu-s.
} I
mEASUKY? Puerto Rico >i
«
.i*=s-:
Puerto Rico, whn* S^ mmion RsidcnU art Puerto Rieans arc proud and determined to '. a
American ciUzent by biilK Wher« i modem foonomy equally share the burden of saoifioe. Aut removing
has been buUl bated on monu/actu> the nndeiplnning of the Island's
ing, tourism and more. Today, Puerto economy without providingan
'
Rico hast the itrongest, most vibrant sde^ate alternative ia unfair and
economy in the regioa unbalaoeed. No other tingle
Kow dJd this happen? group of Americans Is being
Mo>tty through hard worV. but alto ksked to stmiltrly sacrifice.
[ii)l | Mt—tlltti lmMW.NimUmUXA. f m ^llii.lmi1^l «/ m iAmmln lmalHimllm. Uattn iflkiftmUmfimt tv t BtCiilt tt^tmtlm
it
m H Nri — tt n liii^^—«»
{ t
C-O MI1III
II
iimmffit»i''^ii< *• i»ii>
iillli li ir.liiii HH OMfa.1
i
C un
n lil.l»«<*i>i-«»« » r i»i< C wii« n l— H i»i.i<«—*>
ii i i
I I
i
i<
i i. li
i
i i II
'
,
m
i i
ip i i i
----
.
Preocupados por nuestro futuro, los empleados de The Upjohn Manufacturing Company
estamos atentos a los eventos relacionados con la Secci6n 936 del C6digo de Rentas
Intemas Federal. La informacidn que recibimos indica que la posici6n y estrategia actual
de nuestro Gobiemo es la de no participar activamente en esfuerzos dirigidos a apoyar
esia secci6n. Nos preocupa el efecto que puede tener esta posici6n sobre los Congresistas
de los Estados Unidos.
y maquinarias. Puerto Rico aportb su mejor recurso; la gente. A travfe de estos aiios esta
relacidn ha producido frutos, no s6]o en aspectos econbmicos, sino tambi^n en otros
renglones que han colocado a nuestra Isia en el mapa de la manufactura de clase mundial.
Sabemos que nuestro Gobiemo esti consciente de que la industria local compite dia
a dfa con la extranjera para mantenerse competitiva mundialmente. En Upjohn estamos
comprometidos con el mejoramiento continuo de nuestra competitividad para conver-
tirnos en un suplidor de rango mundial. Sin embargo, aun con el talento y la fuerza
trabajadora altamente capacitada con que contamos, estamos luchando por competir en
iguaidad de condiciones con otros paises,'los cuales estin ofreciendo incentivos similares
mejores a los ofrecidos por nosotros.
Seiior Gobernador, Puerto Rico no es la unica opci6n para los empresarios de las compaAias
acogidas a Jos benericios de esta Secci6n. Para nosotros, los miles de puertorriqueiios
que dependemos directa o indirectamente de ella, s61o nos queda unir nuestias voces y
pedirle una vez mis a aquellos que recibieron nuestra confianza para fegir nuestros
destines, que se defienda en fonra en^rgica y proactiva ante el Congreso este estatuto
para continuar con el desarrollo econdmico de nuestro pueblo.
Cordialmente,
224
U.S. manufactureis operating in Puerto Rico. It may loon be in • 7 Engineetii\g'ar>d Pharmacy, Salvation Army, Partrtership for
•- Drug-Free Puerto Rico, Ponce School of Medicine, Junior
further jeopardy if new legislation is proposed.
--
*
essential to
leadlny .
~'lf <
- '";*::
local cotiununity oiganhatiotu.
In 1994, Schering-Plough's direct contributions to the local times the annual fixed investment, we must have operating
economy were: ccMiIinuitv .
Our Puerto Rico subsidiaries, Schering-Plough Products Inc. Pleiae help at maintain our productive partnership with
and Scherinj;- Plough del Caribe
Inc., also promote economic
growth between the U.S. mainland economy atKJ Puerto Rico
through:
$75 million per year in purchases by these operations from
U.S. mainljnd suppliers, including Schering-Plough facilities.
John E. Nine
Our suppon of Puerto Rican business aivd civic organitations President -Technical Operations
includes: Schering-Plough Cbtpotation ,
Op9 Schering-Plcxjgh
225
iltV^- r-
"'
^l?"'-;^ .
Open Letter
.;
;'
: TO THE Honorable Pedro Rossell6, Governor of Puerto Rico
'
.jj' *^ i>ar Governor IUmkII6: .
^ The cnntct debatt on Scctkm 936 his gtncntEd a 6ood of ittacki tnd Sn orted dan about the phannacnitica] indunry in Pucno Rko.
. , V^ are deeply coocanocd with the antagonism and Ul-will against our firms and our employees that are fonered by these irrc^Kxwble and unfounded allcptwm.
1b the tpuit of tetnng forth the true facts about our role in Puerto Rico's aodety and economy, we hereby wish to apiain our pocitian regarding certain inua.
J, :»*;.-
:« - sEcnoN936 ;:
|'..*!V',6u/orgtaixation and our member companies have not, r^eat, NOT, cndoned the ahcrmtrn plans proposed by the government and ochcn ts sobithuta for
^ ScakM 936. We firmly bcUrve thai Section 936, despite having been diluted by the 1993 amciHlmcna, u ftij] better than th^
far bidustria] dewelopment on the taland and we stand firm in our suppon of retaining the iiKcnbvcs it ofkn
JOBS
^•^ It B'lncdrrea and misleading of pubUc opinion to state that our high-capitalizabon Indusry has failed to generate an adequate number of fobs in Puerto Rico. The
ha u that, fu beyond the many and high-salaried jobs we create in our plants, many thousands of additional jobs as well as many entrepreneurial opportunities - are
-
' -
directly attributable to our purchase ofa wide vahery of goods and services from Puerto Ricao suppliers. Many thou^^dsofotherjoba arc crated in the aervice sector -
,'j.It is tocaDy Uae to tate, ts aome have daimcd, that our industry pays no or tnsufBdcnt fixes. The truth b that jun the PlA-mcmbcr pharmaeeiitical companies 4.
*
iloew account for oearty SSOO million ip taics to the Commonwealth, including income, toD-gatc and municipal license taxes. This is more than any other ^lecific
mctor of Puerto Rico's economy, as the Secretary of the Treasury can well arteii .***
WCT^ tj la
« It b absolutely false toccatc.as several influential persons have done, thai our industry has financed any pobtica) car.iidate's campaign or in any way coerced the
' '
^^•employeet of any firm to vote in any given manner. We reqiea every individual's right to express his or her opinion on political and other matters, but do not eiKourage
~ «ich expressions within the work environment. Any financial contributions our members may make to polibcal entities are stricdy voluntary and within the legal limits \
that aflect all such contributions.
ECONOMICS . - , .
«»»
•^' PhahnaccuDcal companies do not "take money away" fiom Puerto Rico They BRING
ccocwmic activity to fhierto Rico by carrying oor manu&cairing activity
'on the t^and and expornng their products to world markea The money they *^take away" is the gross profit that remains after deducting opcraoona) expenses, which \'
include very consdenble salaries to our Puerto Rican worken ($836 million in 1994), taxes (S479 million in 1994) and other cons of goods and services purchased
(more than $613 million in 1994) This b an entirely Icgiomare
locally activity a/uJ many other jurisdictions around the world envy Piicrto Rjco's success in having
/ developed such a significant manufacturing base.
- . SmXS 'T*:-^^- ^
- -^ By Dealing job opportunities in high skill categories, our industry has contributed ngnificandy to the growth in Puerto Rko oft brgc cadre of higMy trained '
-'
icchn»ctans, profcabonals, managers and scientists, who collectively contribute importantly to enhance the quality of life in the community and many of whom, having
; acquired experience in our plants, now consiirute the core ofa growing locally-owned ipdusonal and service sector.
':
'C.".f \
~ • COMMUNTTT .
Our member comparties are good corporate dtix«ns and actively support many important community organizatiom that serw'PuertD Rioo and recciw a mbctiniial r
'
pvt of their funds from us. Donations to community organixations by our nKmbcn amounted to approximately $4.7 million in 1994.
•' PERMANENCE
%r^.
b abscdutety frJae stkI misleading to state, as many pcraons in tnflttcntial positions have vtated, thai our industry "criea wolT* about hs pennaneocc in Puerto Rjco
It
'
bn that finv or none left after the 1993 revisions of Section 936 corroborates that point. Our industry plans for the kmg term, as docs any highly
and that the
' capttaliicd activity. We decide on manufacturing new products or investing in new fadbties in Pucno Rico on the basb of the kwg-tcrm profit expectation of doing so
hat versus elsewhere. It b obvious that the loss of tax incentives will admiely affect Puerto Rico's long-range proq>cco as a manufacturing site, panicularty in the
context of an ever more open global economy where many options are aggrcsDvcty cffei ed. While no company will turn sway owmight from an costing multi-million
.
^ doUar investment, it can and must change its plaru for expansion and scckmon favoraUe environmcno for io future activity. Tax incentives an a very important factor -;
We rc^tectfiilly pur these truths beft>R you m an cffon to convey the gravity of our cooeem regarding the mbconceprio ns and outright falaehocxls that have been ,
t Bpouruled pubUcly by several persons in influential pocitions We ask that in arriving at your cTwn conclusions r^arding the issues surrounding the Section 936 debate, .
which we bcbeve b vital to our and Pueno Rico's future, you consider these truths as here stated.
Sincerely,
.^A^^
W. Barry Smith • Pntidnt
226
OUTLOOK
to the 1930s, when the country was owned by the great sugar
plantations that controlled the land, the politics and the colonial
that the more we approach the future, the more we are submerged in
the past. The more we become free, the more we are enslaved.
the future.
to the pill factories. From Puerto Rico Sugar to Lederle, Inc. From
the Sugar Barons to the holy Industrial Boys of the politics of the
ostrich.
After all has been said and written about this primary, it
Barceld, or whether the PDP once again routed the NPP, or whether
equal under the law, there cannot be entities that are more equal
is the same government that not so long ago was in bed with tt 3se
corporations in local politics, are the same rulers who have not
Puerto Rico.
If the NPP fails to learn this lesson, it will get the same
and federal funds are taken away from the people. Incredible, but
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
U.S.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
TESTIMONY OF
JOSE ANTONIO CASILLAS
AND
EMILIO A. SOLER MARI
CO-CHAIRS
OF
CAMBIO XXI
A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
ON
THE FUTURE OF PUERTO RICO
We appear before you today to propose to your Committees that —in fulfillment of the popular
willof 53% of the electorate in Puerto Rico in the plebiscite held on November, 1993— the Congress
of the United States enact by legislation a BILATERAL COMPACT between Puerto Rico and the
United States, as a result of a consensus of ideas and will, towards the 21" Century.
There is an ample precedent for the approval of such BILATERAL COMPACT in the
decolonization of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, in the
Pacific.
This would be the only democratic, moral and proper response, to the results of the aforestated
exercise in self-determination by the people of Puerto Rico, undertaken in the exercise of their "right
to petition for the redress of grievances", as clearly stated in the Plebiscite Law of 1993.
The definition of the alternative that won a plurality of 48% of the votes in the plebiscite asked
for the adoption of such a BILATERAL COMPACT between Puerto Rico and the United States, so
that our people can develop its fiiture by their own means and resources.
Working Group on Puerto Rico on the Future of Puerto Rico, at their oflBces, on June 22, 1995.
CAMBIO XXI was founded on September 23, 1994 as a non-profit non-governmental civic
organization to promote education on the political relationship between Puerto Rico and the United
States. On October 4, 1994, its 40 founders signed a PETITION to the White House and the
Congress that is included in our single Attachment.
232
States based on the new BILATERAL COMPACT prepared by economists in PROELA to-
wards a self-suflBcient economy in harmony with the United
States; as well as an analysis by one of our members of public opinion polls showing that voters
prefer civic organizations to make proposals to implement the plebiscite results; and also a public
information plan prepared by our Executive Director Mr. David Ortiz, all directed to implementa-
tion of the vote.
We also include an analysis of the 1993 plebiscite published in the prestigious journal Current
History in its of March, 1994 prepared by our political analyst Juan M. Garcia Passalacqua,
edition
that we suggest should be included in the Congressional Record for the information of members of
Congress.
We are not here to attack others, but only to propose legislation to implement the option that
won the plebiscite. It is an autonomous status founded on a bilateral compact outside of the Terri-
torial Clause of the Constitution of the United States. At present, it is the only solution that is
Summit of the Americas in Miami in 1994, to which CAMBIO XXI was invited as an
In the
observer group, new economic strategies were adopted for the Hemisphere. Measures such as the
elimination of restrictions in the maritime shipping laws have begun to be considered, and we favor
them. Yet, the goals of the Summit can only be achieved succesfuUy in the case of Puerto Rico by
our sovereign insertion in the global economy through a BILATERAL COMPACT with the United
States.
Our proposed BILATERAL COMPACT would also comply with the requirements of Ameri-
can constitutional law as well as with the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations General As-
sembly and with the 1978 Resolution of the Decolonization Committee.
We are certain that understanding and generosity will prevail, and that consensus will be achieved
to implement the BILATERAL COMPACT we hereby propose by all sectors of civil society in
Puerto Rico.
We assure you of this consensus because our proposal is the result of innumerable consulta-
tions with persons of all ideologies, outside of formal or traditional party affiliations. That is the
strengh of a fourth alternative brought to you by our non-governmental organization, CAMBIO
XXI
The alternative is rooted on a consensus ground of the three mayor political currents for the
last two centuries; autonomic, independentist and annexationist. Puerto Rico has had a rich internal
democratic history in which all these three alternatives have been discussed and considered and is
We are accompanied here by other members of our Board of Directors, with specific expertise
in each one of the areas under oversight by your Committees, and they are able and ready to answer
any questions your may have on our proposals.
We thank you for the invitation to appear before you on this historic occasion for our people.
We are ready for questions.
^TTPPLEMENTAL SHEET
The full names of those persons offering testimony are Former Judge Jose Antoruo Casillas
and Attorney Emilio Soler Mari, with address at 1850 Fernandez Juncos Avenue, Santurce, Puerto
Rico, and/or Box 5734, Santurce, Puerto Rico, 00906-5734. Our telephone number is (809) 268-
4200, Fax (809) 268-3660.
Cambio XXI proposes that in fulfillment of the popular will of 53% of the electorate in
Puerto Rico in the plebiscite held on November, 1993 —the Congress of the United States enact by
legislation a BILATERAL COMPACT between Puerto Rico and the United States. Cambio XXI,
in its Attachment, includes a specific proposal of eighteen (18) pages as a suggested working paper
for said BILATERAL COMPACT to be adopted by the House of Representatives and Senate of the
United States and sent to the President for his signature and enactment, as a response to the petition
of the people of Puerto Rico.
PROELA
RO. Box 2864
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902
On November 14, 1993, Puerto Ricans voted for the development of their
present status, the Estado Libre Asociado, through a "bilateral compact that can only
be amended by mutueil consent."
The main issue the wirming definition addressed was that of the applicability
of the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution to Puerto Rico. The voters clearly
expressed their desire that Puerto Rico not be subjected to Congress' plenary powers
under that clause.
A compact is a contract between equals. Territories cannot make
bilateral
bilateralcompacts with the federal goverment. Puerto Rico's aspirations for
mutuality and prosperity, along with its strong desire to affirm its national identity,
make this type of arrangement a perfect vehicle for its future relations with the
United States.
To this day, the U.S. has entered into a couple of bilateral compacts. Contrary
to the commonwealth arrangement, these compacts are comprehensive documents
that delegate specific powers to the federal goverment, instead of general ones.
When adopted for Puerto Rico, the bilateral compact will give stability and
permanence to Section 936 benefits by including them within its terms. Reductions
to incentives will only occur if they are part of a mutual agreement that substitutes
them "with benefits substantially equivalent to such reductions."
There is no legal or constitutional impediment to the inclusion of a
provision in the bilateral compact that preserves the U.S. citizenship of all persons
bom in Puerto Rico.
The adoption of a bilateral compact will solve the problems that the status
quo creates for Puerto Rico and the United States. Confusion, dependence and
uncertainty will give way to political dignity, self-sufficiency and stability. Puerto
Rico <md the United States must reach the twenty-first centviry with a relationship
that is mutually beneficial and a credit to the democratic aspirations and idecds of
both nations. A bilateral compact is the best way to achieve this goal.
236
PROELA
P.O. Box 2864
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902
Puerto Rican, federal and international forums for the development of the current
political status within the context of a bilateral association. We took active part in
thousands of Puerto Ricans who voted in favor of the Estado Libre Asociado.
right to petition the govenm^ent for the redress of grievances' and their natural
right to self-determination, voted on the future status of the island. These were the
results:
The triumphant definition stated that the relationship between Puerto Rico
'
Amendment I, U.S. Constituhon.
'Garcia Passalacqua, The 1993 Plebiscite in Puerto Rico", Institute for Puerto Rican Policy, 1993,
page 13.
1
237
and the United States was to be developed within "a bilateral compact that can only
The main issue this phrase was that of the applicability of the Territorial
Qause of the U.S. Constitution to the current status. In 1990, the Popular Democratic
Party faced the issue with a resolution that stated that all status options (including
powers.' This resolution, which has not been repealed to this day, was one of the
According to international law, this means that the parties have to be sovereign
political entities; according to U.S. Constitutional Law, it meems that neither of the
enter into a bilateral compact with its superior. The only way to enter into a compact
with the federal government is to be sovereign and outside the Territorial Clause.'
2
238
to enter into bilateral compacts.* Yet as of this day, there are two examples that
Association" with the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. This
compact was the result of a process of mutual determination, in which the people
voted to end their trust territory status and "to enter into relationships of free
association which provide a full measure of self-government for the peoples of the
relations between the federal goverment and the associated states. Contrary to the
to the U.S. It clearly recognizes the sovereignty of the associated states over all
matters not specifically delegated, and limits the sphere of action of the federal
Relations, Security and Defense Relations, and General Provisions. They deal with
• See "Inventive Statesmanship vs. The Territorial Clause: The Constitutionality of Agreements
Limiting Territorial Powers", 60 Virginia Law Rev 1041 (1974), at 1041: The absolute terms of the
territorial clause seem to imply that Congress is restricted in its choice of relations with such areas to
the frequently unsatisfactory extremes of annexation or complete independence. Thus, the clause
appears to be the major legal obstacle to some form of 'free association' as an in-between alternative."
This quote did not take into consideration the feasibility of an arrangement of free association with a
jurisdiction outside of the scof>e of the Territorial Clause.
•99 Stat. 1771.
"Id. at 1801.
3
239
the permanence of Section 936 benefits and defense and seciirity provisions. A
special conference and dispute resolution mechanism is also included, consisting of
states that this compact may be terminated by "mutual agreement" and subject to
nature of the compact. They have established that the options of free association and
commonwealth are different and distinguishable. Under the first, the associated
state is self-governing, the sovereignty of the U.S. does not apply and federal laws
can only apply by mutual consent. Commonwealth, on the other hand, is defined as
One final note, the Compact of Free Association has been given international
recognition by the United Nations, which has accepted both associated states (with
"
the strong sponsorship of the United States) as members.
Puerto Rico and the U.S. For Puerto Rico, it will solve the problem of juridical
enters into the compact. Congress would unequivocally dispose of its plenary
powers over Puerto Rico under the Territorial Clause. Once Puerto Rico is outside
the Territorial Qause, it will have all the attributes of a sovereign entity, only
"Id. at 1829.
" Matter ofBowoon Sangsa Co. LTD, 720 F.2d. 595 (9th Qrc., 1983); U.S. v. Covington, 783 F.2d.
1052 (9th Circ, 1985).
" S/Res/704 (1991); Security Council Resolution No. 704, August 9, 1991.
4
240
self-goverment should not limit itself to internal affairs, it must include the power
to conduct foreign affairs as well. That way, Puerto Rico will enter the twenty-first
century as a player in the interriational game and not as an appendage of the U.S.
new economic opportunities for the island. Additionally, a guarantee in the compact
to maintain the present level of federal funding for a reasonable amount of years,
The compact should also include a provision stating that non entitlement
programs funds should be given to the Government of Puerto Rico in a block grant,
with the assurance that they will be used to develop infrastructure. If this is done,
the day will come when Puerto Rico will cease to depend exclusively on federal
The establishment of a bilateral compact will also solve the issue of Puerto
Rico's identity. Knowing that Puerto Rico is a partner on equal footing with the
United States will reinforce Puerto Rico's identity as a proud, "distinct" people, as
was recognized by President Clinton in 1992.'* This will strengthen our belief in our
own capabilities.
The bilateral compact also has benefits for the United States. Once Puerto
Rico's relationship with the United States complies with the international criteria
dropped.
The economic provisions of the compact will have the effect of reducing the
economy, the federal goverment will be liberated from providing for us.
Once the compact is in place, Puerto Rico will not need statehood to have the
" Letter from President-elect William J. Clinton to Pedro Rosselld on the latter 's inaguration as
Ck)vemor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, December 30, 1992.
5
241
powers to fashion its futxire. Because Puerto Rican attachment to statehood is mostly
for practical and economical reasons, and not for ideological or cultural ones, the
moment the U.S. concedes more political powers to Puerto Rico and creates the base
for self-sustaining economic growth, support for statehood will start to diminish.
Congress would avert a petition for statehood from a 500 year old, Spanish-speaking
The desirability of this relationship has been discussed through the years.
Scholars and political ar\alysts have written about it." The international community
has recognized it as a legitimate option. " Puerto Rican political actors have actively
spoken for this type of relationship in the island media, in the halls of Congress, and
in the United Nations.*^ The people of Puerto Rico voted for it. The time has come
for Congress and the Administration to evaluate this alternative for Puerto Rico
The bilateral compact that establishes the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico
(in Spanish it would continue to be called Estado Libre Asociado) must clarify the
''
Fem6s L6pez-Cep)ero, Puerto Rico Soberano y Asociado, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1990; Garcfa
Passalacqua and Rigau (editors), Republica Asociado y Libre Asociacidn: Documentacion de un Debate,
Editorial AtUntico, 1987; Aponte P6rez, "La Descolonizacion via Libre Asociacidn", Revista del
Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 1979, pages 449-473; Fernandez, Juan.
"Evolucion del Concepto de Libre Asociacidn en las Naciones Unidas", Revista del Colegio de
Abogados de Puerto Rico, Vol. 43, No. 2, May 1982, pages 173-203.
"Resolution of the U.N. Special Committee on Decolonization, September 12, 1978, A/33/23/Rev. 1.
" Rigau, Statement given Subcommittee on Insular Affaairs, Committee on Interior and
to the
International Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, June 28, 1990;
Statement given to the U.N. Special Committee on Deco/o«f2flfion, August 13, 1991;
,
_, Statement given to the Special joint Commission on the Status Plebiscite of the Puerto
Rkan Legislature, June 16, 1993;
Ortte Guzmcin, Statement of the Juventud Autonomista PuertorriqueAa to the Special Joint
Commission on the Status Plebiscite of the Puerto Rican Legislature, JunelS, 1993
Vega Ramos, Statement given by the juventud Universitaria Autonomista to the Subcommittee on
Insular Affairs, Committee on Interior and International Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, March
9,1990;
, Statement given by the Juventud Autonomista de Puerto Rico to the Special
Committee on August 13, 1991.
Deco/ofi/'zatw/i,
"Status Digno y Permanente", El Diario, October 14, 1993, page 14.
,
6
242
political dignity of the island, empower it to face the twenty-first century and
In the case of cirizenship —as has been noted by U.S. and Puerto Rican legal
scholars— there is no legal or constitutional reason why Puerto Ricans cannot have
two citizenships (the U.S. and the Puerto Rican) if they so choose in an individual
fashion. " This has been correctly defined by a former advisor to the National
will" as oppossed to a legal issue. " Congress must choose between insuring the U.S.
mechanism identical to the one in Sections 255" and 404" of the Compact of 1986
should be adopted. This would give stability to our economy and Puerto Ricans
"See Statement of Hon. Fred M. Zeder 11 and James D. Borg, and Howard Hills, Hearings,
Subcommittee on Pacific Lands and National Parks, Committee on Inferior and International Affairs,
House of Representatives, 98th Congress, 2nd Sess., June 12, 1984, pages 98, 126-127; see also Alvarez,
Jos6J. "The Empire Strikes Out: Congressional Ruminations on the Citizenship Status of Puerto
Ricans", Harvard Journal on Legislation, Vol. 27, No. 2, Summer 1990.
" See Howard Hills' remarks on the panel "Models of Association with Metropolitan Powers",
Second National Conference on Relations between the U.S., American Samoa, Guam, Northern
Marianas, the U.S.V.l. and Puerto Rico; Washington, D.C.; May 24, 1994.
" 99 Stat 1821 (1986).
" 99 Stat. 1839 (1986).
7
243
Once the Bilateral Compact is approved. Puerto Rico will have the further
assurance that if and when the people agree to a reduction of 936 incentives, those
reduction."
Some have suggested the utilization of Section 901 of the Internal Revenue
fundamental objection to that, but the 1993 mandate requires us to explore the
possibility of giving stability to 936. If that were impossible, we would support the
901 incentive's inclusion as part of the bilateral compact. That way there would not
be any unilateral alteration of the economical relationship between Puerto Rico and
We also believe that the exclusion of Puerto Rico from the U.S. shipping and
essential for a successful Puerto Rican entrance into the global economy of the next
century.
For the United States, the compact must preserve and protect its legitimate
interests in Puerto Rico. The determination of what those "legitimate interests" are
must be the result of negotiations and mutual agreements, which cannot place
onerous burdens on Puerto Rican sovereignty. Unilateral impositions, like the one
the Navy is currently attempting in Lajas, must be a thing of the past. Under a
CONCLUSION
The political destinies of Puerto Rico and the U.S. have been intertwined
since the turn of the century. A product of military occupation, their relationship
8
244
one case, outright imperialism. This has bred confusion, dependancy and
uncertainty.
But there are always alternatives. Now that we near the new century, the time
developing the Estado Libre Asociado through a bilateral compact. The United
States, and this Congress, have historically pledged to respect the inalienable right of
confusion, dependance, and uncertainty must give way to political dignity, self-
sufficiency and stability. A BILATERAL COMPACT is the best, perhaps the only
9
245
(Smbio xxi
TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE CO-COORDINATORS
OF THE
INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP
ON PUERTO RICO
ON
THE FUTURE OF PUERTO RICO
246
INDEX TO TESTIMONY
INTRODUCTION
Rico and the United States. The document we are hereby filing
that has existed with success in the former Pacific Territories since
Research Inc. that shows the Puerto Rican electorate favors the
Cambio xxi:
^)nbio XXI
POSITION PAPER
ON THE FUTURE OF
PUERTO RICO
^ bio xxi
^BaxS734
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00906
(809)268-4200 Fax (809) 268-3660
FAX 202-482-2337
RESPECTFULLY SUBMriTED, for the Executive Coomiittee of Judge Jos6 Antonio Casillas. AtQr. Juan M.
Garcia Passalacqua, Judge Luis MqpcaSandoz. Atty.EmilioSoler Man. and Josi Milton SolteroMC, by:
20-766 - 96 - 9
252
BILATERAL COMPACT
PREAMBLE
THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO AND
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
AfTinning that their Goverments and their relationships as Govennents are founded upon
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and that the people of Puerto Rico have
Aflirming the common interests of the people of the United States of America and the people
of Puerto Rico in maintaining a close and mutually beneficial relationship in a voluntary association;
AfTirmig the interest of the United States in promoting the economic advancement and self-
Recognizing the common desire to enhance the relationship in accordance with a political
status based on the freely-expressed wishes of the people of Puerto Rico in November of 1993;
Recognizing that the people of Puerto Rico have and retain their sovereignty and their
sovCTeign right to self-determination, and the inherent right to adopt and amend their own Constitution
and form of government, and that the approval of this Compact as defined in section 59 by the
people of Puerto Rico constitutes the exercise of their sovereign right to self-determination;
Guaranteeing progress and security for present and future genarations of Puerto Ricans,
within a political status of full dignity, as defined in the 1993 ballot, embodied in this Bilateral
NOW THEREFORE, AGREE to enter into a relationship of Free Associated State (FAS)
defined as a sovereign state which provides a full measure of self-government for the people of
FURTHER AGREE on guiding principles of this Compact: the irrevocable United States
citizenship to all in Puerto Rico, a common market, a common currency and a common defense,
fiscal autonomy for Puerto Rico, and protection for its cultural identity with its own olimpic and
international representation;
10
253
FURTHER AGREE that this Conq>act shall protect the tax incentives of U. S.
corporations in Puerto Rico now existing under section 936 of the I.R.S., as defined as 1993
ballot, shall provide for parity in all U. S. social benefit programs including the Supplementary
Security Insurance (SSI), and shall protect the agricxiltural products of Puerto Rico;
FURTHER AGREE that the relationship of Free Associated State is set forth in this
Conqiact; and tiiat, during this relationship, the respective rights and responsibilities of the
Government of the United States and the Government of Puerto Rico in regard to this
TirLEONE:
GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Articles I
Section I
The people of Puerto Rico, acting through the Government established under its Constitution,
Section 2
(a) All United States citizens bom in Puerto Rico shall remain citizens of the United States
of America subsequently to die effective date of this Conq>act, and are also citizens of Puerto
Rico.
(b) All persons bom in Puerto Rico after the effective date of this Conq)act are citizens of
Puerto Rico and also citizens of the United States of America.
(c) All persons b<»n to a parent \t^o is citizen of the United States of America bom in Puerto
Rico, are citizens of the United States of America and Puerto Rico pursuant to Public Law 103-417
11
254
Article II
International Affairs
Section 3
(a) The Goveniment of Puerto Rico has the capacity to conduct its international affairs
(b) The International affairs capacity of the Government of Puerto Rico includes,
among other
(1) The conduct of international affairs relating to law of the sea and marine resources
matters;
(2) the conduct of its commercial, diplomatic, consular, economic, trade, banking,
(c) The Government of the United States recognizes that the Government of Puerto
Rico has the capacity to enter into, in its own name and right, treaties and other interna
tional agreements, to join regional and international organizations, and be a member of any
(d) In the conduct of its international affairs, the Government of Puerto Rico confirms
peaceful means.
Section 4
The Government of the United States shall support applications by the Government of
tions.
Section 5
The Government of the United States and Puerto Rico shall not be responsible for, nor
obligated by any actions taken by each other in the area of international affairs, except as
Section 6
At the request of the Government of Puerto Rico and subject to the consent of the receiving
State, the Government of the United States shall extend consular assistance on the same
basis as for citizens of the United States to Puerto Rico and its citizens.
Section?
Except as otherwise provided in this Gsmpact all obligations, responsibilities, rights and
benefits of the Government of the United States over Puerto Rico pursuant to the Treaty of
Paris of 10 December 1898 are terminated on the day preceding the effective date of this
Conq>act and no longer assumed and enjoyed by the Government of the United States.
Article m
Communications
Section 8
The Government of Puerto Rico has full authority and responsibility to regulate its domestic
Section 9
The Government of Puerto Rico shall permit the Government of the United States to operate
telecommmunication services in Puerto Rico to the extent necessary to fulfill the obligations of
the Government of the United States under this Compact for defense and security.
Article IV
Immigration
Section 10
Any person who is citizen of the United States and/or a citizen of Puerto Rico may enter into,
lawfully engage in occcupations, and establish residence in the United States and its territories and
Section 11
The Government of Puerto Rico shall have full authority and power to control and regulate
immigration to Puerto Rico, and shall accord to citizens and nationals of the United States treatment
13
256
Article V
Representation
Section 12
The Government of the United States and the Government of Puerto Rico may establish and
maintain representation and/or missions in the capital of the other for the purpose of maintaining
close and regular consultations on matters arising in the course of this relationship, and
Section 13
The premises of such representative offices, and their archives wherever located, shall be
inviolable. Official communications in transit shall be inviolable and accorded the freedom and
between countries.
Section 14
Any citizen or national of the United States who, after consultation between the designating
Government and the Govenunent of the United States, is designated by the Government of
Puerto Rico as its representative or agent, shall enjoy exemption from the requirements of the
laws of the United States relating to the registration of foreign agents. The Government of the
United States shall promptly comply with a request for consultations made by prospective
designating Governments.
Article VI
Environmental Protection
Section 15
(a) The Government of the United States and Puerto Rico declare that it is their policy to
promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and to protect
(b) The United States will, at least, comply with all standards established in United States
14
257
Section 16
(a) The Government of Puerto Rico may bring an action for judicial review of any administrative
agency action or any activity of the Government of the United States or for enforcement of the
obligations of the Govenunent of the United States. The United Stataes District Court for the
District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction over such action or activity, and over actions which
relate to the activities of the Government of the United States and its ofHcers and employees.
(b) The Government of Puerto Rico may, in the alternative, bring the action on the matters
mentioned in this Section before the Compact Court, established in section SO.
Article Vn
General Provisions
Section 17
Except as otherwise provided by this Compact, the application of the laws of the United States
to Puerto Rico ceases with respect to Puerto Rico, as of the effective date of this Compact.
Section 18
A United States citizen who becomes a citizen of Puerto Rico and who does not renounce his
United States citizenship, will retain his United States citizenship and continue to be entitled to the
Section 19
The Government of the United States and Puerto Rico agree to adopt and enforce such measures,
consistent with this Compact, as may be necessary to protect the personnel, property, installations
maintained by the Government of the United States in Puerto Rico piu-suant to this Compact and by
the Government of Puerto Rico in the United States pursuant to this Compact.
Section 20
Except as otherwise provided in this Compact, the Government of Puerto Rico shall be immune
from the jiuisdiction of the courts of the United States, and the Government of the United States
15
258
TITLE TWO:
ECONOMIC RELATIONS
Article I
Section 21
(a) In order to assist the Government of Puerto Rico in its efforts to advance the economic self-
sufficiency of its people and in recognition of the special relationship that exists between them and
the United States, the Government of the United States shall provide annually on a bloc grant basis
the present level of U.S. funds and expenses in Puerto Rico which are not directly distributed to
(b) The Government of Puerto Rico agrees to assign no less than fifty (50) percent of said
amounts aimually to capital improvements, infrastructure and the funds will be invested in
1. Creating the scientific and technological infrastructure needed for the production and
information age.
3. Promoting the use of cooperative's savings and investments in the creation of manufacturing
6. Assisting the really needy who could not reinsert themselves in the job market.
Section 22
The Government of the United States shall provide additionally on a bloc grant basis the necessary
funds annually to the Government of Puerto Rico to fulfill Section 40, and related Sections.
Section 23
(a) The Government of the United States shall also provide on a current account basis an annual
bloc grant of an amount never less than their present level of funding for the purposes set forth
below:
(1) surveillance and enforcement by the Government of Puerto Rico of its maritime zone.
16
259
PAN;
(b) The annual bloc grant referred to in this section shall be made available by the Government
of Ae United States prooqrtly after it receives instruction for dieir distribution from the Government
of Puerto Rico.
Section 24
amounts stated in Sections 2 1 , 22, 23 and 26 shall be adjusted for each Fiscal Year by the percent
which equals the percentage change in the United States Gross National Product In^licit Price
Deflator, or seven percent (7%), vAd(A ever is more in any one year, using the beginning of Fiscal
(a) In order to reduce imports and exports costs, the ^>plication of the maritime shipping laws
of the United States ceases with respect to Puerto Rico, as of the effective date of this Compact
(b) To conq>ete in the global economy, the Government of Puerto Rico has full authority and
responsibility to enter into international agreemoits and treatises to promote its integration with
Article n
Program Assistance
Section 25
The Government of the United States shall make available to Puerto Rico, in accordance with
and to die extend provided in any separate agreement, without conqiensation and at the levels
equivalent to those available during the year of the effective date of this Coaq)act, the services and
related programs:
17
260
Agency;
Article m
Administrative Provisions
Section 26
Gimpact, the Government ofthe United States and the Government of Puerto Rico shall commence
re-negotiations on this Compact, which will be automatically renewed otherwise on the twentyfifth
Section 27
(a) Title to the property of the Government of the United States situated in Puerto Rico or
acquired for or used by the Government of the United States in Puerto Rico on or before the day
reimbursement or transfer of funds, vest in the Government of Puerto Rico as set forth in a separate
agreement which shall come into effect with this Compact. The provisions of this Section shall not
apply to the use ofthe property ofthe Government ofthe United States for which the Government
ofthe United States determines a continuing requirement for defense and security under Section 40
(b) Funds held in trust by the Government ofthe United States in its official capacity, as ofthe
effective date of this Compact such as social security, veterans and other vested benefits shall
remain available as trust funds to their designated beneficiaries, administered by said Government.
18
261
Section 2S
States shall constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit of the United States for the full payment
of the sums and amounts specified in Article I and III of this Title, or in any Section of this
Coixq>act, or its amendments. The obligation of the United States under Articles I and m of this
Title, or under any Section of this Coiiq>act, or its amendments, shall be enforceable in the United
States Claims Qnirt, or its successor court, which shall have jurisdiction in cases arising under this
Article IV
Trade
Section 29
Puerto Rico is not included in the customs territory of the United States.
Section 30
For the purpose of assessing duties on their products inq>orted into the customs territory of the
United States, Puerto Rico shall be treated in the same manner as on the date before the effective
Section 31
(a) All products of Puerto Rico inq>orted into die customs territories of the United States from
Puerto Rico shall enter free of any tariffs or duties or any excise taxes.
Section 32
(a) The United States shall offer Puerto Rico the option to enter as a participant in its own right
into any Trade Agreement that the United States becomes a party to.
(b) Puerto Rico shall be notified of any negotiation of a Trade Agreement that the United States
entertains, to be able to offer die input as to its intact and to be able to become a party in said
negotiations.
19
Article V
The currency of the United States is the official circulating legal tender of Puerto Rico, and all
laws of the United States relating to said currency are made part of this Conq>act.
Section 34
A citizen of Puerto Rico, domiciled therein,shall be exempt from income taxes imposed by
the Government of the United States upon fixed or determinable annual income estate, gift, and
Section 35
Provisions in the United States Internal Revenue Code that were applicable to possessions of
the United States as of January 1 , 1 994 shall be treated as applying to Puerto Rico. If such
provision of the Internal Revenue Code are amended, modified or replealed after that date, such
provisions shall continue in effect as to Puerto Rico for the period of effectiveness of this
Compact.
(a) EXTENSION OF SECTION 936. • The benefits provided by Section 936 of the Intemal
Revenue Code of the United States, as amended, shall continue in full force and effect in Puerto
(b) EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. Subsection (a) shall not apply for any period after
the effective date of this Con:q)act, during which there is not in effect between Puerto Rico and
the United States an exchange of infoimation agreement of the kind described in Section 274
(h)(6)(c) (other that clause (ii) thereof) of the Intemal Revenue Code.
(c) SECTION 936 INCENTIVES REDUCTION. - The tax incentive extended to Puerto
Rico under subsection (a) shall not, at any time during which the Compact is in effect, be
reduced.
(d) PUERTO RICO TREATED AS NORTH AMERICAN AREA. - for purpose of Section
274 (h) (3) (A) of the Intemal Revenue Code of 1954, the term «North American Area» shall
(e) This section shall apply to income earned, and transactions occuring, after January 1st,
20
263
TITLE THREE:
SECURITY AND DEFENSE RELATIONS
Article I
Section 36
(a) The Government of the United States has authority and responsibility for international
(c) The Government of the United States confirms that it shall act in accordance with the
principles of
International Law and the Charter of the United Nations in the exercise of this authority and
responsibility.
Section 37
The Government of the United States may conduct within the lands, waters and air space of
Puerto Rico the activities and operations necessary for the exercise of their authority and responsibility
under this Title by mutual agreement of the government of the United States and the government of
Puerto Rico.
Section 38
(a) The Government of the United States shall not, in Puerto Rico:
21.
264
(b) Other than for transit or overflight purposes or during time of a national emergency declared
by the President of the United States, a state of war declared by the Congress of the United States
or as necessary to defend against an actual or impeding armed attack on the United States or Puerto
Rico, die Government of the United States shall not store in Puerto Rico any toxic chemical weapon,
nor any radioactive materials nor any toxic chemical materials intended for weapons use.
(c) No material or substance referred to in this Section shall be stored in Puerto Rico.
Section 39
The Government of the United States may invite members of the armed forces of other countries
to use its military areas and facilities in Puerto Rico, in conjimctionk with and under the control of
United States Armed Forces. Use by imits of the armed forces of the other countries of such
military areas and facilities, other than for transit and overflight purposes, shall be subject to
Articlen
Defense Facilities and Operating Rights
Section 40
(a) Any needed specific arrangements for the establishment and use by the Government of the
United States of military areas and facilities in Puerto Rico will be set forth in separate agreements
Compact.
(b) If, in the exercise of its authority and responsibility under this Title, the Government of the
United States requires the use of areas within Puerto Rico in addition to those for which specific
arrangements are concluded pursuant to Section 40 (a), it may request the Government of Puerto
Rico to satisfy those requirements. Puerto Rico shall consider any such request and shall establish
22
265
suitable procedures to discuss it with and provide a pron^t response to the Government of the
United States.
Section 41
The Government of the United States shall provide and maintain fixed and floating aids to
navigation in Puerto Rico at least to the extent necessary for the exercise of its authority and
Section 42
The military operating rights of the Government of the United States and the legal status and
contractual arrangements of the United States Armed Forces, their members, and associated
civilians, widle present in Puerto Rico will be subject to and will abide by the laws of Puerto
Rico.
Article m
Defense Treaties and International
Security Agreements
Section 43
Subject to the terms of this Compact and its related agreements, the Government of the
United States, shall assume and enjoy, as to Puerto Rico, all obligations, responsibilities, rights
(a) Any defense treaty or other international security agreement applied by the Government
of the United States as of the day preceding the effective date of this Compact; and
(b) Any defense treaty or other international security agreement to which the Government of
the United States is or may become a party which it determines to be applicable in Puerto Rico,
(c) Such a determination by the Government of the United States shall be preceded by
Article IV
Service in Armed Forces of the United States
Section 44
Any person entitled to the privileges set forth in Section 10 shall be elegible to volimteer for
service in the Armed Forces of the United States, but shall not be subject to involimtary induction
into military service of the United States so long as such person does not establish habitual residence
23
266
Article V
General Provisions
Section 45
(a) The Government of the United States and Government of Puerto Rico shall establish a Joint
Coimnittee empowered to consider disputes unter the implementation of this Tide and its related
agreements.
(b) Disputes that cannot be resolved by the Joint Committee may be referred by any party to
Section 46
(a) The Government of the United States shall not include the Government of Puerto Rico as
Section 47
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Compact, the provisions of this Title are binding
from the effective date of this Compact for a period of twenty five years between the Government
of the United States and the Government of Puerto Rico and thereafter renewed automatically
imless otherwise mutually agreed, in accordance with Section 26, and Sections 52 and 53.
(b) The Government of the United States recognizes, in view of the special relationship between
the Government of Puerto Rico, that any attack on Puerto Rico during the period in which this
conqjact or its separate agreements are in effect, would constitute a threat to the peace and security
of the entire Caribbean region and a danger to the United States. In the event of such an attack, the
Government of the United States would take all necessary actions to meet the danger to Puerto
Rico and the United States, at the request of the government of Puerto Rico.
24
267
TITLE FOUR:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article I
Section 48
This Gjn^act shall come into effect upon its signature by the Representatives of the people of
Article II
The Government of the United States shall confer promptly at the request of the Government of
Puerto Rico and its Government shall confer promptly at the request of the Government of the
United States on matters relating to the provisions of this Compact or if its related agreements.
Section 50
If a dispute between the Government of the United States and the Government of Puerto Rico
cannot be resolved by negotiation, either party to the dispute may refer it for adjudication to a Joint
Section 51
Said Puerto Rico-United States Compact Court will be composed by two justices appointed by
States with advice and consent of the United States Senate; two justices appointed by the chief
executive of Puerto Rico, with advice and consent of the Senate of Puerto Rico, and a fifth justice
selected by these four justices, that must also be confirmed by the Senates of Puerto Rico and the
United States. All five judges shall be appointed for good behavior.
The Compact Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and render final determinations on all disputes
26
268
Article m
Amendments
Section 52
The provisions of this Coiiq>act may only be amended as to the Government of Puerto Rico and
Section 53
The provisions of any of its related agreement may only be amended by the Government of
Puerto Rico and as to the Government of the United States at any time by mutual agreement.
Article IV
Definition of Terms
Section 54
(a) «Puerto Rico» - means the archipelago composed by the mainland or main island of Puerto
Rico and the other adjacent islands and the waters of the islands situated east of the meridian sixty
four longitude west of Greenwich that were ceded to the United States by the Government of Spain
by virtue of the Treaty of 1 December 1 898, and said name will be xmderstood to include not only
the island of said name, but all adjacent islands that are known on this date as «The Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico» in English and «Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico» in the Spanish language.
(b) «Free Associated State» is the name of the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United
Article V
Authorizing Provisions
Section 55
The Representatives of the United States and Puerto Rico agree that they have full sovereign
authority under American and international law to enter into this Compact and its related agreements.
Section 56
The governments of the United States and Puerto Rico shall take all necessary steps, of a general
or particular character, to ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures
27
269
Section 57
Appropriations made pursuant to the Compact or any other provision of its agreement shall be
made to the Secretary of State, who shall disburse the same through the Agency for International
Section 58
Except as provided otherwise in this Compact, all Civil and other Hirnian Rights protected in
Puerto Rico on the effective date of this Bilateral Compact cannot be diminished, imdermined, or
Section 59
This Compact has both the force and effect of a statute under the laws of the United States and
of Puerto Rico and the force and effect of a treaty imder International Law.
Section 60
The effective date of this Compact, in fulfillment of the mandate of the plebiscite held in Puerto
28
270
PROELA
P.O. Box 23M7, DFR Station
Rib IHedras, Puerto Bioo 00681-6996
response to the 1993 plebiscite is the question of the U.S. citizenship of Puerto
Ricans.
Litroduction
repercutions on the United States' response to the plebiscite. The subject of the
U.S. citizenship of persons bom in Puerto Rico and their abihty to transmit it to I
30
271
different one, has been one of the major issues of controversy both for U.S.
goverment officials and the Puerto Rican people in recent years. It is an issue that
Congress has helped facilatate the transfer of U.S. citizenship from one
generation of Puerto Ricans to the other, in the event of a Puerto Rico clearly
We will discuss the content, scope, purpose and implications os Section 102
was popularly named. But firsv, we will take a brief look at the nature of the
current U.S. citizenship of Puerto Ricans bom in and living on Puerto Rico.
We suggest that the 1990 article entitled. The Empire Strikes Out:
material for this discussion. It offers a thorough review of the issue and an
excellent analysis of the retainability of U.S. citizenship by Puerto Ricans after the
attainment of full independence. This analysis is equally valid within the status
of a Free Associated State (FAS), clearly outside Congress' territorial powers and
^
Article IV, Section 3. U.S. Constitution.
31
272
consent,"^ as was favored by the I*uerto Rican electorate on November 14, 1993.
1917.^ This grant, Ijowever did not incorporate Puerto Rico into the United
in the sense that its main purposes were that Puerto Ricans bom after 1917
became U.S. citizens at birth and that those who had abhored U.S. citizenship in
Acts^, did nothing to alter the citizenship status of persons bom in Puerto Rico,
sponsored stattis plebiscite in Puerto Rico, the issue of the permanence of U.S.
citizenship under the current status, its empowerment or independence was once
3 This is a quote taken from the winning definition of the 1993 status plebiscite. For a full
translation of all three status definitions as they were presented by Puerto Rico's political
^ Id. There were Congressional enactments on 1927 (44 Stat. 1418), on 1934 (48 Stat.
1245), on 1938 (52 Stat. 377) and on 1952 (66 Stat. 236). This last one known as *The
is
Inmigration and Nationality Act of 1952" and with amendments, including the one discussed
further, is the current applicable legislation.
32
273
again brought into the forefront. Of the various analysis made during that time
current citezenship status of Puerto Ricans and of the possibility of retaining U.S.
Technical Corrections Act of 1994" amended Section 322 of the "Inmigration and
of Puerto Ricans, March 9, 1989. This memo was prepared by Johnny Killian.
^^The best way to confront the discussion of this statutory provision is to quote it in full, even
33
274
birth or naturalization.
"(2) The child is phjrsically present in the United States pursuant to a
lawfHil admission.
"(3) The child is under the age of 18 years and in the legal custody of
the citizen parent.
"(4) If the citizen parent is an adoptive parent of the child, the child
was adopted by the citizen parent before the child reached the age of 16
years and the child meets the requirement for being a child under
subparragraph (E) or (F) of section 101 (b) (1).
"(5) If the citizen parent has not been phjrsically present in the United
States or its outl}dng possesions for a period or periods totaling not less than
five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen
years—
'(A) the child is residing permanently in the United States with the
citizen parent, pursuant to a lawful adsmission for permanent
residence, or
*(6) a citizen parent of the citizen parent has been physically present
in the United States or its outlying possesions for a period or periods
totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining
the age of fourteen 3rears."
Natiiralization Act, Puerto Rico is statutory defined as being part of the United
States.l2
Congress extended to Puerto Ricans the protective provissions of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the U.S. Ccnstitution. See Alvarez Gonz^f^fg^oxe 2 , supra, pages 325-331 for a brief summary
of this debate. The Popular Democratic Party in its most recent official expression regarding
34
275
The House Report that accompanied the legislation^^ stated that the
A Free Associated State (FAS) would be "outside the United States" and
an Estado Libre Asociado^^, clearly outside the Territorial Clause powers of the
U.S. Constitution, the relevance of this provision becomes obvious in that it solves
this issue (see page 1 0, infra) demanded that it be clarified that the protections of the
Fourteenth Amendment are applicable to U.S. dtizens born in Puerto Rico. In terms of the
applicability of the 1994 amendments to the Inmigration and Nationality Act, this debate is
irrelevant because that Act considers Puerto Rico to be part of the United States, thus making
the amendments applicable to citizens bom in the island before the final disposition of all
'^ Although the official translation to the English language is the general denomination
Commonwealth", the author prefers the term 'Free Assiociated Slate" because it is more
epresentative of the Puerto Rican people's interpretation and aspiration, of what the
elationship should be. In at least one attempt to enhance the current relationship, a proposal
submitted to the President of the United States in 1975 by a Puerto Rico- United States Ad hoc
Commission, it was suggested that the title "Free Associated State" should be adopted as the
}fficial translation of "Estado Libre Asociado". It is our belief that if a bilateral compact of
issociation is put into place that should be the official English denomination.
35
i
276
The Implications
For purposes of this discussion let us hypothesise that Puerto Rico enters
into a clearly non-territorial bilateral compact of association (or for that matter,
It would be clear that, due to what is provided in the new Section 322 (a) (1)
to 322 (a) (4), all the children yet to be bom of any Puerto Ricans in the island who
are 16 years old or older would have to be certified as U.S. citizens since birth.
With just one visit to the continental U.S. before reaching 18 years of age, and the
the report, the children and grandchildren of those citizens wiU also have to be
36
277
Section 322 (a) (5) would deal with cases involving the children of
Puerto Ricans 16 years old and younger alter the advent of definitive disposition of
Section 322 (a) (5) (A) guarantees that any child of a Puerto Rican 14 years
of age or older would, if legally admitted to the United States for permanent
residence, have a right to be certified as a U.S. citizen since birth, once the
Section 322 (a) (5) (B) is of still more relevance to the Puerto Rican situation.
It states that a citizen grandparent (whose offspring in also a citizen) who has
lived in the United States or its outlying possesions for at least 5 years (with the
only condition that 2 of those 5 years were after attaining the age of 14) can
transfer his/her U.S. citizenship to his/her grandchildren with just one visit to
the United States and compliance with the prescribed proccedxires. As was the
case with Section 322 (a) (1) to 322 (a) (4) the child shall be certified as having been
This would guarantee that the grandchildren of any Puerto Rican who is 16
or older at the moment of final dispossition of all Territorial Clause powers over
Puerto Rico, would be able to transmit his/her U.S. citizenship to all of his/her
37
278
examples given, they too can benefit from the proccedure designed in this
legislation. A citizen parent, after all, can always transmit his/her citizenship to
his/her children. This law merely states the conditions to be complied with in
order for the certification of the citizenship of the chiM to be issued by the Attorney
General. ^^ The Act of 1994 solves a problem existing until now for policy
Comdusion
Congress eased the requirements and proccedure for current generations of U.S.
citizens to transmit their citizenship to their descendants bom abroad. This was
The majority of Puerto Ricans value their U.S. citizenship for three main
^^ In the long run ail of this might be superseded by events, if the already agreed upon goal of
an hemispheric market by the year 2005 is achieved, it will eventually, as is the case of the
European Economic Community, bring about the emergence of an hemispheric citizenship, an
American Citizenship in the true sense of the word. The free flow of labor may follow with the
38
279
* Half of the Puerto Rican nationality resides in the continental U.S. Loss of
citizenship for Puerto Ricans on the island would mean the separation of
benefits directly derived from that citizenship. They strongly wish to retain them
derive from being citizens of the strongest international and military power of the
world.
compact which can only be amended by mutual consent."^^ This, precisely, was
done in order to do away once and for all with the ongoing debate of whether
Puerto Rico is still a territory under the plenary powers of Congress or not. The
General Council of the Popxilar Democratic Party adopted, on November 17, 1990,
a resolution which has not been repealed to this day that stated that all status
options (including the Estado Libre Asociado) had to be outside the Territorial
Clause powers. PDP leaders assured the electorate that the 1993 plebiscite
definition was based on the 1990 resolution.^O A majority of Puerto Ricans have
20 Sep Medina, Jorge L. "PPD drafts new definition of commonwealth for the ballot", The San
39
280
We conclude that Section 102 of PX. 103-417 permits the transfer otVJS.
citizenship to persons bom in the island after it enters into a clearly non*
That being the case, we think it wovdd be in the best interests of the U.S. and
Puerto Rico that the W.H.I A.W.G.P JL make the adoption of this possition on the
This would give Puerto Ricans a greater sense of the stability of their U.S.
Juan Star. Tuesday, July 6, 1993; Martinez. Andrea. * 'Sendlla y ganadora' la delinici6n del
I
ELA*. El Nuevo Oia. July 6, 1993. It was with that assurance that PROELA and the Juventud
structure'. The San Juan Star, Tuesday. August 10. 1993: Vega Ramos, Luis. "Status Digno y
Permanente', B Oiario, October 14. 1993; EFE News Agency. "Exigen adaren status no
colonial del ELA*, Ei Diario, November 11. 1993. See also item 10 of the Memorandum for
the President of ttie United States from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. June
17, 1959 and former Governor hlemdndez Coi6n's statements regarding the meaning and
implications of the 1993 status vote for the Popular Democratic Party in Estrada Resto, Nilta.
Traza el rumbo a seguir el PPD', B Nuevo Dia. Monday January 30. 1995. page 7.
^^ The results of the plebiscite were: Estadb Ubre Asodado 48.4%. Statehood 46.2% and
Independence 4.4%. Subsequently, the leaders of the Independence Party have pubiidy
expressed their intention to let their votes be construed as a demand for a U.S. response to the
bilateral compact pettition approved by the Estado Ubre Asociado votes, now making it the
position of 53% of those who voted in the piebisdte. See The Washington Post. November 19,
40
281
Admimstration and the Congress to explicitly include this matter with reference
to the Act of 1994 in the text of the compact, since it has already been addresed by
41
282
PROELA
P.O. BOX 2347, UPR StaUon
Rio Piedras. PJL 00931-9998
Sincere^.
42
283
PROELA
P.O. BOX 2347. UPR Station
Rio Piedras. PJl. 00931-9998
Now that the 104th Congress is considering the "Contract with America"
of that legislation for Puerto Rico. PROELA has been working on a document
that will present the fundEunental principles of a new economic model that can
be viable inside of the new reality that will be created with the imminent
restructuring of the economic relationship between Puerto Rico and the United
States.
decided to release it in time for the January 31st public hearing on the impact
of the "Contract with America" on the U.S. Insular Areas. This preliminary
document also constitutes our first proposal submitted to the Administrative
Interagency Task Force on Puerto Rico, coordinated by Ms. Mau-cia Hale and
with the full conviction that we are helping the necessary discussion of the
real alternatives that Puerto Rico has for the changes in the near future.
had proposed a "new economic model" for the island. But. to this day. he has
not acknowledged that this new economic model is onfy possible with the
43
20-766 - 96 - 10
284
development of the Estado Libre Asoclado, the Free Associated State of PR.,
Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In his most recent address, the
Governor also omitted that the challenges created by the approval of the
"Contract with America" legislation only can be faced with the Implementation
of an economic model that permits Puerto Rico to participate with its own
voice in the globed economy amd to enter Into intemationed agreements. This,
ratification of the GATT and the imminent passage of many of the "Contract
Puerto Rlcan people of the serious repercussions that the approval of the
"Contract with America" might have on Puerto Rico and to present a well-
thought alternative for the future. This is more important now that President
Clinton in his last State of the Union Address coincided with the many of the
those reforms. Therefore it becomes necessary to educate our people about the
dismantling of the welfare state £md the resulting reduction of federal funds
to eventually do away with the deficit that the Federal Government faces.
The new system of federal aids will shift fi-om welfere to workfiare.
44
285
On his last State of the Union Address, President Clinton revived his
offer to the American people for a "New Covenant". In view of the adjustments
that this and the "Contract with America" will force on the Puerto Rican
model. This model will be directed to utilize to the maximum, the many
resources of our Island, benefiting of the scheme of block grant funding, so
that we may obtain the conditions that will jjermlt emd foment a self-
45
286
non- territorial development of the "Estado Libre Asoclado" and contains the
following elements:
46
287
without any tax penalty when such funds are to be invested in the economic
and social development of the islsind.
These measures have been proposed in the past by other Puerto Rlcans
status. PROELA believes that this moment demands a dialogue between those
who share this vision for Puerto Rico. Recent developments have highlighted
the importance of this dialogue, which is now more necessary than ever.
economical relation between Puerto Rico and the United States and the
mandate given by our electorate on November 14. 1993 to develop that relaUon
that make up the "Contract with America", the recent State of the Union
We believe that this is the onfy possible course of action that we can
undertake to confront the current climate of insecurity and lack of stability
47
288
said that this legislation could cause an estimated loss of 59 million dollars
per year to the Puerto Rlcan treasury. This situation can only be sohred In a
Puerto Rico and the U.S. to meet the challenges of the twenty first century.
This revision must be in the context of the mandate given by the Puerto Rlcan
giving publicity to this proposal for a New Economic Covenant can only work
48
289
March 7, 1995.
ocuJa^ H.g^nCuic-efiS^f^^f^^^
290
ENGUESTA SOBRE
RELACION DE PUERTO RICO
CON ESTADOS UNIDOS
MARZO 1 DE 1995
291
ELEMENTOS DE LA ENCUESTA
ELEMENTOS PARAMETROS
TAMANO DE LA ENCUESTA 724
MARGEN DE ERROR 4%
CONCLUSIONES
INDICE
EFECTIVIDAD
SI 37.6%
NO 48.4%
NOSE 14.0%
294
INDICE
OPINION
(%)
SI 43.1%
NO 50.9%
NOSE 6.1%
295
INDICE
OPINION
(%)
SI 77.9%
NO 17.6%
NO SE 4.5%
296
PUBLIC INFORMATION
PLAN
bio xxi
ox 5734
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00906
(809) 268-4200 Fax (809) 268-3660
MEMORANDUM
In response to your invitation to provide input to the IWG/PR we are hereby submitting a
proposal of public education to the people of Puerto Rico on the present situation re status.
During the United States presence in Puerto Rico, communications, education and the media
have been directed to support the status quo. Efforts have been directed to support the past relations
between the United States and Puerto Rico, and for that reason, any efforts to conduct an educational
This situation has not only contributed to the prolongation of the status quo, but has made the
two major political parties accomplices in that effort, limiting the people's acces to truth.
This organization, after attending several seminars held in Washington on the territorial question
in recent years, has come to the conclusion that on the part of the government of the United States
there is a determination to change the present relations between our two peoples, towards more
hour selection of the most important lectures delivered at the most recent conference in Washington
that has had a very popular reception. More information and education of our people are of vital
60
297
Cambio XXI, to that cfifect, presents this PUBLIC INFORMATION PROPOSAL to achieve the
goal that our people may understand without passion, their present situation and options to solve it.
Aft*
Among them: staffers in the White House, staffers sin the Congressional Committees of
jurisdiction, staffers of the Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico, staffers in the Department
of Justice, the General Accounting Office and the Office of Management and Budget, among
others.
Secretaries of the Departments and instrumentalities with jurisdiction over Puerto Rico must
recognize and announce the plans of change for our islands in the press, radio and television, in
their own voices and images. This fact will surpass the present stage of denial in our political
These federal functionaires must offer the local media a clear and specific description of the
These appearences must be planned in island- wide tours to speak to college students, religious
denominations, professional groups, unions, and civic groups. Cambio XXI is willing and able to
organize and coordinate those visits if the costs of the visits are assumed by the respective Washington
instrumentality.
61
298
There are, in our organization, sufficient numbers of educated professionals with different areas
of expertise that can organize and conduct these public discussions of previous studies by the
General Accounting Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Interangency Working
Group itself, if provided with the necessary information and briefings from Washington.
Cambio XXI is a non-profit organization. We offer our pro bono help to the WH/IWG in this
effort towards creating a healthy public opinion that can understand and support the effort to solve
the status situation of Puerto Rico once and for all, as a response to the majority will expressed in
62
299
PETITION
As concerned citizens we are addressing you to set forth the following decalogue of
fundamental matters:
1) The people and the government of Puerto Rico, the people of the United States of
America, many sectors of the international community and also important private institutions,
have recognized the problem of the existing colonial ties in the relation between Puerto Rico and
2) This problem has taken many years to be recognized and it is at this stage of the evolution
of the world that measures have been taken to solve it. In spite of the many sacrifices and efforts
during a long time, the problem yet has not been solved.
3) The Organization of the United Nations, realizing the urgency to solve the few colonial
problems that still exist, has declared the decade of the nineties as the last of the millennium for
4) During the past years the Congress of the United States, together with the leadership of
Puerto Rican political parties, took an initiative for the possible solution of the problem. Said
initiative included deliberations and studies of the United States National Seairity Council.
5) The state Universities and Colleges of the territories of the United States, together with
the Washington, D.C. Consortium of Universities and with the representation of the governments
and political parties of each of the territories and the Federal Government of the United States,
have celebrated two congresses in the past two years to deal with the theme of the solution of the
problem regarding their American territories: Samoa, Guam, Marianas, Virgin Islands and
Puerto Rico.
6) These initiatives and dialogues nevertheless have been paralyzed indefinitely since
positions have arisen within the United States rejecting the process if statehood is included as
one of the alternatives. Until now, nevertheless, regarding this position no official
pronouncement has been made that could be understood by the voters as truly representative of
64
300
7) While all this takes place, and since this pronouncement does not exist, the people of
Puerto Rico have been aliens to this reality. The annexationist politicians of Puerto Rico have
made the Puerto Ricans sec that in case that a majority exists in favor of this alternative in
Puerto Rico, statehood will be immediately feasible vsdthout any objection regarding our
particular national identity, with Spanish as official language, our own Olympic Committee,
associations as the teachers, lawyers, physicians, notaries and engineers; labor unions, student
organizations and religious and cultural institutions. They even ask for Latino support of
statehood in the United States, since as they allege they will have more senators and
congressmen that will represent their interests, that is to say that Puerto Rico will increase the
Latino presence and power in the United States. Statehood is presented in Puerto Rico as a
expression, the people of Puerto Rico (in a referendum that took place in 1993 and promoted by
9) As Puerto Ricans, we are willing to participate in a dialogue for the solution of the
problem, to ask for a clear and certain expression from the United States regarding alternatives;
if there is not that clear expression, our people will wrongfully belive that admission into the
10) Once this is stated, we can have a dialogue, and the people of Puerto Rico could begin to
negotiate with the United States, to solve this historical and fundamental problem of this century.
This dialogue on the alternatives to solve this problem can be effective and successful only when
there is that clear and xmequivocal negative expression on statehood as stated in sections 8 and 9;
this is essential without delay. This document constitutes a petition for the redress of grievances,
65
301
Given at San Juan, Puerto Rico, on 4 of October, 1994, by the undersigned (idenfified by
-Manuel De J. Gonzalez
Editor and Publisher of
Qaridad Newspaper
Teresa Gonzalez
PhD Spanish Literature
66
302
Joaquin Mouliert
Folk Music Composer
and Artist
67
303
68
304
proniover que Estados Unidos se exprese ximo someteran al copresidente del grupo
sobre el future politico de la isla, principal- interagencial de Casa Blanca, Jeffrey Fa-
mente en tomo a las posibilidades reales de rrow, propuestas sobre el futuro economico
que sc le conceda al pais la anexion total y politico del pais, basados en la
vision de
como un nuevo estado fcdcrado. que se otorguen mayores poderes politicos
El locuior David Ortiz Anglero. uno de a Puerto Rico.
los portavoces de Cambio 2 al ser cntre-
1 , LAS PROPUESTAS economicas esta-
visiado en el programa Frenle al Pueblo, de ran a cargo princip»almente del ex secretario
la Asociacion de Penodistas de Puerto Rico del Departamento de Transportacion y
(ASPPRO), planted que los partidos polili- Obras Publicas. Hermenegildo Ortiz
cos ban lallado en tramitar la deflnicion Quiiiones. precise Solcr Man.
politica del pais y por eso csa iniciativa la Ortiz Anglero y Soler Man adararon que
toma ahora un grupo civil. Cambio 2 no busca convertirse en un par-
1
La organizacion tiene previsto paiticipar lido politico, pero confian en que sera un
del proceso de discusion del grupo intera- instrumento clave para adelantar cambios
gencial de trabajo crcado por Casa Blanca en el esutus politico del pais.
70
51
305
MARCH 1994
CURRENT
HISTORY A Journal of Contemporary World Affairs
Latin America
NAFTA and After A New Era for
the United States and Latin America? Peter Hoidm 97
03
306
WILUAM
Eiliior
W FINAN. JR.
ttietonc to action m Mexican pohocs —
and hem- the fall-
out mighi aflect the run up to the .August piesidenQal
Assoaaic Uiior
AUCE H G PHILUPS
elecnoiu —
are the centerpiece of Conger s amde this
month An important x-aruble in these political ques-
Ediioiul Assisuni —
oons how the go^Tmmcnt and the miliur^ have re-
MELISSA J SHERMAN —
aaed to the uprising is the focus of .\menca5 Watch
Ediional Intem director Juan Menda s excerpted tesomorn-
LEAN'NE P MOS For Mexico this was not to be the xrar of Chiapas bui
the >'ear of celebranng the ratification of the North
Consulung Ednon
VIRGINIA C KNIGHT. M.^RV Y YATES
Amencan Free Trade .Apteeinent Inier-.Amencan Dia-
A-NDREN^' M LOV'ATT logue director Peter Hakim explains n-h^ even »"ith .
Uirivcrsm- of Virpnu. Emcnius attention in the Lniiea Sute? reaffirmed ihe island s
KENNETH V\ GRUNDY commonwcalih suiU5 with the L niied States Juan Gar-
cia Passalacpu.i argues thai taihcr than settling the issue
Cjx Western Rescr>e Univcrsm
of sutus the vpic ha.'s opened a larjer debate on the is-
OSCAR RANDUN land s relationship with the L niicd Suies that threatens
Har^ird ^JnI^'erslr\. Emcnius
to become dixTSive
WIUOAM JOSEPH This month s issue also take-; a look at recent events in
Welleslt> Collcgf Man; s contnbution and Hannah
Colombu in John
RJCH.'^RD H Lt^CH Stewan-Gambin.i examines the changing role of the Ro-
Duke Untvcrsm man Catholic Church in thi.- region and the nse of evan-
RAJAN MENON gelical proicsiantism and il« sociopoliiical impact
Lehigh Lntversm —WW.F
AUGL'STLS RlCaARD NORTON
Boston Univetsir^
NORMAN D P.^LMER
Univtrsm of Penns>"U*ania. Ementus
JAN S PRYTYLA Coming in .April;
Penns^K'ania State Unrversm
JOHN P ROCHE Central A>ia
Fletcher School of La« and Diplomaq Ementus
A L RON\SE
All Souls College, Oxford. Ementus
ALMN Z RUBINSTEIN NO ADVERTISING
Unrversm' of Penris>"K-anLa
AARON SEGAL \tv-p; tunc.
Curreni Hision il>-\ iVn-353 -iiWi-
Universm of Texas M.iin ^irn-:
Juh. and AupusO b> Curreni Hi>ion ln> -ii;^
VACIAY' SMIL Philjdclpnia PA '.oi:: Cppvnphi l>"-i h^ Currv-m
,
Hi~:..rv Inc
73
—
307
dnx fiir ifae While Hoox and the Gxipess of Ac Ui^ed States to Ckz ifae mnsic, bite die
buflet, and deoolanize the island and the people of Pneito Rioo."
74
— — —
308
Caucus function and in a CNN iflteiview. supported the sis on a S6.5-billion annual increase in the amount of
plebisate and self-determmanon for Pueno Rico, call- federal aid for the poor. (The island currently receives
ing the prospect "exatmg" and promised to accept $8.5 billion a year from Washmgion.)
"anyihing they ma)' decide." and he did so again For the pnxommoirwealth Popular Demoaatic
spcalong to the Hispanic Cadena Telemundo television party, a believer in the Esiado Libre Asodado (Free
Dcrwork Senator Daniel Panick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) Associated State) status for Puerto Rico, the definition
advised Ginion thai the administration would face "a of lis formula for the future posed a quandary. Doreen
diplomanc imbrogbo" should the Senate refuse to Hemlock, wntmg in the June 14 Son Juan Star, called it
honor a result Catvonng statehood for Puerto Rico; "comtnorrwealth's midlife crisis." Would the party
Moynihan also reportedly told the president there was defend Pueno Rico's present status as a United States
no way the Serute would vote for statehood. territory, or demand for the island a "bilateial compaa"
The House Subcommittee on Insular and Interna- outside the United Sutes Constitution's "territorial
tional Afiairs held hearings July 13 on a resolution filed clause" (since the United States caomot enter into a
by Represenutive Jose Serrano (D-N.t.) in suppon of compaa with a territory, only with a sovereign people)?
self-determination. During the proceedings, broadcast The latter option had. been rejected by Rafael Hernan-
live on Pueno Rican radio, Serrano insisted thai dez Colon, who steered the Popular Democrats for 20
Congress would be obbged to respond to the plebi- years before his resignation in 1992, in testimony
scite. At later hearings before the House Western before Congress in 1989, but «-as espoused in the
Hemisphere subcomminee, chairman Robert TomceDi plebiscitecampaign by Senator Marco Rigau.
Q>N J.) said that if a tiujonty of Pueno Ricans voting The debate was fueled by a decision by the United
did not agree on the island's sutus, "we will have to Sutes Circuit Coun in Atlanta holding that Pueno Rico
make the judgment for them" because Pueno Rico's was a territory under the absolute power of Congress.
present status was economically and pobtically unten- Some Popular Democrats defended outright colonial-
able for both Pueno Rico and the United Suies. ism. But the leadership opted for a commonwealth
A CNN/Time poll conducted in the United States the "encompassed," as it declared in the brochure for
week of November 4 showed 21 percent of respon- voters, "in a bilateral compaa" between Pueno Rico
dents favored statehood, 24 percent favored indepen- and the United States "that cannot be altered except by
dence, and 32 percent were for the sucus quo. The —
mutual agreement" a commonwealth outside the
Puerto Rican community in the United States, 2.6 territorial clause, and one that would have sovereignty.
million strong, demanded that u be allowed to partici- The party's campaign before the plebiscite, however,
pate in the plebiscite, but was rebuffed by the island's was centered around the costs of sutehood and the
pro-statehood government. In an official vote con- destruction of the economy the party said statehood
duaed October 15 in New York City in which 30,000 would cause. It began by emphasizing "The Union
Pueno Ricans cast ballots, the commonwealth option That Works" with the United States, but soon aban-
won handily. doned this slogan (under pressure from the "bilateral
pact" wing) in favor of "The Best of Two Worlds."
DB^NING THE OPTIONS The pro-independence sector also had its troubles,
splitting down the middle on the question of whether
The August 8 New York Times correctly saw the
plebisate m Pueno Rico as an issue touching the to participate in the vote or not. Its extreme left
ity, vnth a majority concerned about assimilation. The advocated abstention fit>m the balloting and retained
salvos on the island were fired over what the three the right to wage an armed struggle. Others insisted
first
formulas for the pohtical future meant. No definmons that the 19 Pueno Rican polincal prisoners m United
only the bare-bones choices "statehood,"
States jails must be released before a \'alid vote on
"commonwealth," and "independence" were in- status could be held. On the other hand, the Indepen-
cluded on the plebiscite ballot, but each of the parties dence party called for polling and adopted a definition
that mcorporated a ten-year transibon period of United
presented an extensive eluadabon of the option it
supported in a brochure distributed at all poUmg States friendship and aid v/hAi the press termed a
places.
"solvent" independence
Th(l993ntfaiK«(inPM>*sUeo • 105
ytsrs of colonics indocoination md pasecuaon of Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), who contetided
suppjoneis of a republic on the island.) Local Secieuiy Puerto Rican independence was economically viable.
of State and Status G>inmissioneT Baltasar G>tTada del The New Progress ive party tried to capitalize on
Rio lei it be known that if statehood did not win the eiuloisetnents of statehood by {onner Presidents Geiald
United States would indeed grant a form of "bee Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush. Bush traveled
association" as promoted by Senator Rigau. But pro- wMk of the campaign but
to Puerto Rico during the last
statehood suategists had miscalculated; the issue {ailed surprised his local by not joining them on the
allies
to ignite passions,most notably the fear of an Associ- trail, merely issuing a lukewarm endorsement for
of 100,000 votes, but this time around it died quietly Gerald B. Solomon (R-N.Y.), who told Puerto Ricans
in mid-campaign. dial statehood was being misrepresented to them by its
For some weeks beginning in May, islanders were advocates.
preoccupied with the Ginton administration's plan to Axivertising, particularly television spots, played a
limit tax credits for multinational corporations with major role in the campaign. Pro-statehood ads used
operations in Puerto Rico, which simultaneously soured Governor Rossello as the option's only spokesman, die
feeling about the United States and made Puerto Ricans governor claiming that if Puerto Rico became the
consider more closely the financial consequences of fifty-first state taxes would be lower, the poor would
statehood. (Under section 936 of die Internal Revenue receive increased benefits, and youths would not have
Gxle, which applies to United States territorial posses- to leave the island to seek oppominides. Pro-
sions, Puerto Rico is a tax haven for such multination- commonwealth advertising focused on maintaining the
ab.) This in turn brought up the fact that Puerto Rico Spanish language and the island's culture and sports
would lose the benefits of the section if it became a teams, and on the jobs created and sustained by tax
state (because of the Constitution's "uniformity breaks. Ads for independence showed youths who
clause"). The Popular Democratic party included con- seemed well informed talking to their parents about
tinuation of Puerto Rico's status as a tax haven for taking charge of the island's destiny and preserving
multinationals in its proposed compact with the Pueno Rico's culture while maintaining friendly rela-
United States. The pro-statehood government in San tions with the United States.
statehood meant English would become the first and proponent of sutehood. made public a Library of
the only official language for the island. Congress, Congress repon suting that American citizenship can
Governor Rossello responded, would not reject keep- be revoked by Congress so long as Pueno Rico
ing Spanish under statehood. The issue of culture continues to have commonwealth status. The Popular
became crucial in the campaign leading up to the vote, Democratic party and even rabid statehooders called
expressing an obvious undercurrent of nationalism. this "deceidul,"but die juridical reality is such.
All camps used United Sutes political figures for The last week of die campaign was characterized by
their own purp>o$es. The Independence parry cited an unprecedented silence among voters. This time
76
310
be defended'")
The Popular Democratic part)' closed out the cam-
paign on die upswing, appropriating all the symbols of
Id pctria The Independence parry called for a reafiirma-
ThctyrantbodkinnNrtatieB • 107
Ibe healings on die status issue before die Wesient hemisphae aid the worid, had come to a dose. The
Hemispheie Subcomminee in die House of Represeno- vote will notend the status debate in Puerto Rico or
tives October S served to daiify one audal point, about Puerto Rico, but it has put the island on a course
quiddy lost in the din. Qiainnan Torricdli rnAimrti away from annexation to the United States.
unequivocably that if at least SO percent <rf the people The plebiscite puts policymakeis in both Puerto
of Puerto Rico did not agree on an alternative on Rico and die SO states (as well as European and Latin
November 14, or if Congiess was unable to giant what Ameiican powers) in a posidon to join in die design of
they petitioned for
were not there
— —bttxose the voces for ^ryrrhftftd
"tve wiU make the judgment for
a fcmne for the island. The people of Puerto Rico can
play a protagonist's role in the Caribbean widiin nafia
diem." Thus the plebiscite results must inevitably and the General Agreemem on Tariffs and Trade,
initiate a process of political dunge on the island, and
among others, as soon as die island is afforded die
may lead between the kadeiship in
to a confroniaiicxi
poweis and international stanihng that it would gain
Pueito'Ricoand the United States Congress. with a sovereign Free Assodaied State status aiui a
Having delegiiimized die present commonwealth,
bilateial compaa widi die United States on defense
fuMto give the statehood movement eve^a phuahiy, andsecuhiy.
and made die votes of those who support indepen-
The new status will usher in an era of dvil peace on
dence pivool the plebisoie will unleash a protnicted
the island and in the United States, free of the sate and
peiiod of serious political and economic instability
clandestine violence that has marred the relationship
unlessCongress responds quickly with a counteroffer
since the Nationalist uprisings of die 1930s, and with
on Puerto Rico's status. This ofier must daiify and
amnesty for all Puerto Rican political prisoners now in
enhance die compiact between Puerto Rico anid die
United States, and afiord the Puerto Rican people
United States jails. In die past, mil^t clandestine
pro-independence groups like the Aimed Forces of
sovereignty. Tae victory of the anii-annexatibn forces
National Libeianon (faln) and Los Macheteros have
could encourage economic stabilization and sound
opted for violence in defense of Pueno Rican sover-
kmg-range investment and planning on the island, ^
eignty, that would no longer be the case. Even thoiigh
the pedtion of the majority gains a receptive irview in
the new status is definitely not foil independence, £e
Coi^ress for the "bilateial compaa" vision of common-
grant of sovereignty outside the tenitorial clause will
wealth status. All indications are that Puerto Rico's
permit those favoring that opdon to defend it peace-
petinon will receive prompt attendon.
Prompt congressional attendon is required because
fully and freely, by electoral means.
if the situation is left to fiester it will have enormotisly
Finally, die adopnon of the bilateral compaa wiU
detrimental effects on the business climate in Puerto permit die United Nations to review die resolution its
Rico, which could spill over into the whole Caribbean Decobnizanon Committee approved in 1978, in which
it added "free assodaoon" as a leginmaie alternative
Basin. Experts anending the Conference on Tetritoiial
Policy at Geoige Washington University in Fdituaiy available for the decolonization of the people of Puerto
1993 counseled Congress to afford a Puerto Rican Rico. American dtizenship for Puerto Ricans would
petition the same "fast track" approval procedure used continue to be a strong ne with the United States,
far the North American Free Trade Agreement (naFTa) together with common security and defense, but
so as to reduce uncertainty as much as possible, and to would obtain international standing and
Puerto Rico
reserve the right to make an immediate coimterofiier to membership in the un.
the electorate in Puerto Rico. As demanded by the Juventud Autonomista Puertor-
The Clinton administration now must decide whether riqurna, a Pueno Rican youth group diat defended the
tokeep the president's pledge to support in Congress "sovereign bilateral compaa" idea in a full-page ad in
whatever the Puerto Rican people decked, or whether die Washington Posi November 19, 1993 (Pueno Rico's
to receive the results and do nothing. Lobbying by the quincentennial), and for all die preceding reasons, diis
president is deemed essential. In its absence, the role process must lead to the disposition of the territory by
of die three Pueno Rican-bom members of Congress is Congress and the creanon of a sovereign Free Assod-
vital. ated Sate of Pueno Rico. After 95 years of sdeoive
This window of opportunity muse be taken advan- inattention and benign neglea on the issue of cofonial-
tage of. The plebiscitewas a ouly &ee expression of die ism, it is time for the White House and the Congress of
people's will, since was held after the cold war. when
it die United States to face the music, bite die bullei. and
all its deleterious effects on die past half-century in the decolonize the island and the people of Pueno Rico.
78
312
\^jAhinifU'ti DC J .V'*
MZ.MOR.VNDL'M FOR
THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATTVE
FOR GL.\.M COMMO.WVEALTH
The Guam Commonwealth Bill. H.R. 1521. I03d Cong.. 1st Sess. (1993) contains
luo sections requiring the mutual consent of the Government of the United States and the
Government of Guam. S'^ction 103 provides that the Commonwealth Act could be amended
only with mutual consent of the two governments. Section 202 provides that no Federal
la^s. rules, and regulations passed after the enactment of the Commonwealth Act would
apply to Guam without the mutual consent of the two governments. The Representatives of
Guam insist that these two sections are crucial for the autonomy and economy of Guam. Tlie
tonner mc'as ot this Office on the validity or efficacy of mutual consent requirements
included in legislation governing the relationship between the federal goverrunent and non-
^tate areas lsl areas under the sovereientv of the United States that are not States.' have
Ttfmtonc5 tnai have developed from the ^(age of a classical territory to that of a Commonwealth with a
.onMitution oi iheir own adooiion and an elective ijovemor. resent bemg called Temiones and claim that thai
legal term jnd its implications are not applicable to them. We therefore shall refer to all Territories and
ConunonwealUis as non-slaie areas under the sovereignty of the United Slates or bnefly as non-slate areas.
313
imi tveti con^iMcni We therelore ha\tf carefully reexamined this issue. ()ur eunciuMon in
that these clauses raise Nenotis vOnstitutmnal issues and are legally unetitorceahle.
In our \.ieu .
it is iiiiponant that the text ot the Guam Commonwealth Act not create
an\ illusor\ expectations that might to mislead the electorate ot Guam about the
consequences ot the legislation. We must therefore oppose the inclusion in the
Cominonu.ealth .Act of" any provisions, such as mutual consent clauses, that are legally
uneniorceable. unless their unentorceability (or precatory nature) is clearly stated in the
document itself
I.
.All temtorv under the sovereignty of the United States falls into two groups: the
Sutes and the areas that are not States. The latter, whether called territories, possessions, or
common weaJths. are governed by and under the authority of Congress. As to those areas.
Congress exercises the combined powers of the federal and of a state government. These
basic considerauons were set out in the leading case of National Bank v. Counrv of Yankton .
To our kflovb ledge the fini coiuideratioa of the validity of mutual coasent clauses occurred m 1959 in
.:omiection with proposals to aiDend th: Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act. At that time the IDepartmeot took
the position that the answer to this question was doubtful but that such clauses should not be opposed on the
ground that they go beyond (be coasiitutioital power of Congress. In 1963 the Department of Justice opined that
'>uch ::auses «ere legally effective because Congress could create vested rights in the status of a temiory that
.cutd not be revoked unilaterally The Depanmeni adhered to this position in 1973 in connection with then
penamg Micronesians statu* negotiatiocu m a tnemorandum approved by then Assistant Attorney General
Rennquisi. On ibe oasis of this advice, a mutual consent clause was inserted in Section lOS of the Covenant
Aiin tne Northern Manana Islands The Department continued to support the validity of mutual consent clauses
in .onneciion with i&e First 1989 Task Force Report on the Guam Commonwealth Bill. The Department
rcsiMted mis issue \n the early I990's in connection with the Pu.rto Rico Status Referendum Bill in light of
Rpvtfn i Veencies Ot>t>osed to 477 U.S. 41. 55 (1986), and concluded that there could
Soc Sec Entrapment .
not oe u\ enforceable vested nght m a political status: hence that mutual consent clauses were ineffective
because tnev would not buid a subsequent Congress. We took the same position in the Second Guam Task
Force Report issued dunng the last days of the Bush Adnunistration in January 1993.
Mutual cooseni clauses are not a novel phenomenon: indeed they antedate the Constitution. Section 14 of
the Northwest Ordinance contained six 'anicles of compact, between the original States and the people and
Slates in the said temiory. and [shall) forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent.* These anicles
»ere incorporated either expressly or by reference into many early territorial organic acts. Clinton v.
Engifbrecht 80 L S. 13 Wall.) 434. 442
1 1872). The copious litigation under these "unalterable articles"
1
focussed largely on the question whether the temtones' obligations under them were superseded by the
when the temtofv became a Sute. as the result of the equal footing doctrine. We have,
ronsiiiution. or
however, not found any cases dealing wuh the question whether the Congress had the power to modify any duty
imposed on the United Suies by those anicles.
314
All territory wuhin the junsdiciion of the United States not included in
any State must necessarily be governed by or under the authonty of Congress.
The Temtones are but political subdivisions of the outlying domimon of the
United States. Their relation to the general govemmcm is much the same as
that which counties bear to the respective States, and Congress may legislate
for them as a State docs for its municipal organizations. The organic law of a
Temtory takes the place of a constituuon as the fundamental law of the local
government. It is obligatory on and binds the temtonal auihonties; but
Congress supreme, and for the purposes of this dqjanment of its
is
governmental authonty has all the powers of the people of the Umted States,
except such as have been expressly or by implicauon reserved in the
prohibitions of the Constitution.
exp lamed:
In the mean time fl.e. the interval between acquisition and statehood],
Florida continues to be a territory of the United States; governed by vinue of
that clause in the Constitution, which empowen Congress "to make ail needful
rules and regulations, respecting the temtory. or other property belonging to
the United States."
'
Some denved thai power from the authonty of the L'niled Slates to acquire territory, others from the mer;
fact of sovereignty, others frotn the Temtory Clause of the Consiinuioo of the Ututed States (An. IV. Sec 3.
CI. Z) pursuant to which Congress has 'Power to dispose of and maice ail needful Rules and Regulations
respecting ihe Territory or other Property belonging to the United States'. See e.g. Amencan Insurance Co. v
Canier. Zb U.S. (1 Pet.) 511.342(1828); Monnon Church v. United Sutes . 136 U.S. 1. 42-44(1890):
Downes v. Bidwell . 182 U.S. 244. 290 1901). (
At present, the Temtory Clause of the Constitution is generally considered to be the source of the
power of Congress to govern the non-sute areas. Hooven A Allison Co. v. Evatt 324 U.S. 652. 673-674 .
(1945): Examining Board v Flores de Otero 426 U.S. 572. 586 (1976); Hams v. Rosario. 446 U.S. 651
.
(1980); s« also Wabol v Vjljacrusis 958 F.2d 1450. 1459 (9th Cir. 1992). C£C- denied sub nom Philippine
. .
Goods. Inc V. Wabol. U.S. 113 S.Ct. 675 (1992). (Footnote supplied.)
.
315
u'l'vemmeiu. may result necessanly from the tacts, that it is not within the
lunsdiction ot any paniciilar state, and is within the power and jurisdiction ot
the United States.
y. at 542-43. 54b.
The power of Congress to govern the non-state areas is plenary like every other
legislativepower of Congress but it is nevertheless subject to the applicable provisions of the
Constitution. As Chief Justice Manhall stated in Gibbons v. Ogden. 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 1.
196 n824), with respect to the Commerce Power
This power [the Commerce Power], Like all others vested in Congress is
complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no
limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution . (Emphasis added.)
necessarily follows from the supremacy of the Constitution. S^ g^., Hodel v. Virginia
Surface Mimng and Reclamation Assoc. 452 U.S. 264, 276 (1981). That the power of
.
Congress under the Territory Clause is subject to constitutional limitations has been
recognized in County of Yankton 101 U.S. at 133; Downes v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 244, 290-
. .
91 (1901). District of Columbia v. Thompson Co. 346 U.S. 100, 109 (1953). .
Finally, the power of Congress over the non-state areas persists "so long as they
remain in a temtonal condition." Shivelv Bow lb v 152 U.S. 1, 48 (1894). §jS& also
v. . .
HoQven &. .\llison Co. v. Evatt . 324 U.S. 652, 675 (1945) (recognizing that during the
intermediary penod between the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippine
Islands and the fmal withdrawal of United States sovereignty from those islands "Congress
reuins plenary power over the temtonal government").
The plenary Congressional authority over a non-state area thus lasts as long as the
area retains that status. It terminates when the area loses that status either by virtue of its
admis.sion as a State, or by the termination of the sovereignty of the United States over the
area by the grant of independence, or by its surrender to the sovereignty of another country.
-4
20-766 - 96 - 11
316
^hile Coneress has the power to govern the non-state areas it need not exercise that
po\kcr Congress can delegate to the inhabitants of non-sute areas fuU powers of self-
Itself.
go%emmcnt and an autonomy similar to that of States and has done so since the beginning of
the Republic. Such delegation, however, must be "consistent with the supremacy and
supcrMsion of National authonty". Clinton v. Englebrecht . 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 434. 441
(18":); Pueno Rico v. Shell Co. 302 U.S. 253. 260, 261-62 (1937). The requirement that
.
U.S. 286. 296 (1958). Harm V. EoiSliani. 233 F.2d 110, 113 (3rd Cir. 1956), Firemen's
Insurance Co. v. Washington 483 F.2d 1323, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1973). The power of
.
This consideration also disposes of the argument that the power of Congress under the
Temtory Clause to give up its sovereignty over a non-state area includes the power to make
a paniai disposition of that authority, hence that Congress could give up power to amend
its
or repeal statutes relating to the governance of non-state areas. But, as shown above, the
retention of the power to amend or repeal legislation delegating governmental powers to a
non-state area is an integral element of the delegation power. Congress therefore has no
Thotnp«on demit with the Diunct of Columbii's govemmeot which is provided for by Art. I. Sec. 8. CI.
I
* of the Constitution, rmther than with the oon-stite areas as to whom the Congressional power is denved trom
!he Termor. Clause. The Court, however, held that in this area the rules relating to the Congressional power
to govern the Oistnct of Columbia and the non-stite areas are identical. Indeed, the Court relied on cases
dealing with noaitaie areas. £j.. Hombuctde v. Toombs 85 U.S.
. (18 Wall.) 648. 655 (1874), and
Chrmianson v. Kin« Counrv . 239 L.S. 365 1 1915). where it held that Congress can delegate its legislative
authonty under Art. I. See. 8. CI. 17 of the Constitution to the District, subject to tbe power of Congress at any
lime to revise, alter, or revoke that authonty.
*
power with respect to the District of Columbia. The Act of February 21.
Congress has exercised this
I8T| . 14 Slat. 4)9 gave Columbia vinual temtorial status, with a a governor appointed by the
the Distnct of
President, i legislative assembly that included an elected house of delegates, and a delegate in Congress. The
1871 Act was repealed by the Act of June 20. 1874. 18 Stat. 116. which abrogated among others the provisions
for the legislative assembly and a delegate in Congress, and established, a government by a Commission
-5-
317
authontN lo enact legislation under ilie Temt»)ry Clause that would limn the unlettered
exercise ot its power to amend or repeal
The same result flows from the consideration that all non-state areas are subiect to the
authority of Congress, which, as shown above, is plenary. This basic rule does not permit
the creationot" non-state areas that are only panially subject to Congressional authonty The
plenary power of Congress over a non-state area pcnists as long as the area remains in that
condition and tenninates only when the area becomes a State or ceases to be under United
States sovereignty. There is no intermediary status as far as the Congressional power is
concerned.
The two mutual consent clauses conuined in the proposed Commonwealth Act
therefore are subject to Congressional modification and repeal.
m.
The rationale underlying that principle is the consideration that if one Congress could
prevent the subsequent amendment or repeal of legislation enacted by it, such legislation
' would be frozen permanently and would acquue virtually constitutional status. Justice
Brennan express«l this thought in his dissentmg opinion m United States Trust Co. v. New
Jersey 431 U.S. 1. 45 (19T7), a case involvmg the Impairment of the Obligation of
.
I
would so Jeopardize the legitimacy of a system of government that relies upon
the ebbs and flows of politics to "clean out the rascals" than the possibility that
those same rascals might perpetuate their policies simply by locicing them into
binding contracts.
318
NoiieihelcNs. the mumiii ihji one Coiiiiress taiinoi hind tuuire CDoprcss. like e\cr\
leeal nile. has n^ liiims. Ai earls as I8I(J. Ciiiet Justice Marshall explained in Fletcher \
When. then, a law is in its nature a contract, when absolute rights have
vested under that contract, a repeal of the law cannot devest (sic) those rights.
The powen of one legislature to repeal or amend the acts of the preceding one are
limited in the case of States by the Obligation of Contracts Clause (An. I. Sec. 10. CI. 1) of
the Consutution and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and in the case
of Congressional legislation by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This
pnnciple was recognized in the Sinking-Fund Cases 98 U.S. 700. 718-19 (1879):
.
The United States cannot any more than a State interfere with private
rights, except for legitimate governmental purposes. They are not included
within the constitutional prohibition which prevents States from passing laws
impairing the obligation of contracts, but equally with the States thev are
prohibited from depnving persons or corporations of property without due
process of law They cannot legislate back to themselves, without making
.
compensauon. the lands they have given this corporation to aid in the
construction of its railroad. Neither can they by legislation compel the
corporation to discharge its obligations in respect to the subsidy bonds
otherwise than according to the terms of the contract already made in that
connection. The United States are as much bound by their contracts as are
individuals, (emphasis supplied.)
See also Bowen v. Agencies Opposed to Soc. Sec. Entrapment 477 U.S. 41, 54-56 (1986).
.
319
IV
Tlie question therefore is wfietfier the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
precludes a subsequent Congress from repealing legislation for the governance of non-state
areas enacted by an earlier Congress under the Territory Clause. This question must be
answered in the negative.
This Clause is inapplicable to the iiepeal or amendment of the two mutual consent
clauses here involved for two reasons. First, a non-state area is not a "person" within the
meaning of the Fifth Amendment, and. second, such repeal or amendment would not deprive
the non-state area of a property right within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.
A.
A non- state area is not a penon in the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth AmcfKlmgm.
In South Can?lina 383 U.S. 301, 323-24 (1966), the Court held that a
v. Katzenbach .
(1989) ('The State of Alabama is not included among the entities protected by the due
process clause of the fifthamendment*): and State of Oklahoma v. Federal Energy
Regulatory Comm. 494 . F.Supp. 636. 661 (W.D. Okl. 1980), aO, 661 F.2d 832 (10th Cir.
1^81). cen. denied , sub, nom. Texas v. Federal Energv Regulatory Comm. 457 . U.S. 1105
(1^82)
Similarly it has been held that creatures or instrumentalities of a State, such as cities
or water improvement districts, are not persons within the meaning of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Citv of Sault Ste, Marie. Mich, v. Andrus . 532 F. Supp.
157. 167 (D.D.C. 1980); El Paso. County Water Improvement District v. IBWC/US . 701 F.
Supp. 121. 123-24 (WD. Tex 1988).
The non-sute areas, concededly. are not States or instrumentalities of States, and we
have not found any case holding directly that they are not persons within the meaning of the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They are, however, governmental bodies, and
-8-
320
ilK- rjimii.ik' I'l S>'iuli Cjrt'liii.i \ Kji7triih.Kh . 3!s3 US ai 301. appears t*' dc Uiai mh.Ii
IvhIics are ni)i pnnecieiJ In i\w Due Pn>v.trss Clause oi ihe Firth Amendmeni Murcmer. ii ,n
A ell ;.")iahlished ihai the polituai suhdiviMciis ot a Siaie are not considered persons protected
as .lu'ainst the State by the pro\isions ol the Founeeiith Amendment See. e.g.. Newark \.
\e-* ler^eN . ItZ US 142. I^n (io:3i \Villiams v Mavor of Baltimore 289 US 3(3. 4U
l>^33i South Maccmb Disposal Authoniv v Township ot Washmgton ~^0 F.2d 500. 505.
<u' nih Cir l^>*oi cited. The relationship of the non-state areas to
and the authonties there
the Federal Government has been analogized to that of a city or county to a State. As stated.
MiprTi . the Coun held in National Bank ^ County of Yaniaon 101 U.S. 129. 133 (1880): .
The temtones are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the
United States Their relation to the general government is much the same as
that which counties bear to the respective States ...
.More recently, the Court explained that a non-state area is entirely the creation of
Congress and compared the relationship between the Nation and a non-state area to that
bctw'ecn a State and a city United States v. Wheeler 435 U.S. 313. 321 (1978). It follows .
that, since States are not persons within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment and since the
piiliticaJ subdivisions of States are not persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth
.Amendment, the non-state areas are not persons within the meaning of the Due Pixxess
Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
B.
Legislation relating to the "ovemance of non-state areas does not create any rights or
siams protected bv the Due Process Clause against repeal or amendment by subsequent
legislation.
non-->ute area is not a person with the meanmg of the Due Process Clause. Here it will be
shown that mutual consent provisions m legislation, such as the ones envisaged in the Guam
Commonwealth Act. would not create property nghts within the meamng of that Clause.
Legislation concerning the governance of a non-state area, whether called organic act.
federal relations act. or commonwealth act. that does not contain a mutual consent clause is
clearly subject to amendment or repeal by subsequent legislation. A non-state area does not
acquire a vested interest in a particular stage of self government that subsequent legislation
could not diminish or abrogate. While such legislation has not been frequent, it has occurred
in connection with the Distnct of Columbia. Sgg District of Columbia v. Thompson Co. .
34ft US 100. 104-05 ( 1953). supra n.6 Hence, in the absence of a mutual consent clause.
- 9
321
Icpislatinn cDnceminc the L'l'^cmincni i>i ,i non-Nialc .irca i> Mihieci lu aiiictulincni cr repeal
by subsequent legislation
Thib leads to the question whether the addition ol a mutual consent clause, i_e. of a
provision that the legislation shall not be modified or repealed without the consent ot the
Government ol the United States and the Government of the non-state area, has the effect of
creating in the non-siate areas a specific status propeny nght within ihe amouniine to a
meaning of the Due Process Clause It is our conclusion
must be answered that this question
in the negative because (h sovereign govemmeniai powers cannot be contracted away, and y
(2) because a specific political relationship does not constitute propeny" within the meanine
of the Fifth Amendment.
I. As a body politic the Government of the United Sutes has the general capacity to
enter into contracts. United States v Tingev 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 115. 128 (1831). This
.
power, however, is generally limited to those types of contracts in which private persons or
corporations can engage. By contrast [sovereign] "govemmental powers cannot be
contracted away." North Vmencan Coml. Co. v. United States 171 U.S. 110. 137 (1898). .
More recently the Supreme Coun held in connection with legislation arising under the
Contract Clause (An. I. Sec. 10. CI. 1) of the Consutution thai "the Contract Clause does
not require a State to adhere to a contract that surrenders an essential anribute of its
sovereignty." United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey. 431 U.S. 1. 23 (1977).' In a sunilar
context Mr. Justice Holmes stated:
One whose rights, such as they are. are subject to state restriction. ~^
cannot remove them from the power of the State by making a contract about
them. Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter 209 U.S. 349. 357 (1908).'
.
Agreements or compacts to the effect that the Congress may not amend legislation
relating to the government oi a non-state area without the consent of the laner. or that federal
legislation shall not apply to Guam unless consented to by the Government of Guam would
unquestionably purport to surrender essential powers of the federal government They arc
Cases arising under the Conlnct Clause holding thai a Slate cannot cooiracl away a sovereign power are
also applicable to the contracts mide by the federal government because the Contract Clause imposes more
rigorous restnctions on the States than the Fifth Amendment imposes on the federal government. Pension
Benefit Guaranrv Corp v. R A Grav Co. 467 L'.S. 717. 733 (1984). .National Railroad Passenger Corp \.
.
AT &. S.F R 470 U.S. 451. 47;-73 n.ZS 1985i. Hence, when sute legislation does not violate the
. 1
Contract Clause, analogous federal legislation is all ihc more permissible under the Due Proces.s Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.
- 10 -
322
ilicrtrliTw iK'i hiiuliii'.' i<n ihc liiiieil Sl.iii.-^ .iiul ...imini v.imlcr .i propcnv iiUltcM nrnkMal In
the Fiiili -^inciulineiu
Wok generally, the Supreme Cinin held in B«iweii \ Agencies C>pp<>sed to So.. Sec
Entnnnicni .
-177 U S. 41. 55 (1*^^01. thai the contr^actual propeny nghtb protected by the
Due Privess Clause oi the Fitth Aniendnieni are the traditional pnvate contractual nshts.
But the 'contractual neht" at issue m this case bears iinle. if any.
resemblance to nghts held to constitute "property" within the meaning of the
Fifth Amendment. The termination provision in the Agreement exactly
tracked the language of the statute, conferring no nght on the State beyond
that contained in § 418 itself. The provision constituted neither a debt of the
United States, sa Pern v. United States , supra , nor an obligation of the
United Sutes to provide benefits under a contract for which the obligee paid a
moncury premium, sfig Lynch v. United Sutes supra The termination clause . .
*as not unique to this Agreement; nor was it a term over which the State had
any bargaming power or for which the State provided independent
consideration. Rather, the provision simply was pan of a regulatory program
over which Congress reuined authonty to amend in the exercise of its power
to provide for the general welfare.
.Agreements that the Guam Commonwealth Act may not be amended without the consent of
the Government of Guam, or that future federal statutes and regulations shall not apply to
Guam without the consent of the Government of Guam do not constitute conventional
clearly
pnvate contracts: they are elements of a regulatory system.
In the past the Department of Justice at times has concluded that a non-State area may
.'uve a vested interest in a specific sutus which would be immune from unilatenal
Concrcssional amendment or repeal." We cannot continue to adhere to that position in
Coie* SUCH u L^ncn \ Lniied Suie> . Z^I L S 571 (1934). and Perrv \. United States 294 L S 330
.
i»>J5i ire not coninry to ihis concluiion Boih cases involved commercial agreements I Lynch insurance:
:
Pfrr^ Oovemmeni bonds) In LvTch the Court held ihat Congress could not amend the contract merely to save
:none% unless, indeed ihe action falls within the federal police police power or some other paramount power
;<>: L S u 379 Perrv involved bonds issued hv the tniied Stales under the authority of Art. 1. Sec. 8. CI 2
ot the Consfirution. lo borrow money on ihe credit of (he bnited States. The Court held that Congress did not
ha\e '.he power to destroy Ihe credit of the I niied States or to render it illusory by unilaterally abrogating one
ot the pivotal terms of the bonds to uve monev While the Court held that the United Stales had broken the
xrrement it nevenneless held that plaintift coulJ not recover because, as the result of regulations validly issued
3'. me United States, ne had not suffered any monetary damages.
CI n;
'
323
\ic\^ I'l ilic rulmiis111 the Supreme Cmin thai lecisiation concerning the govenunce ot a m)n-
Maie area is necebsanly suhieci lo Cunyressii'nal amendment and repeal; thai governmental
iHHlies are not penons withm the meanmg or the Due Process Clause; that governmental
lH)\Keri cannot be contracted awa\. and especially the exposition in the recent Bowen case.
thai the property nghts protected by the Due Process Clause are those ansing from pnvate
law or .ommercial contracts and not those ansing from governmental relations.
Sections 103 and 202 therefore do not create vested property rights protected by the
Due Process Clause ot the Fitth Amendment.'- Congress thus retaans the power to amend
the Guam Commonwealth Act unUateriilly or to provide that its legislation shall apply to
Guam without the consent of the government of the Commonwealth. The inclusion of such
provisions, therefore, in the Commonwealth Act would be misleading. Honesty and fair
dealing forbid the inclusion of such illusory and deceptive provisions in the Guam
*
Commonwealth Act.
Finally, the Department of Justice has indicated that it would honor past commitments
with respect to the mutual consent issue, such as Section 105 of the Covenant with the
Nonhem Manana Islands, in spite of its reevaluation of this problem. The question whether
the 1989 Task force proposal to amend Seaion 103 of the Guam Commonwealth Act so as to
limit the mutual consent icquirement to Seaions 101, 103, 201, and 301 constitutes such
pnor commitment appears to have been rendered moot by the rejection of that proposal by
the Guam Commission.
Ii IS 5igiuficani thai the circumsuaces m which Congress can effectively agree oot to repeal or amend
legislation were discussed la the context of commercial contracts. Bowen . 477 U.S. at 52.
'
Bo* en . It IS true, dealt with legislatioo that expressly reserved the nght of Congress to amend, while the
proposed Guam Comnonwealtta Act would expressly preclude the nght of Congress to amend without the
.'onseni of the Govemmeai of Guam. The underlyiog agreetnenti. however, are not of a private contractual
nature, and. hetKe. are not property withm the meaning of the Due Pnx:ess Clause. We caitoot perceive how
ihes :an be converted into 'property* by the addition of a provision that Congress foregoes the nght of
amenameni
'
The conclusion that Section 3DZ of the Guam Commonwealth Act (inapplicability of future federal
lesislaiion to Guam without the consent of Cuami would not bind a future Congress obviates the need to
examine the co«»$titutionality of Section 20:. In Cumn v Wallace 306 U.S.
. 1. 15-16 (1939). and United
Sutes Rock Roval Co-oo )07 U.S. 533. 577-78 1939). the Court upheld legislation that made the
V 1
effectiveness of regulations dependent on the approval of tobacco fanners or milk producers affected by them.
The Court held thai this approval wai a legitimate condition for making the legislation applicable. Similarly, it
.-ould t>e argued that the approval of federal legislation by the Government of Guam is a legitimate condition for
making that legislation applicable to Guam. Since, as suited above, a future Congress would not be bound by
Section :o:. we need not decide the question whether the requirement of approval by the Government of Guam
tor tverv rururc federal tuiute and regulation is excessive and inconsistent with the federal sovereignty over
Guam.
-
- 12
324
2
o ^ 5
|x 2.
325
CRS Congressional Research Service • The Library of Congress • Washington, D.C. 20540-7000
Translation - Spanish
The Chairman of the Popular Democratic Party (PPD), Miguel Hernandez Agosto,
indicated that an absolute majority, 50 plus one, should be a requirement in the planned
plebiscite that would be held on November 14.
"So that one can talk in terms of status, it has to be a majority. It cannot be a plurality,"
Hernandez Agosto indicated.
Governor Pedro Rossello sent the Legislature a plebiscite bill that favors plurality in the
formula. In other words, the one that gets the most votes gets the mandate to go to
Washington to negotiate a bill that will define in detail the provisions of that political status.
"Everjrthing talked about in Congress was that it be 50 plus one," Hernandez Agosto
recalled concerning the plebiscite bill that died in the Congress a few years ago.
Hernandez Agosto indicated that talking of plurality is recognizing that the plebiscite that
Rossello proposes is a step in a series of events. In fact, Rossello has anticipated that after it
"All of this is imposing a formula against the will of the majority, because the other two
formulas are a majority. The other two formulas (independence and the Commonwealth) total
more," added the spokesman of the minority of the PPD in the Senate.
The Commonwealth leader indicated that the plebiscite bill "has been treated like any
other piece of legislation" and the tradition of dialogue between the political parties in order
to reach some voting agreements has been violated.
"Doing it this way is a mechanism controlled by the government party, which establishes
the rules because it has the votes in the Legislature," he pointed out.
Hernandez Agosto indicated that he still does not know when the General Council of the
group will decide it if will participate or not in the referendum on status. He said that a
meeting is not being planned immediately.
"The meeting of the council will take place at a timely date," he noted.
326
CRS-2
When asked if the delay in a decision could be counterproductive, he indicated that "that's
why I say timely."
Tranalated by
Deanna Hammond
CRS Language Services
-
December 6, 1995
327
Legislative Assembly
House of Representatives
The Capitol
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901
Position Statement
by
element of our system of taxation. Most, if not all of these credits have always been
included in the Internal Revenue Code as a way to incentivize, either corporations or
individuals, to act in a certain manner, so as to achieve the legislative objectives of such
given provisions. Thus, if there ever came a time when those objectives were finally
achieved, some people would then feel justified to conclude that it was money well
"spent".
So, what was the legislative purpose or objective that Congress had in 1976
when it created Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code?
The report on H.R. 10612, which later came to be known as the Tax Reform Act
of 1976, said, and I quote:
[to] assist the U.S. possessions in obtaining employment-producing
investments by U.S. corporations, while at the same lime encouraging
those corporations to bring back to the United States the earnings from
these investments to the extent they cannot be reinvested productively in
the possession.
Nineteen years later , is it possible to say that Section 936 has been effective in
achieving such an objective? Let us look very closely at its track record, before
submitting an answer to this question.
By the mid 70's, Section 931 of the Internal Revenue Code, the predecessor of
Section 936, began to be criticized as an insufficient stimulus for employment-producing
investments in Puerto Rico. Quite frankly people started to realize that it had stopped
being effective as to that end. No longer was the economy of Puerto Rico growing at the
pace of previous decades, when our GNP grew at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent
during the 1950's and 7 percent during the 60's.
Yet, it is significant to point out, that even throughout those years there were
some signs that not everything was right during such a period of significant economic
growth. For instance, during that same period government employment grew almost as
fast as in the manufacturing sector. Meanwhile, total employment had increased, albeit at
a much slower pace than GNP. Nevertheless, unemployment decreased significantly
until it bottomed out at an all-time low of 10.7 percent in 1970. What may initially seem
a bit incongruous was in great part a result of the massive migration that had taken place
throughout those same years.
Still, it was not until 1975 and '76 that the Puerto Rican economy began to take a
significant downward trend. Among the various factors that contributed to this decline,
were: 1) the energy crisis that began in 1974, which had an even bigger effect on a
developing island economy like that of Puerto Rico; 2) the recession that affected the
U.S. economy and the subsequent rise in the interest rates; 3) as well as an increase in the
competition that the traditional Puerto Rican manufacturing industries, which were
mainly labor intensive, started to get from low-wage foreign countries.
Another factor that further complicated matters was the significant decrease in the
number of people leaving for the mainland, with the simultaneous effect of increasing the
numbers of those looking for employment opportunities in a very sluggish economy.
It was definitely a period of some turmoil. For example, there was a significant
decrease in the total number of people employed; with a 45 thousand job net reduction in
1975 and another 21 thousand in 76. This drop was noticeable in all sectors of the
economy except in the public sector, which bucked this trend by increasing its numbers
329
for both years. Thus, the unemployment rate jumped from 12.2 percent in 1974, to 15.3
percent in 1975 and to 19.4 percent in 1976.
Amid all of this, Section 936 was introduced with the clear purpose, as I have
already indicated, of promoting investments by U.S. corporations in order to create jobs
in Puerto Rico. While clearly helpful for promoting the growth of Puerto Rico's
manufacturing sector in the past decades. Section 936 was probably more effective in
stimulating its transformation; from one dominated by labor intensive industries, to one
spearheaded by those that basically rely on capital and technology.
This evolution rested on both real and tax-related advantages. The real
advantages were that Puerto Rico began to develop over the years, quite advanced
financial, transportation and telecommunication networks; as well as a well-trained,
inexpensive -when compared with the fifty states- and productive workforce. Section
936 provided an incentive for U.S. corporations to utilize these advantages. However, its
greatest attractive were the tax incentives it had to offer.
Yet, what kind of efTect did this have as to the realization of the congressional
objective that underlay the adoption of Section 936 in the first instance? Namely,
the creation of more jobs in the Island. Let us see.
Between 1977 and 1979, 20 thousand jobs were created in the manufacturing
sector In 1978 there were approximately 145 thousand people employed in industries
.
years of Section 936, took a downward trend those first few years of the decade. It
managed to recover but on a very irregular and minor way for the rest of the decade;
showing only a net increase of approximately 14 thousand new jobs in the sector. On the
other hand, the share of manufacturing as to the total number of people employed, shows
an average annual rate of 18.4 percent for the decade; with a high of 19.1 percent in 1984
and a low of 17.4 percent in 1989. These statistics show the sta gnation of this sector of
the economy for much, if not all of the decade.
Meanwhile, public sector employment grew in net numbers for the decade, as
over 17 thousand jobs were created within government. The share of this sector as to
total employment remained practically stable, as it accounted for 23.1 percent of those
employed by the end of the decade.
It was the service sector which experienced the most impressive and sustained
growth throughout the decade with almost 50 thousand jobs being created during this
period. By 1989 it had a 21.2 percent share of total employment.
Still, the number of those who remained unemployed remained intolerably high
for most of the decade, averaging 19.2 percent for those ten years. Nonetheless, the
unemployment rate did manage to come down from a high of 23.5 percent in 1983, to a
low of 14.4 percent in 1989; only to increase again in the years that followed because of a
mild recession in the U.S. economy.
330
It is also noteworthy to point out that the net migration of Puerto Ricans to the
mainland picked up dramatically in 1982, averaging almost 35 thousand persons per year
for most of the decade.
The early part of the nineties witnessed a continued decrease in the share of the
manufacturing sector as a percentage of total employment; reaching a low of 16.4 percent
in 1994. For example, between 1986 and 1993 net employment in 936 companies
increased by only 1^5 jobs Certainly a very paltry Ggure.
.
becoming the largest employment provider in the economy; outpacing all other sectors,
by experiencing quite steady, albeit unspectacular growth. Since 1970 it had managed to
grow by 43.2 percent. Still, it barely surpassed public sector growth by only 0.6 percent.
Meanwhile unemployment both increased and decreased during the 90's; with a
decade high of 16.8 percent in 1993, to a decade low two years later of 13.9 percent.
Definitely the improving economic situation in the United States had a substantial effect
in the upswing of our economy by mid-decade.
Does this "picture" so far illustrate any significant effectiveness on the part
of Section 936?
Supporters of Section 936 would argue that in order to measure the effectiveness
of the Tax Credit, one ought not look at the paltry record of job creation by the
manufacturing sector, but take into account the growth registered in other sectors of the
economy. Yet some of these barely showed any kind of sustained growth since the
inception of Section 936, with the possible exceptions of both the service and public
sectors.
is where the often mentioned and quite overhyped multiplying factor comes
That
into play.These people would argue that it works as follows: that for each 936
employment created, more than two "indirect" jobs are produced in other sectors,
especially in the service industry.
Is the multiplying factor really this effective? It may be difficult to say; yet, in
reality, the actual multiplying factor probably lower than what they contend.
is
Still, where does Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code mention the
creation of such "indirect" jobs as its legislative objective?
You can search... BUT IT'S NOWHERE TO BE FOUND .
It is pitiful that they continue to defend Section 936 on this premise. Nonetheless,
if this unintended effect had been successful is one thing, but we are talking about an
Island that still suffers from high unemployment rates. Thus, the creation of these
"indirect" jobs has not been in such numbers that would allow us to categorize
Section 936 as an effective job creation mechanism for the economy of Puerto Rico.
Supporters of Section 936 may also counter with the argument that many of the
jobs created are much better paid than what used to be available in the job pool before.
This may somewhat true with regards to those jobs created by those 936 companies
which are capital intensive, but not necessarily so for those jobs created in the service or
in the public sector.
important to point out that even in the case of many of the capital intensive
It is
936 corporations it may not always hold true; as on many occasions they also try to lower
labor costs and circumvent some of the benefits required by law to regular employees, by
hiring temporary workers instead.
Then, is it possible that this supposedly positive development really have such
a widespread and noticeable effect in our economy?
DEFINITELY NOT SO .
States and even less so than Mississippi, the poorest state in the Nation. Mississippi, as
opposed to Puerto Rico, was able to close the gap with the rest of the states during this
period.
Even more appalling, 64 of the 78 municipalities in the Island show a yearly
per capita income of less than $4,000 dollars according to the 1990 census. Of those,
28 of them have a per capita income of less than $3,000 dollars. And in 71 out of the
78 municipalities, one (1) out of every two (2) persons live under the poverty level.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO PUT IT. BUT THESE NUMBERS ARE
DISGRACEFUL.
Now that you are a bit more aware of our present socio-economic conditions
and of the track record of Section 936, DO YOU STILL FIND SUFFICIENT
JUSTIFICATION FOR MAINTAINING SECTION 936 IN THE TAX CODE?
ABSOLUTELY NOT .
936 corporations was more than $22 thousand; almost double the average wage of $14,
210.
Still, it pointed out, that fourteen 936 corporations, presumably all
pharmaceuticals, received tax benefits in excess of $100,000 per employee. It
continued by saying that those fourteen companies accounted for 4 percent of the
Section 936 corporations for which employment data was available, but at the same
time derived 29 percent of the tax benefits.
Regrettably, President Reagan's wage credit proposal was not accepted;
nonetheless, provisions in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced to some extent, some of
the tax advantages that Section 936 offered these corporations.
By 1987 the average annual wage compensation for workers in 936 corporations
.
was $17,725; with the highest compensation being in the pharmaceutical industry having
an average wage rate of $26, 471. The average revenue cost per employee for all 936
corporations was $26, 725 and for the pharmaceuticals it was over $81 thousand.
The high revenue cost per employee in the pharmaceutical industry results
from the fact that while that industry received the largest share of the tax benefits,
55 percent in 1987, it only employed 18.2 percent of all Section 936 workers. The
332
siihsidv per dollar of wages paid was more than double the average, at $3.08 per
dollar or wages paid.
Whether measured as employee or per dollars wages paid, the costs
a subsidy per
of the tax credit, especially pharmaceutical industry, are undeniably too high.
in the
Between 1985 and 1990, the lost tax revenue continued to climb, from $2.5
billion to $3.2 billion. This year it is estimated to be quite close to $4 billion per year.
So a-s you may see, even with the various amendments to the .section over the
years, there seems to be no end to this revenue loss trend.
To give you a few examples as to tax exemptions that some of these
corporations enjoyed ONLY IN 1994 :
Still, all the various problems of Section 936 are compounded when one takes a
closer look at the negative side-effects that it has had on many communities in the United
States In essence, many of these 936 corporations, especially many in the
pharmaceutical industry, have decided to close many operations in the mainland U.S. so
as to establish "runaway plants" in Puerto Rico; which allows them to maximize the
benefits afforded by Section 936.
.
333
two... that the Puerto Rican economy was flourishing because of the tax break...
)
334
three... a warning thai this flourishing economy would collapse without the tax
break...
and four... a not-so-veiled threat that if the provision was repealed, the
companies would pack up and move to some other part of the world.
Let me point out a couple of things. First, as wealthy corporations who have
taken advantage of such a generous tax break that can only be measured in the billions
of dollars, they are far from being in a moral high ground so as to be able to make
demands based on an argument of tax fairness.
Would they be able to sell their case to the overburdened American middle
class taxpayer?
I DON'T THINK THEY STAND A CHANCE.
Second,in the other three arguments they seemingly imply two very outrageous
assertions: one, that the livelihood of the Puerto Rican economy is completely dependent
on Section 936 and two, that these corporations would only stay in Puerto Rico so far as
Section 936 remains in the books.
I would simply remind them that Section 936 was a very useful tool in the
Still, it is important to re-cognize that not all the companies in the manufacturing
sector can be grouped together; as there arc some who do not even benefit from these tax
incentives. Not even all the 936 corporations can be considered homogeneous, as there
are many of them (supposedly around 84%) who utilize the wage credit, while the rest of
them (primarily the pharmaceuticals and some of the other capital intensive industries)
are the ones that utilize the income based credit.
I would also remind them that our economy is definitely far more dependent on
the well-being of the American economy than on the continued existence of these tax
incentives. In addition, the Puerto Rican economy is far from being what it could and
should be. Statistics show how much our Island has to go before it reaches a level of
economic development comparable with that of Mississippi, the poorest state in our
Nation.
Sadly, for the past several decades the economic model has centered too much
on the promotion of the manufacturing sector, rather than on the furtherance of a
more balanced development of our economy. Such a policy would have provided
much more stability, as well as the capability to weather the periodical downturns of the
U.S. economy that have brought forth such negative repercussions to the Puerto Rican
economy in the past.
Would these corporations leave Puerto Rico if Section 936 is amended or
repealed?
Maybe some will leave, but most of them would probably stay, because Puerto
Rico provides them with many advantages that other locations both in the U.S. and in the
region do not, such as:
1 a trained, inexpensive and productive workforce;
2) well developed financial, communications and transportation networks;
3) a prime geographical and cultural location that serves as a link between the
U.S., the Caribbean and Latin America;
4) its legal system (including a U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico);
5) political stability; and
6) many other incentives.
Those who may decide to leave, would probably be among those 936 corporations that
came to Puerto Rico only to take advantage of the income based credit provided by this
section of the Internal Revenue Code. Still, that is a risk or a possibility we are willing to
assume.
335
The other important group within the pro-936 lobbying front is the pro-
commonwealth Popular Democratic Party. They support the continuation of
Section 936 purely for political purposes.
Why?
Because Section 936 is only applicable to U.S. territorial possessions, not to
states,or to territories in transition to eventual statehood.
But how do they sell their position to the people of Puerto Rico?
Basically they use the same arguments put forth by the private sector front. First,
they try to have people believe that the current socio-economic and political situation of
Puerto Rico "is the best of two worlds"; as expressed by their campaign slogan for the
1993 Status Plebiscite. That is why they seem to exude a sense of conformity regarding
the socio-economic condition of Puerto Rico, as they only seem to talk about all that our
Island has achieved since the late 40's and early 50's. It is unfortunate, though, that they
seem to hide the ineffectiveness of their outdated economic development model for the
past 25 years, by including statistics from the more prosperous 50's and 60's.
On the other hand, they never provide any real alternatives for true economic
growth, so that Puerto Rico can discard forever such persistent problems as:
1) our double digit unemployment rate;
2) an ever growing gap in per capita income with the U.S. and more significandy,
with the poorest state in the Nation; and
3) a persistent talent drain, as many of our better prepared professionals are
leaving for, or staying in the United States because of more and better paying
opportunities.
What do they suggest instead?
A"reformulation of Section 936", as they proposed in their definition of
Commonwealth for the 1993 Status Plebiscite. They told the electorate, that a vote for
Commonwealth was a vote for the permanence of Section 936, and for the reformulation
of the incentive to pre- 1993 levels. Then, in the primary for the chairmanship of our state
Democratic Party, held this past 24th of September, they said that a vote for Ms. Celeste
Benitez was a vote to demand Congress to leave Section 936 as is. They even had her
declare her intention to run for that position at a press conference held in the front lawn of
a 936 pharmaceutical corporation.
Obviously she won; particularly with the help of most of the 936 corporations in
the pharmaceutical sector who openly asked for such a vote from their workers by
,
providing them with such propaganda. How many of these workers would have dared
to vote otherwise after being pressured by their superiors and forcefed such blatant
misinformation?
Just recently, Mr. Hector L. Acevedo (President of the Popular Democratic Party
and National Committeeman of our state Democratic Party) and a few of his supporters,
held a picket line outside a hotel where the Senate Majority Leader, the Hon. Robert
Dole, spoke to those gathered for the Annual Convention of the Council of State
Governments. The reason: his pro-commonwealth Party's opposition to any possible
change of Section 936, regardless of its lackluster track record and concern over the
current budgetary constraints that beset our Nation.
Theirs is a Party that always demands from Washington an ever increasing
amount of federal largesse without feeling any responsibility of providing something
in return.
DEFINITELY, IT IS WELFARE MENTALITY AT ITS VERY WORST.
Thatis why Governor Pedro Rossello has worked very hard to develop a
more self-sufficientand balanced economic model. One that is beginning to bear fruit
with a remarkable and sustained growth of the economy in the tourist, commerce,
construction and service sectors.
336
The most telling statistic is the persistent downward trend of the unemployment
rate, which fell to 12.8 percent this past November. Such continued rhythm of growth
has not been seen in Puerto Rico for over twenty-five years.
Still, Governor Rossello believes that in order for Puerto Rico to close the
gap with the rest of the Nation at an even faster pace, we need for Congress to
substitute Section 936 with an economic development plan that provides tax
incentives based on job creation and new business investments. Such a program not
only should apply to the territories, but also be made available to all jurisdictions within
the U.S. that are still developing and that still suffer from:
1) unemployment that exceeds twice the national average;
2) per capita income that is less than half the national average; and
3) over half its population over the poverty line.
In conclusion, I would like to stress that Section 936 neither buoys the Island
economy during recession, nor provides an engine of job creation that fuels the long-term
growth of the Island economy as a manufacturing center. Definitely, Section 936 is a
grossly inefficient way to promote investment, especially when analyzed under the
current budget deficit reduction debate.
At the same time that many Americans are being asked to make substantial
adjustments regarding many of their social welfare benefits, it is impossible to allow
these corporations to continue getting such a free-ride at the expense of the middle-
337
class taxpayer . Thus, as Congressman Scott Klug (R-WI) recently said, and I quote:
"If we're willing to make tough decisions on domestic programs, we also ought to
make tough decisions on government subsidies for corporations." YOUR
CONSTITUENTS WILL BE GRATEFUL.
FOR YOUR SAKE AND ESPECIALLY FOR OUR SAKE ...
IT IS TIME FOR CONGRESS TO ACT NOW!!!
10
338
/Section 3.- Require that such bill assure the full exercise
of the right to self-determination under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on the basis of status formulas
of equal political dignity, to be proposed to the People of
Puerto Rico by the Congress of the United States of America,
but not subordinate to the plenary power of Congress under
the territorial clause of the Constitution.
341
JOINT STATEMENT
THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG
CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
AND
THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN A. OILMAN
CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
This joint hearing, by two subcommittees of the Committees on Resources and International
Relations, represents the first substantive step by the 104th Congress in response to the
Puerto Rico Legislature's request for congressional action based upon the 1993 Puerto Rico
status plebiscite. Despite the diverse and conflicting interpretations of the plebiscite's
outcome, certain conclusions are required with respect to the Puerto Rico's relationship with
the federal government based upon the information and record before the Congress. In our
view the following legal and political realities must govern future measures taken by
Congress regarding Puerto Rico:
1. Under the Territorial Clause of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the
United States, the Congress has the authority and responsibility to define the interests of the
United States and determine Federal policy regarding the governance and political status of
Puerto Rico. This authority is augmented by the Treaty of Paris (1898), which transferred
sovereignty over Puerto Rico from Spain to the United States, specifically providing in
Article IX that "the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants" of Puerto Rico
"shall be determined by the Congress." Executive Branch measures such as the
Memorandum of the President dated July 25, 1961, and the Memorandum of the President
dated November 20, 1992, reflect the evolving understanding in past administrations with
respect to the 1950 Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act (48 U.S. C. 731b) and other
Congressionally determined measures establishing local self-government for Puerto Rico.
However, such procedural and administrative arrangements do not define finally federal
policy or determine a permanent political status for Puerto Rico. Similarly, U.S. Supreme
Court rulings such as Harris v. Rosario 446 U.S. 651 (1980), recognize the continuing
.
authority and responsibility of Congress with respect to Puerto Rico under the Territorial
Clause, and also reflect Congressional intent regarding the nature and scope of local
constitutional self-government established under 48 U.S.C. 731b, consistent with U.S. House
of Representatives Report No. 2275 (See Historical and Statutory Notes, 48 U.S.C. A. 731b).
However, while federal judicial decisions such as Harris establish the correct ruling as to
Puerto Rico's current status, this does not resolve fundamental policy or future political
status issues, and Congress retains the authority and responsibility to determine and take
appropriate action to promote federal interests with respect to a permanent political status for
Puerto Rico consistent with the democratically expressed wishes of the people concerned.
343
2. The decision of the United States in 1953 to cease transmittal of information to the United
Nations under Article 73 of the U.N. Charter, as well as the measures taken by the federal
government consistent with 48 U.S.C. 731b and the principle of government by consent,
reflect the approval by the people of Puerto Rico of a local constitution, as amended and
approved by Congress in an exercise of its Territorial Clause authority. However, as an
"unincorporated territory" of the United States, as defined in the "Insular Cases," Downes v.
Bid well 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Puerto Rico is not fully self-governing, and has not been
.
incorporated into the United States constitutional system of permanent union and federalism.
U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico do not have equal legal and political rights with citizens in the
states of the union, including the right to vote in national elections, representation or
consent regarding federal laws and policies made applicable to Puerto Rico by Congress or
the President in the exercise of federal powers, or constitutionally guaranteed citizenship.
For these reasons, the United States has an on-going moral, legal and political obligation to
provide bona fide and internationally recognized options for full self-government to the
people of Puerto Rico, and then, to respect their freely expressed choice. In addition.
Congress must determine if continuing Puerto Rico's present status of "unincorporated
territory" is consistent with the interests and obligations of the United States, particularly as
a majority of the voters in Puerto Rico now advocate a change in political status. U.S.
interests and obligations regarding Puerto Rico include the ultimate determination by
Congress as to disposition of the territory in a manner which promotes the U.S. national
interest, fulfillment of U.S. obligations under applicable treaties to respect the right of the
residents of Puerto Rico to self-determination, and promoting attainment of full self-
government. The latter can be accomplished based upon separate Puerto Rican sovereignty
(independence or free association as defined in a bilateral treaty), or a relationship under
U.S. sovereignty through complete integration into the U.S. constitutional system on the basis
of equality (statehood).
3. Untila permanent political status for Puerto Rico is achieved, Puerto Rico will remain an
"unincorporated territory," an indefinite status subject to the discretion of Congress, and
subject to change as may be determined by Congress from time-to-time. While Congress and
the federal authorities may alter, amend or reform the legal and political relationship between
the federal government and the territory, either unilaterally or by mutual consent, no present
Congress can bind a future Congress to any unalterable or irrevocable pact, compact or
mutual consent agreement. Congress can not relinquish, abdicate or place permanent
restraints on the exercise of its constitutional authority and responsibility under the Territorial
Clause, and any provision of law or agreement which might purport to do so would not be
binding or enforceable should a later Congress provide otherwise by law. Even if there
might be some form of liability or alternative remedy for an unincorporated territory
aggrieved by Congressional action to modify an existing legal or political arrangement
between the federal government and any such territory, the measures adopted regarding an
unincorporated territory by Congress acting under the Territorial Clause will never be
unalterable or irrevocable in any sense that is legally enforceable, and to represent otherwise
would be misleading.
344
5. In light of the foregoing, the Congress has a dutyto clarify the legal nature of - and take
practical steps toimprove -- the current relationship between the United States and Puerto
Rico. Congress also must provide a mechanism and procedure through which it can
determine the measures which the federal government must take to promote establishment of
a permanent political status for Puerto Rico in the future, based on an informed process of
self determination in Puerto Rico. In addition, Congress should consider measures which
promote equal treatment of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico under the laws of the United States,
and to the greatest extent practicable given the current political status of Puerto Rico, remove
all forms of discrimination and disincentives to full participation in the legal, political, fiscal
TESTIMONY OF
ARTl'RO J. GARFFER, JR.
BEFORE THE HOLSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JOINT SUB-COMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE
AFFAIRS AND NATIVE AMERICAN AND INSL LAR AFFAIRS
REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF NO\ EMBER 14TH, 1993
PL ERTO RICO STATl S PLEBISCITE RESL LTS
OCTOBER 1995
subcommittee:
Today I testify before you, one year and eleven months later, on
throughout the United States mainland, who wish to have their views
context
346
that the leaders of the Popular Democratic Party were not willing to
defend their status option before this joint committee, until very
recently.
51% of the voters opted for an end to the colonial status of Puerto
Rico, and second, that 95% of the voters favor, in one way or
have stated that the 48.4% of the voters have clearly given them a
mandate to negotiate five key points, which were the basis of their
-J-
United States and Puerto Rico. Hence we must ask, can the
government of Puerto Rico negotiate bi-lateral compacts within the
control over Puerto Rico? Would this compact allow for economic
Puerto Rican Agency? \\ ould the I'nited States be willing to pay for
located in Puerto Rico? How will such a compact aflect the United
both United States and Puerto Rico interests. I do not believe the
a proposal.
20-766 - 96 - 12
348
case of the Philippines 7 Docs the Organic Act of 1917 (Jones Act)
the definition of the >« inning formula? Thus we must assume that the
Third, recently Mr. Bill Archer, Chairman House Ways and Means
Committee, along with Mr. John Kasich, Chairman, House Budget
of the Internal Revenue Code forms part. I'nder Section 936, United
heart, has been forced to consider Mr. Archer and Mr. Kasich
recommendations.
349
-5-
Section 936.
We must also ask, could 3.6 million I nited States citizens, who do not
pay federal tax be entitled and granted paritv and extension in such
Rico can not be taxed if it is not uffered puiiticai equality and ^qoai
representation.
objective and realistic. Once these questions are answered, we will all
The I nited States Congress must once again foment the Jeffersonian
351
eventually inherit the outcome of these hearings, and I can only hope
that what we inherit is what is long over due: statehood for Puerto
Rico.
the Union and thus end our colonial status which has lasted 500
In the year 1998 Puerto Rico will be celebrating its 100 year
relationship with the United States. The United States can no longer
polls during the 1993 plebiscite have only prolonged the eventual
-8-
Constitutional Amendment?"
British to hold the empire together without granting the people of the
political freedom on the other hand has always been based upon the
Dear Sir
I wish to express my opinion concernig the status of Puerto Rico and the current hearings on the
matter.
(2) If 936 is etiminated, and I think it should be completdy, the votes for
(3) The US. should actively promote statehood. Like Hawaii and Alaska the
economy ofPuenoRioo would soar as the S 1st State and as a stepping stone to
the ecpanding economics and markets m South America.
(4) The U.S. would benefit firom this tax base and new market relationships in South
America.
Ibegan doing business m Puerto Rico about three years ago and was astounded at the potential
foreconomic development there and the skilled and educated work force in place. Also as a
aippty side economics advocate, I believe statehood for Puerto Rico will help our National
Bottom Line much £uter than either Commonwealth or Independence status.
We must do something and not keep these US citizens in limbo any longer. We caimot afford to.
Thankyou.
Emmett C. Hudson
81 Barton Springs Rd. Suite 400
1
Dear G>ngressinan:
It would be interesting to oooaider the White House position on the five proposals contained
in tlie definition of Coramoawealth, resulting from the public hearings on the status
plebiscite held in Ehierto Rico in 1993.
FIRST: Is White Uonse eadorsiag the claim to Iht right to impose protectionist
the
(arifb on Puerto RIcan agricultural products?
In a recent meeting with Jeffrey Fairow, The White House officer in charge of
Puerto Rican aflain, I insisted on an answer but, he evaded it by asking instead
for altcniatives that were not proposed to the electorate during the plebiscite.
The White House should be asked why it did not include this promise in the
SECOND: Is the White House eodoning the claim for parity In Federal programs
iaclodcd in the Commonwealth definition? Its answer is that the status
question is mainly a congressional issue: even though, it is a well-known fact
THIRD: la the White Honae In favor of restoring 936 bcncflU to their original,
totally exempt status? If so. why did the Executive, with the approval of
Congress, reduce the benefits from 100% to 40%? Are they willing to go back
on their decision?
FOURTH: Is theWhite House willing to state that tha U.S. Government cannot
Impose any kind of taies on Puerto RIcan taxpayers?
355
The answen to these questions are very important for the Pu^k of Puerto Rico. I
siocerely hope they are addressed during the course of die hearings.
ly youis.
laados
EPRESBtrrATIVE
356
The Coalition for Protection of Puerto Rican Culture and Nationality has enacted the enclosed
Resolution to demand action by the Natural Resources Committee to resolve the status issue of
Puerto Rico.
Once more the People of Pueno Rico have expressed their desire for more self-government and
sovereignty. Apathy will only reinforce and prolong a colonial relationship that is no longer
acceptable nor beneficial to either the United States or Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans have waited
nearly one hundred years to resolve this situation. It is time that the United States puts is own
interests aside and listen to what the People of Puerto Rico have communicated through the results
of the 1993 Referendum.
Hence, we request that the resolution enacted by our members be included in the written statement
to be submitted to the Natural Resources Committee at the time of the hearing on Puerto Rico's
Stams scheduled for October 17. 1995. and in lieu of oiu^ presentation as a mainland Puerto Rican
group deeply commined to resolving this issue.
Sincerely,
Rafael A. Ortiz
Coordinator
357
Resolntion
by the
WHEREAS, the People of Pueno Rico have executed their universal right to self-determination by means
of a Referendum; and
WHEREAS, the People of Pueno Rico have clearly voted in favor of an enhanced form of self-government
in the 1S>93 Refetendum; and
WHEREAS, the leaders of the three political parties in Puerto Rico supported by President George Bush in
his 1989 State of tlie Union Address have sought to put closure to theaurent colonial status of
Itie island; and
WHEREAS, many political and non-political organizations in Puerto Rico have petitioned the United States
Congress on multiple ^y^i^i^nT to allow more self-govermnent for the island-colony without
success; and
WHEREAS, the refusal by the United Slates Congress to allow a form of government in Puerto Rico vested
with sovereignty is in clear viotanon of International Law, and has led to regrettable violent
acts by many Puerto Ricans throughout this century; and
WHEREAS, the United States Congress has a moral responsibility to uphold and respect the wishes of the
People of Pueno Rico and the millions of voting Puerto Ricans residing in the fifty states of
the Union.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Coalition does hereby pennons the formation of a Joint Status Conunittee
composed of representauves from the United States and Puerto Rico that will negotiate,
structure and a clearly defined Bilateral Pact of Sovereignty between the two nations that
drift
complies with requirements set by International Law for a true Free-Associated-State, and that
dte Pact is ratified by the People of Pueno Rico.
V^'^JCVjJ^
ommittfie Chair Ricardo Gomez, Culural Committee
358
Angd A. Valencia-Apoote
Attorney At Law
PO
Box 361917
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-1917
FoUouing are some thoughts that I would like to share with the Committee
holding hearings on the resuhs of the 1993 Puerto Rico's plebiscite. It is important that
this historic exent be \iewed in its conect historical context.
The 1990 Resolution of the General Council of the Popular Democratic Party
It is well knoun that the commonwealth option in the 1993 plebiscite was
championed by Puerto Rico's Popular Democratic Party. The law which enacted the 1993
plebiscite proNided for the parties promoting the several formulas to "define" the
formulas' meaning. This Pany approved a resohition in 1990 at a Ponce, Puerto Rico
meeting which demanded from the United States Congress the following terms for a future
plebiscite: (a) a new commonwealth with constitutional-guarantees of irrevocable
American citLzenship.(b) recognition of Puerto Rico's sovereignty, (c) authority to enter
into international agreements with other foreign countries, (d) equal footing with the other
States of the Union with regard to assistance programs of the Federal Government but
without the pa>ment of federal taxes, and (e) permanent union between Puerto Rico and
the United States through a bilateral pact that could only be changed by mutual
agreement between Puerto Rico and Congress.
Olympic personality in the international arena, (4) restructuring of Section 936 of the IRS
Code. (5) equal footing in panicipation of assistance programs of the Federal
Go\ emment. and specificaih'. the Supplemental Security Income and the Food Stamp
program, and (6) permanent union between Puerto Rico and the United States through a
bilateral pact that could not be altered but for mutual agreement between Puerto Rico and
the United States.
359
As you will note, the commonwealth option defmhion had hs footprint in the 1990
resolution that was commonly referred to in Pueno Rico as the resohition for the
"associated republic."
Nobody should doubt that the only guarantee for permanent union and American
citizenship in our current law is that enjoyed by the States in statehood. But, what if
another type of "permanent union" is negotiated and enacted into a treaty or a law? What
if the United States agrees to what the Popular Pany in its commonweahh option
definition is promising''
This t>pe of permanent union would have a ta.x incentive IRS 936 Code-type that
could not be ahered by the Congress. Thus. Congress would be renouncing its authority to
change unilaterally a United States law. Concerning the fiscal autonomy feature. Puerto
Rico would have veto power over the United States laws. Accordingly, Puerto Rico
would have the authority to accept those federal tax laws it wants to honor and refiise or
cancel those it chooses. Puerto Rico would be in the ^ame footing as the balance of the
States with regard to assistance programs and would fiilly participate in the Supplemental
Security Income and the Food Stamp programs, but would not pay federal taxes. In
essence. Puerto Rico would become the first coni'cderate state because all the above
"permanent union" guarantees would be fiamed in a 1)ilateral pact" that may be changed
with the parties' acquiescence Hence, the "permanent union" agreement would be
permanent for the duration of the agreement. However, once the "1)ilateral paa" is
mutually changed, the permanency of the "permanent union" guarantee may be anything
but permanent. Then, what about the children bom after the "permanent union" bilateral
pact changes to something not permanent"^ May the children of the "permanent union"
American citizens bora after the bilateral pact ceases be guaranteed irrevocable
citizenship? If the fijture means that the "permanent union '
bilateral pact dissolves by
mutual consent and Puerto Rico goes its own way as a separate sovereign coimtry, are the
children of that countrv' guaranteed "irrevocable citizenship." Assuming it does, how
would Congress guarantee the equal protection of the laws to these citizens?
The seed of secession is planted into the commonwealth bilateral pact. It is only
hidden beneath the falsehood of ""permanent union" to mislead the loyal American citizens
Puerto Ricans are. The loophole would be there to use. The loophole for secession would
be there waiting for an opportunity. The superpowers retained by Puerto Rico would
parallel those the Confederacy wanted to save for its state-members.
But a bitter war was fought to settle that question. Thousands of Americans shed
their blood to preserve the Union as we know it. To agree to the ""permanent union"
commonwealth proposal would be to admit a confederate state into the Union. Thus.
Puerto Rico may have all the goodies but leave if it feels like in the ftiture. It would be
dangerously opening a loophole long closed.
360
Thus, the commonwealth option definition, was artfully used in the plebiscite to
derail the aspirations of the Puerto Rican-Americans in their quest for decolonization and
Despite different origins and different history until the closing of the past century,
Puerto Rico and the United States have now enjoyed a common history that started when
the American troops were led by the Pueno Rican patriots throughout the island to rid it
of Spanish rule in 808 Ever since. Puerto Rico's destiny has been linked to that of the
1
United States. Within less than three years it will be 100 years! Smce this time, a new
generation of Puerto Ricans IKe in the island. It is a generation of native bom American
citizens vsfao have learned to love theirtwo anthems and who have bravely
two flags, their
generation of Pueno Ricans that share with their brothers and sisters of the others States
the basic American dreams of home and the basic traditions of the pursuit of happiness. It
is a Puerto Rican personality that has outgrown the nationalistic approach to liberty and
has transform it into a broad quest for liberty through the attainment of equality.
In l<)93. the issues used against statehood were varied but all had the
common thrust of using the fear of change or fear of the unknown. As the formulas
presented to the voters had no definitions previously approved by Congress, planting fears
and mistrust was a matter of pubhcit> planning. Thus, generally, the anti-statehood
campaign promoted the following ideas:
-the Umted States don't really want Puerto Rico among the several states
-Puerto Rico would lose its Spanish language because the enabling act
would include an Enghsh-only proviso
•Many Pueno Ricans would lose their homes because the federal
go\ emment would tax property and people would not be able to afford it
The Laboratory Conditions For A Free and Uncoerced Election Were Destroyed
361
936 companies in Puerto Rico, destroyed the laboratory conditions necessary for a fi-ee
and uncoerced choice. The misinformation and the fear campaign aimed particularly at the
poor rendered improbable the surface of a free choice and concealed the uninhibited
desires of the people.
For this reason, the 1993 plebiscite is not an appropriate gauge to measure
statehood sentiment. The people were so coerced and interference with their free choice
was so deep, that the laborator\- conditions for an uncoerced choice were destroyed. The
cotnmonwealth option gathered a slim plurality of Z'o but lost its majority status. Showing
the increasing tendency of the statehood sentunent, the majority of Puerto Ricans for the
first time voted for somethnig other than commonwealth.
Recommendation
Puerto Ricans are in the last phase of their path to decolonization. Two things
must occur first to help Puerto Ricans take the final decision. First. Congress must show
its willingness to admn Puerto Rico as a state when so requested. This, based on the
underlying truth that the granting of US citizenship to Puerto Ricans was a promise of
statehood. Secondly, ahhough fiill definitions would a\ert the process and would limit the
span of negotiating an enabling aa by the new state. Congress must, at the very least,
estabhsh a framework for the options to eliminate the possibility of campaigns based on
fear and misinformation. A framework for each option would establish general boundaries
to promote an informed and intelUgent vote.
the current fifty states. Also, it would do away with tailored and false definitions that are
misleading.
362
363
00723 )b^
364
In Jesus Christ,
st /\
CC Jeff Farrow
Elton Gallegly
Special Committee on Decolonization, United Nations
365
Blasts Ronero
"Sinuu the tiiue of Luis Mufioz Marin it had been said that at
a detenained moment of our development we would look for an
adequate form of contributing to do more justice to Puerto Rico and
Gov. Hern&iidex Culuii espoused a very convenient formula to those
effects for Puerto Rioo' , Aocvedo said.
ton lobbyists seeking special favors from through special measures not allowed other
Congress for businesses. Listen to them industries. Credit unions get tax advan-
and you'd believe each bit of corporate wel- tages unavailable to banks and savings and
fare taxpayers dole out is vital to job cre- loans. Insvirance companies get breaks that
ation and people's living standards. stock firms don't
Sometimes, fevors go to a single compa-
And Congress buys that pitch. A study
ny that's been able to influence a powerftil
last fall by its Joint Committee on Taxation
Congress member, who hides the benefit
estimates the tab at nearly $60 billion a
year in tax breaks for business alone — deep in a tax bill More often, they're the
result of good intentions, such as promot-
$240 for every American.
ing better housing or helping the environ-
And what? Here's a small sample of
for
ment or some segment of the economy.
the hundreds of breaks given businesses: But most often these favors carry too
Pharmaceutical makers and other in- high a price. They encourage businesses to
vestors in U.S. territories get a break called seek tax breaks rather than greater efficien-
Section 936. Aimed at creating jobs, espe- cy. They distort the political process as
cially inPuerto Rico, it costs the Treasury those with a stake in tax breaks give out
more than $3 billion a year, according to huge campaign contributions to influence
the taxation committee's estimates. The tax decisions. Archer-Daniels-Midland
biggest chunk —
a bilhon a year —
goes to alone contributed $2.5 million to both
drug companies, which employ a mere E>emocrats and Republicans in the last
18,000 Puerto Ricans. election. They add burdens to ordinary citi-
Huge agribusiness companies such as zens for the advantage of the powerfial few.
Archer-Daniels-Midland get tax breaks And they never seem to end. The tax
worth $500 million a year for producing breaks to invest in Puerto Rico have gone
ethanol. The breaks give the corn-based on 40 years. That's plenty long enough.
gasoline substitute an advantage over other Congress needs to break business and it-
alcohol fiiels, even though it may contrib- self loose fi-om corporate welfare and give
Congress is urged
to get involved in
island status issue
r ^ (
radllghu
ill up for
d1 ^ ttttcBMfrll
Roxanne
wreaks
havoc on
Mexican ^
market
Peopi* wMfe
iftfough a ptn of
in* muruopai
nwAM m Owdta
d*l C«rtn«n in tfM
MMican tut* of
C4(no«env on
Tu«toav- tn*
d*«aoy«i bf
w»*«« all**
Kumon*
Noitnn* nit.
'tavwto scortt of
n*«H«f1 00040
•nd mwt tfttn
5.000 *f* tJwiton.
I>ft9« 22
370
''n»'aKi'xm'M'-''<lhcrmi,''ii>^'^V tsti
Local News
New
plebiscite inl 998
in« Wofltetilva PifTyt
SifiiuieMaver
Hictof Luti accndo, D"^Ccni
By ROWMT PRiraMAN
San ftiib4n Bamos Marilnet.
Washington - got RdocIw. fcrto-
ui( tc&Ufflcsts olus cxtiroatd at J
Hwa* kurtnf T\M«d»y. iirc*<} Coocr«si
u f€l aUTcOy and nulcUy tov©lv«^ in th« 'Ga*. U'lPanf.
liLud'ft •uuts Uiuc, and propoMd »
foikrajily uwndatM pUbtsd'jB ij iNl
'I urt« t^i you rcaOinn the Iotlc-
iU9du)( nrnmiUQCAC of th« CoocrcH of
(M Umud SutM to Pb«no Rjcjn scir-
^tCTouaaDoo by (emuUy jiJvocji*
.
but RoMcH^ Slid Toesday, 'I ihink yoa Ren. SiwarDColOen) Tora, POP
~
hogld try apin Gov. Ro»ullA eonl«r« with A«p. Reberl Torriectlt, D*NJ.. durmQ congr^saio Rap. DairldNarteg). PiP
CoBfrcss «outd have t« define "la fMBring* Tuesday Oft ^•fTO Rko't ttatui. In the center is Mirlim Ramirez
gOKrvl tenna" vKat li dccim a^evpLable Fefrer, president of Puerto Rlc*ns in Ch^lc Action.
alteroiUvcs if ^othv I&IaoO «aUu vote. Miriam RaDEmdiFirrtr.
UK Koveraor aid tn to lDt«rv%e« Ulcr. sioce tbe >ota3 crutcd by th president ol Pucno fticant m
Tb«iT'( rrtou^li tlHK lor CoBjrtu lo jei
late it' betor* a 199t pl«bi*cite. be aajd.
have not increased in ta CMC AdiCn
5tatw plebiadic in tte urriiories
all levea yt^n. ibc )9bl«ss i
Oiben. V<oth fKnasa ^Rd pana) meis- JasAAidDoioCasDiai.
rvcry flvo ycart TorreCflli %aid tbat
bcn. earned Corur^as to £o foriaer aod
perbapa Coogran (bouia bifid tiacU lo inc
maka any lUtsscqscni plebiscite biAdiu^ EflilJIoA. SalerMart.
plcbbdtt rwalts.
Odc after aootbcr Ihey ipode w no unccr- co-cbKr ot Cainbio XXI
Uta larru abool t£e nnwilliagDCSl of -Mr. Bonon and I will bavc w decide
federal UfUtatora ta ucUa ibc natiu how far to 60." "id Torricelli. refemiif
Liai Vaga Rimes. PraaA
Rap. Dan Bwrtiwi. Rlna. wbo Cfrgulhw«3 el/ecUvoT' Borion asked Popular Demo-
a umilar perlodle pl^wcjie blU with thr cratic Party Prxsidcoi tittun LuU
NeM Jeruy leciilautr to the Ust Ceo-
-^ many m«nbcrt af Concren havi c pm and U expeciad U) du tbe aamc in Accvedo delcnded tbc cvmmoDwaatUi WAS a vote to reformulate" Se«.u<
fall SSI Itmding was po-
ottdcnuodinc 01 lAa Puerto Rico prob- this acSiioD. BvriAo. wbo ticjids the Wen- plebueiiepropouU by oeusi tbat every aad that
Icio . . CuQKrctt thould oorc and for all em Hrmtspbere Ai/ain Subcwnmlttoc. Famm said tbai the adnuaisi
approve a rcftrvttdum, suUhk clear o(^ eo-cbalfvd the Tuesday bearing altnf opposes the current proposed chnn
tlotu and makin; it a binding vote and with Rep. QlOB Gallccly. R-CUiI. of the n6 and bAd atieiripted to "tine tun
briag the rmiLi ta tke Qoor ol tbc House iasular affairs panel. do Ln im. the
cd to pregram Id 1993 to help brmg e
or Seiut< by 3 c«rtaui daf" Supplemental Sccvfitj QDld sull liJie 10 !
Tbc heariaC- w^uch rtarled at a lilUe
LuU Rap. Robert MentedR. R'NJ^ Incotnc pregram xo tbe Island, which tbcir full eUcct
after 1 and
pjn. was still |ein( stronc
Tbc eetitr&l quesUuo for the Uaiud aomc five boun later, raueed widely
"The administration believe* trx •<
Suues I*. ar» vt ready to honor uie Although lia iTMui purp«(e suppotadly NonHcra ^da^lana^ and foil food aid
delermioaUoa of tbc Puerto Ricafi pro- was to cxarnioa the racchaaln of the 1933 (undL which Puerto Rico had received in
pie. r«p*rdlcu oi iftr outcome' I have t£e Qm y«ar« of ihc pT^gTUtl. He alw Mid iMt tbe White Hm»*
plcbLs£]lc. luci about ail imiei related to
Krious doubo obeui tiuL We have U> willing to explore opUooi lo £lve ma
Puerto Rico ^t discussed — indadjAg siitrint for tbe White Rouse. JeUrey
itreAfthen Coafrcu' cemmlimcnL I lidto the aged, blittd and diubled"
&«eUoD MS, dPKDfrauchijemeAt. NaTTA.
veuld U1C «• ihow that we liaccrcly. proJdetitlal elcctlora. whether thr US-
hoacsUy 3bd fortbrt(bUy will reroiid In Pucno Rtcv compact wu
pennancii or sdmloistrati
a aeaalAKful way. whidt ipcaas we wUl
net, wbeiber An^cncan cluzcmbip could He said the admlnistnitJUD was willing
accept ibetf daemon." be revoked (or Puerto Ricau the UMtcd work with island leadcrk and Ceogrtss
Del Robert Underwood. O-Caam. ~ I Proldcnt Clin
NatioBi and Fidel (Castro develop a praccK' for xeU-dccormi'u-
wbaae itfTlLory haj bfca battlin{ tor fil2ca tKai tbe fumdaraeaial if.
To the surprlaa of tome, the commoB- )D. Tbe procTta, be lald. "would be built
aor* than 10 y«an lo tave Congrvis stai raics" on the ulaiuL U
ocaUb cause did Dot suJfcr any oottee- upon" tba «xpr«ailoD> of tbe people in tbe
rrvofnia Ita plebiscite vote tar romraon- cd(cd that the .italemaic viH •
371
Hearings!
not really outline a plan of federal actloh other tban
developing "a procesa." ,
Romero said. j
Local News
cent marK ana support lor not about the U.S. gov- uiu act, appomtmg
<.,iiiiiuii
ujuai mm
rueriu nico as
a task force to oversee a low-prlorUy l(em on Its
ernment's official doctrine
possible areas of economic agenda, that's Its
regarding Puerto Hico. responsibility.
That policy has been development for the Com-
shaped by tlie pronounce- monwealth, a task force Tlie thing Is that the
ments made from time to presided over by Jeffrey record Is finally open, and
time by tlie president of Farrow. after (he hearings nobody
the United States, from The local parties are not can say (hey don'( know
Dvtight D. Eisenhower In the only ones that will be whaCs going on In Puerlo
the 195(h to the present heard The autonomist Itlco, because everyone has
The 1993 plebiscite did wing of the PDP will be been elven due nnlire
373
«
374
G)
C •r o^Utj 2 s^
=!« =
o ill
.2 2
^e
o •i ^
o S g g
8 3 i-
2 5 3 S 3 " s 5!
§ S P
" 3 M O
S r'i.2
(U Kc28
5
375
li-
2 C " u
« S 6 o ^ 3
rt
Qi ^«^
S:^3§i2 o sf S^
** S = •= 5
sill
— Si 3"2
•o S-r— 2
oa a^ <«
C w u M O— « " ? sf •»
8-0 g§
3^ u C u »- « 'S o ?
H"— "o
a "J? 8 2 5*="
8. o oA o - o-g g
^ 3 Q. o 2 .'2 — 'S . a
a '^ g 8 J is '2
-^S X ^ a: o.
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
376
^^^.0
a
377
5 -giS QS
a o
3 S -o a •- v "
5 X *C ^ 3
-— C S. B M ao^'
l-sfoi^ls
a a s ^" E2 CO E oji
ai -Sgoc-S-S
g " ao« g 0-2
« « s "jc i
(/ n c V Si ^
= O 6
S—
CT
C 3 -
"•
2 £
e^o
f^<J U
.2Sa«
WUU.CK
»
C aSXE a
« o
~
"^ C -
C 3
eL-3 a i<>o
_ a S 'C'^
.
• „ 2 Ji
r< o 3
:=" >: .^ >i
— ..Bu
z 0.5-
3 ao.- •J
- 32-2
u o S "
:_"3 5
g..s^ S.O
5-8
S-ag §2 HJlilfliSilllp
ig'gaSz
-|s.S«?^SSSSi2 Spoils
IflH §312 §fS| 8iO-o1'9 p-S-*^ -'^
O
ISBN 0-16-052610-8
90000
9 780 60"526107