COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES TUESDAY, JULY 14,1998 9:30 a.m. SH-216 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON H.R. 856, TO PROVIDE A PROCESS LEADING TO FULL SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR PUERTO RICO AND S. 472, TO PROVIDE FOR REFERENDA IN WHICH THE RESIDENTS OF PUERTO RICO MAY EXPRESS DEMOCRATICALLY THEIR PREFERENCES REGARDING THE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE TERRITORY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (Transcript Copyright © 1998 Puerto Rico Herald) WITNESS LIST PANEL I Jose A. Fuentes-Agostini, Attorney General Government of Puerto Rico Anibal Acevedo Vila, President Popular Democratic Party Jorge deCastro Font, Representative Popular Democratic Party Fernando Martin-Garcia, V.P. Puerto Rico Independence Party Edison Misla Aldarondo Speaker of the House of Puerto Rico William Miranda Marin, Mayor Caguas, Puerto Rico PANEL II Arturo J. Guzman, Chairman I.D.E.A. of Puerto Rico Inc. Miriam J. Ramirez, M.D., President Puerto Ricans in Civic Action Dr. Hermenegildo Ortiz Quinones Accion Democratica Puertorriquefia PANEL III Joaquin A. Marquez, President of the Puerto Rican American Foundation Jose Rivera, Chair Republican National Hispanic Assembly Charles Cooper, Esquire Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal Marco Antonio Rigau Attorney at Law David Matta, Director of Legislative Division National Puerto Rico Bar Association Diego Hernandez Former Admiral of the Navy See Transcript of Second Session, 7/15/98 P R O C E E D I N G S         SENATOR MURKOWSKI (R-AK) Chairman: -- the legislative deliberation in the Senate on the future political status of Puerto Rico. As I have stated before, I am committed to establishing a process that will enable our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico to express their desires in the future political relationship between Puerto Rico and our federal government.         The workshops, the oversight hearings, have provided important information for the committee so that we can now begin consideration of the legislation before the committee. The measures before us are in H.R. 856, introduced by Congressman Young and others, that passed the House on March 4th of this year, and Senate bill 472, introduced by Senator Craig, who's with us this morning, and others on March 19, 1997.         The committee has gone to Puerto Rico for extensive meetings and briefings. We've also held a workshop to hear the Governor and the three political parties on the need for certainty in the self-determination process.         We have conducted two intensive oversight hearings to lay groundwork for consideration of these measures. The first oversight hearing consisted of discussion and examination on the fiscal and economic implications of any change in status. And these proceedings shed considerable light on some of the difficulties involved in any transition to prepare Puerto Rico for either consideration of an administration's act, or for the withdrawal of the United States sovereignty.         The second oversight hearing focused on the individual issues involved in separate sovereignty, either as full independence or in some form of free association. In addition to a consideration of the issue, the hearing also served to focus on the issues of sovereignty as a test for consideration of those individual issues.         Well, this is certainly an auspicious day for those who are looking for change. For those seeking separate sovereignty, today is Bastille Day. I see some of you are still awake.         [Laughter]         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Now, if you're successful in convincing a majority of the voters to ask for a withdrawal of U.S. sovereignty, I hope the preparations will be somewhat smoother than the French experience.         For those advocating statehood, this is also an important day, although perhaps not quite as enjoyable, for on July 14, 1798 -- this marks the 200th anniversary of the first direct tax on states. The only comfort I can offer is that we're willing to make the IRS somewhat more friendly today. Well, so much for our historian.         Putting historic events aside, I want everyone to understand that I believe this subject is one of the most important constitutional responsibilities of the congress, and one that I am committed to seeing concluded in a responsible manner. Former Governor Hernandez Colon made an important observation in August, in the August issue of Foreign Affairs, when he stated -- and I quote -- the status debate has raged in Puerto Rico for a half-a-century, dividing the people and breeding unending conflict, at worst bloody, at best, bitter and destructive.         At least 75 percent of Puerto Rican voters align themselves with status options rather than candidates, programs or solutions to pressing problems. This organization distorts governance. It is as if choosing to break up the United States into fifty pieces, or redefine the states to cut their numbers in half were the only issue in every presidential election.         Well, the accuracy of that statement can be measured by the reporting of last week's strike in Puerto Rico over the proposed sale of the phone company. The Washington Post reported critics of the Governor as stating that the reason for the sale was a pro-statehood governor, trying to impress those in Washington who favor privatization. But the Post failed to note that the previous Commonwealth Governor, Hernandez Colon, proposed the sale of the phone company back to Bell South in 1990.         The debilitating nature of prolonged status debate can be seen elsewhere as well. Guam is struggling with its status proposal, and has almost become a prisoner of details and language drafted a decade ago. This committee cannot end the debate. That can only be done by the residents in Puerto Rico who will have to live with their choice.         What we can do is provide some clarity to the choices, and an assurance that there will be a serious response.         No one should assume that the road to status change, if that is what the voters want, will either be short or smooth. Our oversight hearings demonstrated that matter. How long the preparations for either separate sovereignty or statehood would take is not something that we can resolve here, and I will admit that I am not comfortable with the artificial time limits.         I have too much experience with economic programs to assume that midterm corrections will not be necessary. That is why I want to emphasize that the response to any request from Puerto Rico should be a very serious one. In that same vein, after whatever transition or preparation is necessary, the final implementation, either the withdrawal of the United States sovereignty or the administration of a new state will be -- and I want to emphasize this -- will be a political decision.         People can make, and will make, all the speeches they want, but that is one issue I can speak to from experience. The admissions act for Alaska was a political event, as were the acts for the other thirty-six states that entered the union. The Tidings-McDuff act that provided for the independence of the Philippines was also a political decision. If the road for preparation is uncertainty, the road for final implementation is even more unknown.         These choices lie in the future, however. Today, we simply begin the legislative consideration on how to begin that journey.         I want to make it clear at the outset that I'm not wedded to any particular proposal, and intend to carefully consider all the testimony before the committee receives, and including the materials submitted for the record for persons and organizations who are not appearing today. I intend to see that the voters in Puerto Rico are presented with honest and accurate alternatives, and that we avoid, to the extent possible, becoming involved in the internal politics of Puerto Rico between and within the individual political parties.         I think you're aware, this is an ambitious undertaking, but to that end, I would like each witness to be prepared to state what provisions in each bill of the bills are absolutely essential, what provisions are important, but not critical, and what provisions are merely useful.         For example, the initial findings in the House measures go on for several pages. In some respects, they remind me of the opening of James Michener's book, "Hawaii." Before you begin the story, you first need to go through several thousand years of geological history.         The House bill doesn't begin with the Papal decision to divide the world between Spain and Portugal, but it comes close. Senate versions are considerably more condensed.         With the cooperation of the witnesses, I hope that this hearing will serve to refine the measures before us, and provide the clarity and choices that the voters in Puerto Rico deserve. Because of the extended number of witnesses that wanted to testify, there's a couple of rules we indicated by letter.         Limit your testimony to four minutes. I will limit it to five minutes.         Secondly, we have had to divert in the normal procedure where we would have members of congress and other officials speak first. The reason we changed the procedure was to insure that those individuals coming from Puerto Rico who wanted to testify did not have to change their travel plans. So as the agenda of witnesses began to expand, we had to make a cut, so tomorrow we will hear from the elected representatives and the various honorables.         So I will keep a close time. I do want to call on my two colleagues for any brief comments they would care to make. Senator Craig?         SENATOR CRAIG (R-ID): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I'm looking forward to working with you and other committee members and members of Congress as a whole, as well as the elected leaders, and others from Puerto Rico, to craft final legislation that we can take to the floor of the Senate to address the self-determination of the political status of Puerto Rico. And I thank you very much for scheduling this hearing today on S. 472, my legislation, and the House legislation, H.R. 856.         There are several issues that must be addressed if we are to produce a bill that will resolve the status of Puerto Rico in a way that best serves the national interests. In order not to repeat the mistakes of the past, any bill we approve must satisfy what I believe are the following requirements.         Until the people of Puerto Rico are able to meaningfully consent to the form of government under which they live as they would under statehood or separate, sovereign nationhood, there must be a process through which they are empowered to freely express to Congress their wishes regarding political status.         This means that the authorization to conduct votes on status should continue as long as Puerto Rico's status is defined by federal laws, laws that are enacted by a congress in which the United States citizens, residents of Puerto Rico, are not represented, and that are subject to the power of Congress to amend or repeal.         If specified intervals for such votes are objectionable, we should be flexible, but authorization of such votes must be expressly preserved by federal law until the ultimate status of Puerto Rico is resolved and disenfranchisement ends. Puerto Rican voters must be informed that the current political status of Puerto Rico, including the Commonwealth constitutional system and the current U.S. nationality of citizens of persons born in Puerto Rico is granted by federal law, passed by Congress, under the territorial clause, and is subject to Congress's authority to amend or repeal such laws to serve legitimate federal purposes.         This is a simple statement of fact. Congress was induced to be somewhat ambiguous about this in 1950, and relied on the legislative record to state what was thought to be the obvious. The self-determination process has suffered as a result. A mistake we should not -- and I would hope, we must not repeat again.         It also must be made clear that if Puerto Rico elects separate sovereignty, Congress will end U.S. nationality and citizenship for people born in Puerto Rico in the future. Persons born there prior to termination of U.S. nationality and citizenship will, at a minimum, make an either/or election between Puerto Rican and U.S. nationality and citizenship.         Congress has the authority to stipulate, and must do so, to insure that effective transfer of sovereignty occurs. The notion of universal dual citizenship with guarantees not even available under current status must be dispelled before informed self-determination will be possible.         Well, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I have a longer statement that I would ask be entered into the record.         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: It will be entered into the record as if read.         SENATOR CRAIG: And, Mr. Chairman, let me recognize Attorney General Fuentes, especially because of the work he's done in the drug area in stopping the trafficking through Puerto Rico. We're heavily involved in that here, and I'm pleased he's before us this morning.         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you, Senator.         SENATOR CRAIG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Senator Graham?         SENATOR GRAHAM (D-FL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given the nature of my remarks, they will be brief. Harvey Cox, the great theologian, has stated the truth, that not to decide is to decide. I am very concerned that with the elongation of this decision as to whether to give the people of Puerto Rico an opportunity in 1998 to express their feelings as to their political future, that we are about to make a decision by indecision.         This is a process which has many steps. In less than forty legislative days, we must complete the mark up of this legislation and this committee, have Senate debate on the committee recommendation, reconcile assure differences between the Senate bill and the House bill, vote a conference bill, and have the president sign it into law, a very significant set of responsibilities in an increasingly shortened period of time.         After we have completed our action, then the people of Puerto Rico will have the responsibility to make a decision as to their preference of political future, and after that, an implementation period, which could run up to a decade, to carry out that will, involving several subsequent votes by the people of Puerto Rico and this Congress.         So my concern is that we have spent the better part of two years on this issue. The time has come for us to move forward with action, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that we're having this hearing today. I hope that before the August recess that we will have an opportunity to take it several of the other steps that are necessary in order to convert this hearing into meaningful congressional action.         To me, that is the most fundamental challenge that we have, more so than the necessary refinements that each of us would like to have incorporated in this final legislation.         So I urge that we not become the victims of decision by indecision, and that we move with the expedition that the importance of this issue warrants.         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much, Senator Graham Senator Landrieu. Good morning.         SENATOR LANDRIEU (D-LA): Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've a prepared statement, but in light of the time, I'll just try to summarize my remarks. First, I want to thank you again for your leadership on this issue, and for holding these hearings, so that we can, in fact, make a decision on this important matter.         I have stated many times in support of the efforts to have the people of Puerto Rico vote, and I'm here today to point out a couple of issues that have been brought to my attention and we'll continue to meet with people and groups and associations in trying to work through this.         First, I want to associate myself with the comments from my distinguished colleague from Florida. And indecision is a decision, and part of this is with the short time, trying to move this bill forward.         Several people have expressed their concerns to me about the language issue, and I want to say, coming from a state that had the French flag flown over it for many years, it had the Spanish flag flown over Louisiana, the large contingency of people who think it's a good thing to speak more than one language, I don't think that that's a problem that we should throw up in the face of what we're facing, that there are two states, I want to point out -- Hawaii and New Mexico -- that already have two official languages.         So for the critics of this bill, I wanted just to mention that issue, and I'm sure that we could work it out. English Plus is something a lot of people are talking about in the forty-eight lower states, and we can have the discussion. But I hope that that's not going to be a barrier.         The other is I believe the vast majority of people in Puerto Rico want a relationship with the United States that's mutually beneficial, and to compare what's going on in Canada and Quebec with what's going on in Puerto Rico I think is a weak argument that some have used opposed to this. It's a very different, and there's a completely different feeling in Puerto Rico on the subject.         Finally, though, I want to mention for our consideration, there's a legal interesting question my staff has brought to me about some people -- I don't know how many in Puerto Rico -- relinquishing their American citizenship by going to Venezuela, keeping their Puerto Rican citizenship, which was recognized in the Four Acre act.         What are the effects of such reunification? Different jurisdictions in the United States have ruled differently on the question. This is very important for us to clarify as we move forward with this law, and letting the people of Puerto Rico determine their status would help us to draw the appropriate legislative conclusions.         So I'll simply close by urging the committee to address these and other concerns, and thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for trying to move this important legislation forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you, Senator Landrieu. Senator Kyl?         SENATOR KYL (R-AZ): Thank you. Gentlemen, ladies, we certainly appreciate the opening statements, and the response of Senator Graham. It's been said you have to crawl before you walk before you run.         I was just looking at the number of years that the various states took to come into the union. Wyoming, two years, to New Mexico at sixty-two, so I guess the good news is that we're moving.         [Laughter]         SENATOR KYL: Mr. Chairman, I would observe -- I don't know the history of all of the other territories that have come into the union. In the case of Florida, it took twenty-four years to come into the union, but I don't believe there are very many areas in which the United States has had a political association analogous to Puerto Rico that have waited for a hundred years in order to get a final determination of their status.         So we have crawled for a long time. Now I think it's at least time to begin walking, if not jogging, to try to come to the resolution of the simple issue: should the people of Puerto Rico in the 100th anniversary year of their special association with the United States have a respectful opportunity to express their opinion as to their political future.         That's the issue before us, and I hope the answer is a strong and expedited "yes."         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Let me recognize former Governor Luis Ferre. Governor Ferre has been in that seat for each of our workshops, or hearings, and we're most appreciative for your attentive presence, and of course, your recommendation and counsel are deeply appreciated.         We're going to move into our panels now, and the first gentleman to address us represents the government of Puerto Rico, Mr. Jose Fuentes, Attorney General, and please proceed, and then we will call the balance of panel one to the stand.         ATTORNEY GENERAL FUENTES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I thank you all for the opportunity to appear before you today. As you have stated, my name is Jose A. Fuentes-Agostini. I am the Attorney General of Puerto Rico.         On behalf of the government of Puerto Rico, I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in moving the process forward to a legislative phase that begins today, and I further congratulate Senator Craig and Congressman Young. Both of the bills presented establish the framework for this Congress to make good on its obligation, and this nation's democratic traditions. An obligation of this Congress, because only this body in the whole universe has the authority and power to do the right thing, which is to give the people of Puerto Rico a say in the fundamental issues that control their daily life.         One hundred years of shared history have elapsed between us, starting with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10 in 1898. The treaty, which made clear that only the United States Congress has the supremacy to determine the future of four million U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico, states that the civil rights and political status of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.         This remains true today. The territorial clause of the U.S. constitution has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court consistently during the last hundred years to mean that Puerto Rico's constitutional status as a territory has not changed in any way since 1898, and Congress continues to be the ultimate source of power pursuant to the territorial clause.         It is also a fundamental tendency of American democracy to consult the people regarding their political aspirations. The Declaration of Independence, the foundation for what has become the greatest nation in history, is based on the proportion that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.         This is also the policy principle upon which the 1950 act that created internal self-government for Puerto Rico was based.         But why are we here today? Because in keeping with the best traditions of American democracy, the United States citizens of Puerto Rico twice in the last four years -- and actually, three times in the last four years -- have formally petitioned Congress for resolution of their political status, first, in 1993 and then in 1994, when our legislature asked Congress either to implement the results of the popular referendum which was held in 1993 at the urging of the U.S. Senate, or to provide us with clear guidance as to what status options are available for a permanent resolution of our status. And again, in 1997, when our legislature requested congress once more to define our options.         We face a constitutional crisis today in Puerto Rico. While 95 percent of the governed people of Puerto Rico in 1993 voted in favor of permanent union between Puerto Rico and the United States, and irrevocable U.S. citizenship, 51 percent, a majority, voted for a relationship other than the current one. Therefore, our present form of government is not founded on the consent of the governed.         Apart from the legal, moral, democratic and profound constitutional issues this raises, you must consider the effect that this uncertainty has with respect to our ability to reach our full potential in economic, social, and political terms. After six commissions have discussed the status alternatives of Puerto Rico, after 103 failed bills in congress, after sixty hearings and seventeen different definitions of Commonwealth, we don't even have a proper definition upon which to base a popular referendum.         Congress has produced enough studies, research and paper on Puerto Rico to fill up this complete room. But Congress has never consulted the people of Puerto Rico on what they want.         It is entirely appropriate, and in keeping with precedent relative to self-determination in the case of other U.S. territories, that Congress provide us with clear definitions of our options and authorize a referendum based on those definitions upon which you -- we can express our preference.         All we are asking is for two things. One, that you authorize a nonbinding referendum process based on options which Congress is willing to consider as a basis for resolving the ultimate status of Puerto Rico. And two, that you define the available options so that the American citizens of Puerto Rico know precisely what it is they're voting for.         Thank you.         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. We appreciate your staying within the time limits.         Senator Craig, do you have a question for the Attorney General?         SENATOR CRAIG: I do not. Thank you.         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Senator Graham?         SENATOR GRAHAM: Mr. Attorney General, you talked about the constitutional crisis that is the result of a current status which does not have the support of the majority of the people of Puerto Rico. What are some of the implications of that constitutional crisis? How is it affecting the lives of the people of Puerto Rico, the ability of its government to respond to their desires, or in other ways?         ATTORNEY GENERAL FUENTES: Well, first of all, I refer you again to the Declaration of Independence. Government by the consent of the governed. In 1952, Congress enacted a law to allow local self-government for Puerto Rico. That established the present relationship that Puerto Rico has with the United States, whatever that may be. There are seventeen definitions of that relationship, none of which has been endorsed by a Congress.         The problem is that the definition that was put forth in the 1993 plebiscite, a plebiscite that was held because, in 1991, the Senate told the then-Governor, "Why don't you go back to Puerto Rico and hold your own referendum, and then come to us and tell us what happened at that referendum?" -- which is why we're here today.         But what happened at that referendum was that a definition for Commonwealth was put forward for the people to vote, and it seems that that definition is not acceptable to the Congress. So first of all, we have the people voting for something that's not going to be considered by this Congress, which is not legal, and which established the proposition that under Commonwealth, there could be a permanent relationship with the United States which could not be terminated unless the people of Puerto Rico wanted it -- which is not the case. And two, that citizenship would be also permanent, which is neither the position.         So when the people of Puerto Rico voted, they voted for something that they felt was Commonwealth, they believed was Commonwealth, when in fact, it was a lot closer than statehood. So 95 percent of the people wanted some kind of permanent relationship with the United States, but what happened -- which was unexpected -- was that if you add the votes of the people that voted for statehood, and the votes of the people that voted for independence, you have 51 percent of the people voting for something else.         So now, we don't have government by the governed. This is not what the people of Puerto Rico want. And the process started in 1989, this latest process. It took three years of hearings, and in 1991, the Senate finally said, "Go home. Run a plebiscite, come back with the results."         Well, we did that. In '93, we went, we had a plebiscite. In '93, actually, a month after that plebiscite, the legislature petitioned Congress to implement the definition that won, for Commonwealth, with 48 percent. The House acted on it, and now the only thing missing out of this equation is for the Senate to act. That's the only thing missing in this whole equation.         This is the closest the people of Puerto Rico have ever been in a hundred years to getting their options defined by Congress. So that's why we have a constitutional crisis, because the constitution that we approved, the establishment of a form of government in Puerto Rico, is not the one that the majority of the people now back.         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. Let me just make one comment. You stated that the definitions for statehood and independence are relatively straightforward. One involves the admission, on an equal footing with other states; one involves the withdrawal of U.S. sovereignty.         We would appreciate it if you'd care to propose specific language, because, as we look at the formation of the process on our side, we're looking for the absolute necessary increments, as opposed to some of the more extended definitions that lead you down a trail that oftentimes branches off in another trail, and that's what we've attempted to do as we compare the language before the Senate, and that that the House has proposed.         So if you would care to submit language to the committee, we'd be most appreciative -- relative to the straightforward, equal footing issue.         ATTORNEY GENERAL FUENTES: Based on legal parameters exclusively, I would be more than willing to do that.         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much. You're excused. We wish you a good day.         We will proceed now -- and I might add, as I call the various witnesses up, that we anticipate a vote that was to begin at ten o'clock, so we're still in anticipation, but there's reason to believe there will be a vote very soon.         I would propose to encourage some members to go as soon as the vote is announced so that they can come back and we can keep the hearing going for the continuity of a member being here to conduct until I can go vote.         The first, from the Popular Democratic Party, Anibal Acevedo Vila, President of the Popular Democratic Party. He will be joined by Jorge de Castro Font, the representative of the Popular Democratic Party.         Then we will have the Puerto Rican Independence Party, Fernando Martin Garcia, Vice President. The Speaker of the House of Puerto Rico, Edison Misla-Aldarondo, and the Mayor of Caguas Puerto Rico, William Miranda Marin. Pardon my Spanish inflection here. It's a little rusty.         Gentlemen, you may draw lots, or proceed as you wish. And I will limit your statements to the time. And since the vote just started, Senator Craig, will you be back, or someone? All right. Fine. Please proceed.         MR. ACEVEDO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here again.         In eleven days, a hundred years will have passed since the United States indeed Puerto Rico and took away the political rights and autonomy, that after decades of struggle, our people had just obtained from Spain. But also, in eleven days, we will commemorate forty-six years of a status formula assembled by visionaries, which restored some of the political rights lost in 1898.         In 1952, Puerto Rican exercised, without exhausting it, their right to self-government and statehood, and as a result, the United States recognized the assistance of a unique relationship, a unique nation, in a union in a compact with the United States.         Commonwealth was the answer to Puerto Rico's crave and need to divest itself to the colonial identity to which it was subjugated. Now, almost forty-six years later, it is impossible for me to understand why there is an effort by some to dispossess Puerto Ricans of their democratic rights obtained in 1952, and force us to recede a hundred years. It happened a hundred years against our will, and today we say, "Never again."         The United States Supreme Court and lower courts have done the same in recognizing the existence of Commonwealth. Congressional executive enactments after the enactment of Commonwealth have been consistent with these principles that we have a unique relationship. Congress lacks authority to make a new interpretation of what occurred in 1952.         That is precisely what H.R. 856 and S. 472 pretend to do. It is a clear constitutional principle that the power to interpret the law resides in the judicial branch. H.R. 856 and S. 472, together known as the Young and Craig bill, are statehood bills disguised under a statehood label. Both are desperate measures taken by a minority group in order to tilt the balance towards a path rejected by Puerto Ricans in every plebiscite and poll. Statehood, and in the last plebiscite in 1993, 53 percent of the people voted against statehood.         In these bills, Commonwealth is defined as a traditional colony, unworthy of consideration and American citizenship, used as a dealing card. Under the provision of these bills, we will be forced to choose between the equally unacceptable extremes of an ill-defined Commonwealth which can never aspire to be more than an unincorporated territory subordinated to the plenary powers of congress and an offhand free association offer that is nothing more than a mere appendix to independence, which will force us to give away our United States citizenship.         The unfairness and undemocratic nature of these bills are so evident that the two definitions included in the bills of Commonwealth and of free association have no support in Puerto Rico from any political party or association. It will be a monumental hoax for the thousands who fought, and are willing to fight, for the causes of the United States and to the families who have given their lives in war to tell them that the American citizenship they so cherish might be now revoked.         These bills clearly violate our right to vote for Commonwealth as it was established by law, and to advocate for its enhancement and full development. Under the terms and premises of these bills, we cannot participate in a plebiscite and will be forced into a court action to protect the voting rights of half of the people of Puerto Rico. Frankly, the bills before you, as they stand right now, are unconstitutional, illegal, unfair, and undemocratic.         Only -- we will continue to advocate for a real, inclusive process, and we will not stop until it is achieved. Only such a process will really solve this status dilemma.         The Popular Democratic Party is committed to statehood. I respectfully suggest that any process to enact legislation for statehood will guarantee the following conditions:         One, the process should be based on a minimal procedural consensus among Puerto Ricans.         Two, all the status alternatives must recognize the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico to decide its future.         Three, that the Commonwealth alternative be defined to allow the legitimate autonomic aspiration of the island and its economic development as a noncolonial, nonterritorial status in union with the United States, in a bilateral contract base on the sovereignty of Puerto Rico with U.S. citizenship that can only be altered by mutual consent.         The development of the Commonwealth must provide Puerto Rico the necessary tools and powers for our economic development in the global economy of the new century. We need to integrate historical and legal presence with statesmanship and political will in order for Puerto Rico and the United States to take their relationship to la higher ground, in harmony with the New World trends of interdependency in the new century.         Thank you.         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much.         Our next witness will be De Castro Font? Popular Democratic Party. Please proceed.         MR. DE CASTRO FONT: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. For the record, I'm Jorge Adolfo de Castro Font, a representative at large of the Popular Democratic Party, favoring commonwealth status.         Last week, Puerto Rico was faced with the first general strike since 1934. What started as a protest by 6400 telephone company employees against the sale soon turned into a massive popular uprising against Governor Rossello policies.         Anyone who had a chance of seeing the demonstration of so many Puerto Ricans could easily appreciate the spontaneous surge of nationalism among people from all walks of life. What you saw on television last week is what a sample of what will surely happen on a much larger scale should statehood be thrust upon our people against our wishes.         S. 472 purports to do just that. The way the definition of Commonwealth is drafted, these voters who believe in commonwealth with no real option to vote for, by defining citizenship of the Commonwealth as statutory, and therefore subject to the will of Congress, it forces Commonwealth advocates to vote for statehood as the only formula that can guarantee American citizenship.         This tendency will be augmented by the fact that S. 472 describes Commonwealth status as still being under the full brunt of the territorial clause of the United States constitution. The end result is that you may very well end up with a very spurious and hollow majority in favor of statehood.         Let's illustrate what we are saying. Puerto Ricans were collectively naturalized in 1917 by an act of Congress. This was statutory citizenship. Congress later amended the immigration and naturalization act to declare that Puerto Rico would be considered as part of the United States for purposes of that legislation, thereby conferring upon Puerto Ricans, by reason of birth, the status of natural born citizens.         Citizenship cannot be constitutionally withdrawn, and by virtue of this amendment, is fully protected by the U.S. constitutional. Statehooders in Puerto Rico contend that should the people of Puerto Rico once again vote for Commonwealth, Congress could revoke the U.S. citizenship. Furthermore, they argue that we are second-class citizens.         This is false. There is only one United States citizenship, and it's the same one you and I bear. There is absolutely no difference between your citizenship and ours in Puerto Rico.         I most respectfully believe you have a moral responsibility to clear the record on this matter once and for all. If there is something that we all agree, irrespective of political ideology, it is in the retention of our American citizenship. We all know that Congress cannot constitutionally legislate different request to create different kinds of citizenship. To put it bluntly, under the United States constitution, there cannot be classification of citizenship's.         In this regard, Mr. Chairman, be sure to know that I'm just as proud as you are of the American citizenship we share. Let's not take the nature of Commonwealth as it appears in this bill.         While we may not always agree as to the full scope of what happened in '52 when Commonwealth was created, all agree that something did, in fact, happen. With the authority emanating on the territorial clause, Congress did make a contract with the Puerto Rican people granting a measure of self-government.         If Congress can constitutionally, under the territorial clause, fully dispose of territories as it did with the Philippines, it can certainly partially dispose of them as in the case of Puerto Rico, with the advent of the Commonwealth status.         We respectfully insist that the United States stands by its record and support what they defend before the United Nations in '52, Commonwealth status. This is not only legal, but a moral responsibility on your part.         The Popular Democratic Party has no fear of a plebiscite. The people of Puerto Rico [inaudible] over statehood on two different plebiscites. However, we must respectfully insist on fair play through our process of statehood for the people of Puerto Rico.         For this reason, please allow us to insist on a definition of Commonwealth that confirms its nonterritorial nature clearly and unequivocally ratifying permanent absence of alteration by mutual consent, a definition that leaves no doubt as to the permanent and irrevocable nature of American citizenship of the Puerto Rican people on the estado libre associado.         On the other hand, the definition of statehood should also be fairly clarified so that the people of Puerto Rico fully comprehend that once granted, there is no turning back forever. Statehood closes all doors again forever.         The people should also be cognizant of the fact that the language of statehood is English and not Spanish, and that as the state of Puerto Rico, we will naturally lose its separatist participation in Olympic events and beauty pageant. After all, once in as a state, we become one with the nation, the United States of America. Thank you.         SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much. I'm going to have to vote at this time, so the committee will recess until either I return or one of the majority members returns, at which time we will again take up the testimony of the witnesses.         Our next witness would be Mr. Fernando Martin Garcia, Vice President, Puerto Rican Independence Party. Thank you.         MR. MARTIN: Thank you. Good morning, Senator. With only eleven days remaining for American colonialism in Puerto Rico to turn a century old.         These hearings take on a special symbolic, as well as historical, significance. If legislation is enacted that incorporates the three principal elements that have emerged in the discussion concerning the two bills under your consideration, a political process will be set in motion that will lead to the decolonization of Puerto Rico.         The first element, clearly stated in both the Craig and the Young bills, is the recognition of the colonial and territorial nature of Puerto Rico's present status. The second element is the growing awareness of the contradiction between the artificial and fragile nature of the Puerto Rican statehood movement on the one hand, and the political and historical realities on American nationhood on the other.         The full understanding of the implications of this contradiction will eventually result further ahead in the political process in the elimination of statehood as an option for decolonization.         The third element is the rehabilitation of independence, after almost a century of being a virtually criminalized alternative, and its emergence as a new point of convergence for the interests of both our nations, Puerto Rico and the United States, as we move into the next century.         The usefulness of the legislation that the Senate enacts will be in direct proportion to the degree in which the three elements I have outlined are incorporated in it. That is, the colonial and therefore anachronistic nature of the present status, the anticipation of the formidable obstacle of the formidable obstacles to be faced should a different nation, Puerto Rico, petition for admission as a state of the union, and the willingness to approach the question of independence not based on the mean-spirited policies of the past, but instead, on the recognition of a historical responsibility to make a good faith offer of independence that is not designed to be rejected.         If, on the contrary, the legislation were to obscure these three central elements by refusing to address the territorial subordination of the present status, or should it choose to be disingenuous by stating, for example, that statehood could be obtained by a simple majority of 50 percent plus one. Or should it shy away from a fair and equitable attitude towards Puerto Rican sovereignty, either in independence or free association, then the legislation would become, instead, a contributing factor to the confusion and disinformation that have helped sustained 100 years of colonialism.         The Puerto Rico Independence Party looks forwards to working with the committee and its staff in order to help determine the specific legislative language that will best promote the effectiveness of this legislation. I am convinced that we are passed the point of no return, as concerns the road towards the decolonization of Puerto Rico and the achievement of full national Puerto Rican sovereignty. This committee can give impetus to this process, but in the end, it cannot thwart it.         I urge you to act promptly and decisively. Thank you.         SENATOR Kyle: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Cintron is next, representing Edison Misla-Aldarondo, Speaker of the House of Puerto Rico. Welcome.         MR. : Thank you, Chairman. My name is Angel M. Cintron-Garcia I am a state representative for the pro-statehood new progressive party for the last ten years, and chairman of the federal affairs and finance committee of the House. Today, I'm representing the Speaker Edison Misla-Aldarondo, who deeply regrets not being able to testify here today.

        Back on March 4th, the United States House approved H.R. 856. In response to this, on March 12th, the state house of representatives in Puerto Rico passed resolution 2827. Hereby, we exhort the U.S. Senate to consider and approve H.R. 856.

        But some of you might ask yourselves, why do we need congressional legislation? Yes. We may have had two referenda in the past hundred years, one in 1967 and the other in 1993. Those were done exclusively as provided by local legislation.

        Still, both were inconclusive. Basic law in both cases was largely due to the democratic nature of both measures. In each case, parties representing the three traditional status formulas were allowed to submit to voters for a version of their own status formula they decide. On both occasions, this led to the inclusion of wishful, yet clearly unconstitutional, elements in each of the definitions.

        The main problem, though, has always been with the definition of Commonwealth. There always seems to be so much confusion within the pro-Commonwealth Popular Democratic Party about their status formula that it would be appropriate to ask them, "What do you understand by Commonwealth?"

        At one time or another, within the last five years, Commonwealth has included the following elements within its seventeen definitions:

        Full partitioning in federal funds as any state of the union without the applicability of the federal income tax on income generated in Puerto Rico.

        Power to veto the applicability of federal laws in Puerto Rico.

        Power to enter into treaties with foreign countries.

        Power to control immigration and customs.

        Exchange of embassies with the U.S. Permanent union with the U.S., and permanent U.S. citizenship for future generations of Puerto Ricans.

        What is surprising is that such a pie in the sky definition did not garner a majority of the votes in the '93 referendum. Still, such inconclusive results presented another problem. For the very first time, a Commonwealth definition did not garner majority support in Puerto Rico.

        That is quite significant, and worrisome, as it put us in a state of constitutional crisis. Because any sort of mandate for the current Commonwealth territorial arrangement does not exist any more.

        That is why we, in the legislative assembly of Puerto Rico, have requested that Congress responds to the results. To that effect, we have adapted three separate concurrent resolutions in the last five years, both H.R. 856 and S. 472 are appropriate response to our requests.

        Sadly, it has not been surprising that the PDP has cried "foul" throughout this process. Remember, they are the status quo. They would rather leave the issue untouched.

        That is why it would be interesting to see what they would answer if asked why they never came before Congress in a full-fledged manner to petition for the implementation of their winning status formula from the '93 referendum. If they are true believers in the self-determination of the four million U.S. citizenship of Puerto Rico, why have they never come before you or the House to work out an acceptable amended version of either H.R. 856 or S. 472?

        Or even more so, why haven't they proposed an alternate measure, if their intentions match their words? After all, isn't that the way the system is supposed to work?

        The only solution to this quagmire is for congress to define what is constitutional, what is legal, what is viable, and obviously, what is available under each status definition. That would be the only way to end the misinformation and the demagoguery that is the rule of the day whenever this issue is debated and discussed in Puerto Rico.

        Still, you may rightfully ask, why now? Let's face it. The most compelling reason for you to act now, rather than later, is the yearly cost of maintaining the current Commonwealth territorial arrangement.

        Are you are how much the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico costs to the Treasury every year? Do you believe that cost will ever come down, or stabilize at the very least?

        Throughout the last five years, we have managed to expand the economy of Puerto Rico by leaps and bounds, creating over 200,000 new jobs, primarily in the private sector. That is why the pro-statehood party achieved the largest political landslide in Puerto Rico since 1964. Still, unless Puerto Rico is given the tool to better address its social and economic needs, we would continue to suffer from the negative side effects of territorial welfare.

        Let me be clear. Most Puerto Ricans would rather have sound economic development leading to the creation of stable and permanent jobs, using the model that has been good for the fifty states.

        The alternative that most people do not seem to want, would be to depend on the obsolete economic model long advocated by the PDPs. Not only is this model quite worrisome for the Puerto Ricans, but even more so to the taxpayers in the fifty states.

        Why should they tolerate corporate and territorial welfare when, as individuals, they could find better use for that money? Why should a resident of Minnesota or Arizona continue to shoulder the costs of maintaining the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico when the people of Puerto Rico do not contribute a penny to the U.S. Treasury? That is Commonwealth. On the other hand, studies have shown that statehood for Puerto Rico would result in net savings for the federal treasury because of the amount of revenues that would begin to pour in from the island.

        In just eleven days, we will commemorate a hundred years since the arrival of the first contingent of U.S. troops in our island. We might respect the wisdom and good intentions that may have characterized U.S. policy towards Puerto Rico. Yet, as an American, it is inconceivable not to desire participation in the greatest democracy the world has ever seen.

        For example, how would the citizens of Idaho, or Kentucky, feel if they were denied representation in Congress? The ability to vote for the president of the United States and many other rights and privileges long considered interim of our U.S. citizenship under the pretense of allowing them more autonomy over their internal affairs.

        Such is life under our current Commonwealth territorial arrangement. Definitely, it is not, and could never be, a better alternative for the more perfect union devised by the Founding Fathers of our nation. Obviously, Commonwealth is not a substitute for any of the status options that granted the exercise of sovereignty or full self-government by its citizens.

        What we see now is an historical opportunity that might not repeat itself as easily in the near future. There will always be a few concerns regarding some important issues. Still, there will be ample time to address these and other concerns later on.

        If we wait for the elusive consensus in Puerto Rico regarding this issue, we would see our grandchildren coming before Congress to request action regarding Puerto Rico's self-determination.

        This issue is due. Your fellow citizens in Puerto Rico are more than ready.

        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we fully support the measures that are under consideration by this committee. Nonetheless, time is getting precious, and these measures might be a bit too complex for the Senate to act on them before the end of this Congress. Therefore, in order to continue with our self-determination process that is absolutely necessary, we propose that in the alternative, you consider a simpler version of either of these two bills.

        Such a measure should, at the very least, provide for an initial referendum with congressionally approved status options definitions. May you be guided by the almighty on deciding the fate of four million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico. After all, this is the moral and the right thing to do.

        God bless America, and God bless Puerto Rico.

        SENATOR Kyle : Thank you. Your invocation of the deity may be very wise for all of us.

        Finally, Mayor William Miranda Marin.

        MAYOR MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Senator. Good morning.

        I'm William Miranda Marin, Mayor of Caguas, Puerto Rico, 5^th Largest city, chair of the Democratic Party of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and retire Major General of the United States Army.

        I'm testifying in regard to H.R. 856 as approved by the House, and S. 472. Both deal with the proposed plebiscite on Puerto Rico political established. Both are thinly disguised statehood bills.

        I thank the committee for allowing me to deliver these remarks, and I congratulate the chairman and members for the fair, [inaudible] which these bills are being considered. I only wish that the proposers under consideration were fair [inaudible] as the Puerto Rican people. Alas, they are not. The two measures before the committee, S. 472 even more so than H.R. 856, and strip Puerto Rico of its autonomy's essence, and attempt to put in jeopardy our American citizenship in open defiance of the democratic mandate of the people of Puerto Rico, who created the estado libre associado between 1950 and 1952 as a compact between the United States and Puerto Rico, and ratified it in the 1967 and 1993 plebiscites. The findings of our Commonwealth status involved measures are contrary to historical fact, contrary to the position held by the United States government of Puerto Rico for more than forty years, and contrary to the important judicial decisions by the federal courts on the nature of the estado libre associado.

        Based on these erroneous findings, the proposed definition of Commonwealth status, in both bills, the contention that is territorial and colonial is totally [inaudible]. These undemocratic bills offer Puerto Rico every conceivable status action except the action that the majority of the people of Puerto Rico has consistently favored. The estado libre associate is neither a territory nor a colony. The estado libre associate is a unique autonomous and sovereign status of permanent association with the United States, and guaranteed American citizenship. It is a status equal in dignity to any other political statutes resulting from a bilateral contract between the Puerto Rican land American nations. The estado libre associate is also the cornerstone of the staggering economic growth registered in Puerto Rico over the past forty-six years, mainly because our productive creativity and fiscal autonomy, which will vanish under statehood.

        Should Puerto Rico be deprived of this vital instrument for growth, and should we be burdened with the payment of full federal taxes, hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans will be condemned to live in poverty and unemployment. Many will be forced to migrate to the United States in search of new opportunities.

        Many Puerto Ricans who are major components of the productive sector of our economy, fully one-third of the population, will also leave, because of the added tax burden to be paid in Puerto Rico with no significant improvement in the quality of life.

        We estados ristas are ready to take part in a fair plebiscite, authorized in the congress and resulting from a broad political consensus. Being a plebiscite where congress commits itself beforehand, and in all good faith, to move forward to implement its resolves. Recognize the estado libre associate for what it has represented historically, and we will tell you how we want it to evolve. Acknowledge what we are, and we will tell you what we want to become.

        Why the rush to approve fatally flawed plebiscite legislation, Mr. Chairman and committee members? Why not scrap these two fatally unfair proposals and draft legislation and sent over to Congress and to all these status options? A plebiscite where the custodian of the autonomous direction from the polls will be a sham, virtually devoid of meaningful effect on the fair and reasonable condition.

        We establos vistas will never opt for an electoral boycott, which unfair abuses and these respectful legislation we approve, you will not find us at the polls. We will stay away. Not because we want to stay away, but because you will have left us with no other choice. In effect, you will have disenfranchised us.

        As a proud Puerto Rican and a good American citizen, I hope and pray we shall never come to this. As a proud Puerto Rican and a good American citizen, I urge you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, to show respect and act fairly toward Puerto Rico and its people, and to turn down any efforts to force statehood upon us. Do not make use lose our faith in American democracy.

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you all.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you for your statement. I have a question for each of you. First of all, for Mr. Acevedo Vila. You state that all status alternatives must recognize the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico. Given the difference in sovereignty between the statehood and independence, this is almost an impossible condition you're setting. How do you propose that we --

        MR. ACEVEDO: Basically, the process has to recognize the power to enter, to maintain the relationship, to enter into a statehood or to move towards independence resides on the people of Puerto Rico. And that's sovereignty.

        The ultimate source of power has to be the people of Puerto Rico. The people of Puerto Rico then will decide whether they want statehood, develop Commonwealth or independence. But if not, we're not basically on a self-determination process.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: A question for Mr. De Castro Font. Your suggestion that the legislation must have a definition of Commonwealth, unequivocally ratifying its permanence, and the fact that it can be altered only by mutual consent.

        As a practical matter, Congress is rather unlikely to alter the current political status without a mutual consent. On the other hand, the constitution does not limit the Congress for its powers to admit states, nor to dispose of a territory.

        How do you propose to formulate a definition that would basically harmonize the practical with the constitutional? In other words, how do you propose a definition that coincides with the constitution and still is as practical objective?

        MR. DE CASTRO FONT: Well, as I said before, in the case of the Philippines, to dispose of a territory through independence, and to dispose of Puerto Rico to getting to a new special relationship in '52 for Commonwealth status, you can do that. There's some precedence in the constitution of the United States.

        What we are asking, Mr. Chairman, is fair play. We have a definition that was filed by the Party in the House of Representatives, and with that definition, what the same definition that was approved by the whole House in 1990. And I think that's constitutional, and that's the definition that we are going forward with it.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: For Fernando Martin Garcia, in your listing of points, your third point deals with rehabilitation of independence. My question is, do you think that the provision for independence included in this committee's legislation in 1989 was adequate, or --

        MR. MARTIN: Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, that the 1989 legislation, it began this process of rehabilitation, and I think it was a dramatic step forward in terms of the traditional view of independence, and we were, at that moment, quite satisfied with that -- with that definition.

        At this moment, the elements that define independence, in both the Craig and the Young bill, are, in general terms, quite satisfactory. I think that we have to do some work on the technical language, but we are fundamentally satisfied, and I think that we are, in fact, moving towards that rehabilitation of the independence option.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Question for Mr. Cintron, relative to your measures that you indicate contemplate an allocation of funds to each of the three parties. Given that this isn't a new subject for Puerto Rico, what would you consider to be an adequate amount of funding for the recommendation on political education?

        MR. CINTRON: Well, that depends on the standards that we already have in the local electoral commission. We already have experience in other referendums years ago, so we can share with the committee those models we already have in Puerto Rico to adopt the best one in terms of the amount of money for education.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Well, we would appreciate anything you would care to submit for the record.

        MR. CINTRON: Yes, sir.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Mr. William Miranda Marin, your statement suggests that unless Congress includes your definition of Commonwealth, you're going to boycott the referendum.

        MAYOR MIRANDA: No, it's not that, Mr. Senator, Mr. Chairman, that we will boycott the referendum. It's that we are being left out. And so we do not have any --

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Well, how can we meet your demand, then, as well as others who may have different definitions?

        MAYOR MIRANDA: Say that again, sir?

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: How do we meet your demands and others that have different definitions?

        MAYOR MIRANDA: For me, it is simple, you know. I think that we should get together and try to get a consensus from the three persons representing the three options that we have historically. But the problem with these two bills is that the Commonwealth is not there. Even the Commonwealth, we have been told for more than forty years that we have, that were set up in 1950 to 1952, is not there in those two bills.

        And there has been a lack of consensus, because we have tried, along the whole process, to get a fair participation in it so that we can have our aspirations in those two bills. And we have been left out. So it's not a matter of boycotting the process, it's that we have been left out.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: So if we take your definition, then, we're okay. Otherwise, you're left out.

        MAYOR MIRANDA: No. Not my definition, sir. Not my definition, sir.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: All right.

        MAYOR MIRANDA: Maybe you are taking me wrong. What I am saying is that we have been not allowed to participate and develop a definition.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Okay.

        MAYOR MIRANDA: You know, a definition for a state, you have fifty more. Definition for independence, you have that very well defined. But Commonwealth is a unique status. So we were made to believe that in 1950. And we have been working under those parameters all the time.

        Now, you Congress try to change the rules under which we have been living. So I think that we are the majority in Puerto Rico. We should have the opportunity to come here and discuss and get together and see what are the aspirations of our people.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Well, I think the record should note that this is one of the significant stumbling blocks as we proceed, is the agreement on definitions, because each party and each group has a different view of what the intention should be, and obviously we're going to have to have some finality in this process as we proceed.

        I'm going to excuse the panel, unless my colleagues have other questions, and proceed to the next panel. I thank you, gentlemen --

        SENATOR KYL: Mr. Chairman, might I ask one question of the panel?

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Kyl. I didn't see you, over in the corner. Go ahead, please proceed.

        SENATOR KYL: No. I indicated I could stay, and I can, at least for a little while longer. I'm anxious to hear the second panel, too, but I would be interested in a very short response from each of the panelists here, if they could.

        We all have many things which characterize us, which are our identity. We are many things. I'm an Arizonian. I'm a Presbyterian. I'm a Republican. I'm an American. I live in -- I'm a resident of Phoenix, Arizona. Each of you identify yourselves politically.

        Which of these two political statements closest represent your view. Number one, I'm a Puerto Rico with American citizenship. Number two, I'm an American living in Puerto Rico?

        MR. ACEVEDO: Clearly number one, and I can assure you the overwhelming majority in Puerto Rico will say that.

        MR. : Same. Puerto Rican, American citizen. That's the way it is. And if someone comes to Puerto Rico to get -- as an American citizen, and resides in Puerto Rico, they will still be American citizen. But because they are in Puerto Rico, they cannot vote for the president of the United States. It's the same thing.

        MR. MARTIN: I am a Puerto Rican and an American citizen because I do not have the alternative of being a Puerto Rican citizen.

        MR. CINTRON: Well, sir, I could be a Puerto Rican and I could be an Arizonian tomorrow if I leave and I move to Arizona, but I'll still be an American citizen all the time, and all the way, throughout the nation.

        [Applause]

        SENATOR KYL: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that applause is for the suggestion that he could become an Arizonan soon.

        [Laughter]

        SENATOR KYL: But I would certainly welcome you.

        [Laughter]

        SENATOR KYL: Mr. Mayor?

        MAYOR MIRANDA: Mr. Senator, I am a proud Puerto Rican with American citizenship.

        SENATOR KYL: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much. That was an interesting series of questions you asked, and interesting response.

        SENATOR GRAHAM (?): Mr. Chairman, could I ask one question. I guess, Mr. Cintron?

        MR. CINTRON: Yes, sir.

        SENATOR GRAHAM: In your statement, you raised the same issue that the Attorney General did, and that is constitutional crisis. Could you tell me what are some of the manifestations of that constitutional crisis in the lives of individual Puerto Ricans, or in the collective life of the society of the island?

        MR. CINTRON: Well, you could have, sir, you could have a lot. First of all, in my major theme in the House, economic development, you need safety and soundness to create a solid economic model. In United States, in Puerto Rican, wherever.

        And if you have an uncertain political model that gives you the safety and soundness in the daily movement of the economic model, and the investment, you could have very high interest, as an example, in everything. In loans, et cetera. Why? Because of the uncertain political atmosphere, that you have in Puerto Rico for a long period of time.

        That's why the cost of living in Puerto Rico is very high comparing with the rest of the nation. That's why you haven't the ability to ask for money in capital markets with the lowest rates, and you haven't the ability to buy money on the long run basis for a better economic development in Puerto Rico. That's some of the manifestations you have in Puerto Rico with the people on a daily basis.

        Also, you have the manifestation as a social and psychological situation. You are not sure if you are, or you are not. You are an American citizen, but you haven't the right to vote for the man who governs you daily. You are an American citizen, but you haven't the right to have people that are on your behalf at the House or at the Senate, deciding the daily situations that you need to confront.

        So you haven't the ability to know where you are, or who you are. And that's a psychological, very, very important effect of this uncertain political status we already have for a hundred years, maybe for 500 years, because we are a colony since 1493.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much. Let me excuse the panel, and thank you very much, gentlemen. And I would advise you that the record will remain open for -- ten days? Two weeks approximately, so you may submit further material, and we will undoubtedly be in contact with you.

        We have panel two left, and panel three. Panel two was initially structured to represent residents of Puerto Rico as opposed to necessarily panel three. In order to simplify the process, we're going to have panel two and three together, because we've got enough seats for everyone, and that will take care of the hearing for today, and then we will come back tomorrow at nine o'clock -- nine o'clock, not nine-thirty -- and proceed with the balance of the hearing with various witnesses, members of Congress and so forth.

        So panel two, if they would come. We have Arturo J. Guzman, chairman of the IDEA of Puerto Rico. We have Miriam J. Ramirez, a medical doctor, president of Puerto Ricans in Civil Action, and Dr. Ortiz Quinones, Action Democratica Puertoriquena.

        And then we're going to bring up panel three, and we will start over where the water isn't spilled, with Joaquin A. Marquez, president of the Puerto Rican-American Foundation. Jose Rivera, chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly.

        Mr. Charles Cooper, Esquire, Cooper, Carvin and Rosenthal, and we can all assume that that's a law firm. Marco Antonio Rigau, attorney at law. David Matta, director of legislative division, National Puerto Rican Bar Association, and Diego Hernandez, former Admiral of the Puerto Rican Navy. The U.S. Navy. That's better. Well, I just gave you a navy.

        We will proceed with the lady first. How's that. Are you ready to go?

        DR. RAMIREZ: Yes, sir. Thank you.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Please proceed. And again, I want to remind you, that light does work. And it's going to be on green.

        DR. RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent Puerto Ricans in Civic Action. Our organization delivered 350,000 individually signed petitions to Congress seeking equal rights through the admission of Puerto Rico as the 51st state of the union.

        This year marks the 100 years anniversary of Puerto Rico as part of the United States. It is an appropriate time for Congress to take action on the status of Puerto Rico.

        For us, these hundred years represent a period of great accomplishments, satisfaction, as well deep disappointment. Our journey to full equality under the United States constitution is incomplete. Our citizenship does not carry with us voting representation in this body or in the House, or entitle us to vote for the President. However, you can change that.

        The bills you are considering provide the mechanisms for us to finally attain political and economic parity with free peoples everywhere. Both contain three elements critical to accomplish these results: a Congressionally sanctioned referendum and clear definitions of the available status options, based on the fact that, one, Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States; two, United States citizenship conferred by statute on Puerto Ricans is not constitutionally protected; and three, the process to full determination and full self-government must continue until such time as we choose a permanent status, which is either independence or statehood.

        We are in urgent need for the Congress to provide a clear and precise definition of the status options to be sent to voters. Time and again, the Commonwealth proponents mislead our voters into believing that the United States will create a relationship with us in which we will reap all the benefits of being part of this great nation, with none of the obligations and responsibilities. In past referendums, they have told the voters the Commonwealth will provide guaranteed permanent union with the United States, permanent United States citizenship, permanent freedom from federal taxes, the right to veto federal laws, guaranteed full federal welfare benefits, economic and fiscal development programs, a separate, sovereign, national identity, power to make treaties with foreign countries -- all this under a compact which cannot be modified with Puerto Rico's consent.

        Congress has an obligation to define these options correctly. This determines our future and those of our children and grandchildren. Passage to independence or statehood will initiate an immediate reduction in the $13 billion annual United States taxpayer subsidy that goes to maintain the status quo.

        No one can longer afford, politically or economically, to maintain a territory that disenfranchises its citizens, deprives them of economic opportunity, and has already cost the United States treasury over $150 billion since the Commonwealth's founding in 1952.

        Finally, plebiscites must be continuously held until the permanent political status is obtained. This process has been very frustrating. Despite the support by every Republican president since Eisenhower, despite the support of the Republican platform since 1940, and despite numerous efforts to move this issue forward in previous Congress, Puerto Rico has always come away without final action.

        Some question why Congress should be involved in this process. Some have asked why Puerto Ricans don't take the first step and then come to Congress. The answer is simple.

        First, Congress has the jurisdiction and responsibility to solve the status issue. And second, we have taken the first step. We began by exercising the constitutional right of redressing our grievances by delivering 350,000 petitions to Congress. Later in '97, the petition was sent by your state legislature requesting Congress to assist us by providing a self-determination process. What more can we do?

        We are only asking for the most basic democratic right, the right to vote. Many of the issues against this process that we hear today are similar to those that were raised against other territories. During the late 1940s, Congress would not move forward on legislation for Alaska. The arguments were that Alaska would not survive economically, that it was too distant from the rest of the nation, and that a large percentage of its population did not share in America's culture and social life. Some said California was too barren and empty to survive as a state. Others complained that Ohio should not join the union because a significant percentage of its citizens spoke German rather than English.

        The United States citizens of Puerto Rico have been denied for too long the rights and opportunities all other Americans take for granted. I trust that in the end, when the sound and fury has died down, you will cast your votes for equality and opportunity, enlightened as you are, the bearers of the Founding Fathers' principles and the safe keepers of our constitution. Thank you very much, sir.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much. We appreciate your statement, and the manner in which you delivered it within the timeframe. Miriam, we are most appreciative.

        Our next witness would be Arturo Guzman, Chairman of IDEA.

        MR. GUZMAN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Mr. Chairman, I request your consent in allowing me the opportunity to submit any additional written testimony that may be required as a result of today's proceeding.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Without objection.

        MR. GUZMAN: Thank you, sir.

        Mr. Chairman, committee members, the solution to Puerto Rico's colonial status condition can only be achieved by an act of mutual self-determination on the part of the Congress of the United States, and we, the people. The Congress must represent the national U.S. interests by providing the governed with a sanctioned, democratic process that is based upon accurate definitions for the options that it's willing to consider, and the governed must express their self-determination through an electoral process.

        The Senate must also recognize, and reaffirm in its legislation, that the essential precondition to mutual self-determination resides in the truthful and accurate definition of the present condition in political, territorial, and individual terms. It is imperative that all legislative initiatives include, in clear terms, the exact nature of the current status of Puerto Rico as well as the exact nature of the current status of Puerto Ricans. In essence, the nature of our relationship and the nature of our U.S. citizenship.

        S. 472 meets this criteria and has our full endorsement and support. Nonetheless, this process has created perplexing an contradictory perceptions, only part of which I bring to your attention due to time constrictions.

        The people of Puerto Rico must not be blamed, or made responsible, for the results and consequences of the failed political and economic experiment in colonialism that was created and imposed upon us by the Congress. Nor should they be faulted for the partial absence of language skills that resulted from direct political actions that were fully funded by the U.S. federal government and endorsed by the silence of the Congress.

        Senators Craig, Graham, and other cosponsors of S. 472 must not be blamed, but admired and praised for telling the truth of our relationship to all Americans. Truths that have been mislabeled as partial to an option. Their critics paradoxically admitting that truth is partial to one option.

        But, Mr. Chairman, if truth proves unbearable to the forces of bigotry and prejudice under the subterfuge of language, economics, or whatever, and our people blamed for the actions of others, then I must ask you to withdraw the option of statehood. But if you accede, then I ask you to also repeal our statutory U.S. citizenship, because if you don't, we will come back and back again until we secure for our children the same rights and obligations that you and your constituents possess, those rights and obligations that can be acquired after five years of residence by any immigrant, and which have been denied to the people of Puerto Rico for a century.

        Do as you will, but whatever the outcome, don't substitute truth by yet another forty-six years of colonial deceit. If the forces of the evil empire of injustice and prejudice were to prevail, and derail this process by commission, omission, or attrition. Make sure to ponder the consequences, both domestic and international, what standing would be left to our nation when confronting tyrants like Hussein or Castro.

        What moral course would remain to ask the rest of the world to embark on a path towards democracy and who allowed their peoples their right to self-determination if the U.S. Senate were to deny these same, basic rights to fellow Americans in Puerto Rico?

        Mr. Chairman, this shameful system of colonial apartheid must be ended. It is the wall of that divides the nation and constitutes our own Quebec. This wall separates some Americans from others. On one side, first-class citizens, on the other, those of us who are deprived of our full rights and obligations. On one side, those Americans that, at one time, were forced to ride on the back of the bus, and who have since won their full rights, and on the other side, those of us who, even at this later stage, have not even been allowed to get on the bus.

        In concluding, I say to you, members of the U.S. Senate: Bring down this wall. Tear down this wall.

        Mr. Chairman, in concluding, and in answer to your question and for the record, addressing a question you asked earlier, whether the members of the Popular Democratic Party or not were threatening to boycott the process, if their definition was not included, I submit for the record today's paper with an ad paid by them in which indeed they ascertained that they will boycott.

        And this is yet one more proof, another deceit committed upon the people of Puerto Rico. Coming here and saying one thing, going back there and saying something else, and two days later possibly denying having ever said anything. Thank you, sir.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: That statement will be part of the record. Thank you very much. We appreciate your statement.

        Our next witness will be Dr. Ortiz Quinones, Action Democratic Party. Please proceed.

        DR. ORTIZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, members of the committee.

        DR. ORTIZ: -- from Harvard and Cornell universities, where I obtained a master and doctorate degree. I was as professor director of the school of planning, dean of the students at the campus at the University of Puerto Rico.

        I have also served as a member of the planning board and secretary of transportation and public works of the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. At present, I am vice president of Action Democratica Puertoriquena.

        Action Democratica Puertoriquena is a nongovernmental, nonpartisan, civil organization interested in promoting political education concerning the right to free determination and the sovereign option of free association of the Puerto Rican nation through a bilateral pact or treaty with the United States of America. Action Democratica Puertoriquena proposes the simplification of the House and Senate bills under consideration on the future political status of Puerto Rico.

        To that end, we have suggested a series of recommendations in our written paper. Because of time limitations today, I will concentrate on four of these.

        First, the finding contained in the House bill are an obstacle to obtain consensus and totally unnecessary. We propose to reduce them to a single one, limited to presenting in detail the legislative intent of the Senate legislation.

        Second, the definition of a new sovereign free association should substitute the option of territorial commonwealth included in both the House and the Senate bills. Let's say that half of the people of Puerto Rico believes Puerto Rico is not la territory. On the other hand, the other half thinks that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. yet nobody -- I repeat, nobody -- thinks that Puerto Rico should be a territory.

        We urge you not to offer to the people of Puerto Rico territorial Commonwealth as an option. The House and Senate bills unduly favors the statehood supporters. To present the territorial Commonwealth alternative incorporating Puerto Rico as a territory, together with the statehood option, actually produces a no-win situation for the majority of the Puerto Rican voters, who have never backed statehood, as shown in the 1993 plebiscite, and the latest polls.

        That does not support a territorial or colonial incorporation either. As such, these bills do not respond to the internationally recognized right of free determination.

        We suggest the elaboration of a substitute bill including our proposed definition of free association as an alternative to be presented to the people of Puerto Rico.

        Third, integration to the United States should not be offered if Congress is unwilling to commit itself to an admission of a distinct nation within another nation. If Congress will not agree to admission of Puerto Rico as a state of the union, given our condition as a distinct Latin American and Caribbean nation, this should make it clear right now. Otherwise, Congress will be maintaining illusory expectation impeding a national consensus in Puerto Rico for solving the status problem.

        Alternatively, Congress can make clear that the consideration of their request for admission will be undertaken if the people of Puerto Rico vote, and I quote, by substantial number and with a passion, in the correct phrase of President Ronald Reagan, namely, a two-thirds majority.

        Fourth, the Senate should include in the legislation design of the ballot for the proposed plebiscite. Said design should not be left to the political [inaudible] in Puerto Rico.

        We should hereby suggest a ballot with two quadrants, one for American sovereignty, and another for Puerto Rican sovereignty. Under American sovereignty, with the insignia of the American flag, the statehood should appear alone, since territorial Commonwealth is not acceptable to anyone in Puerto Rico.

        Under Puerto Rican sovereignty, with the insignia of the flag of Puerto Rico in parallel columns will appear the sovereign free association option and independence, separately positioned and separately described.

        The voters will vote under either statehood, free association, or independence, and the vote of the latter two will be added to produce the total in favor of Puerto Rican sovereignty. In this manner, one of the two options of sovereignty, American or Puerto Rican, will obtain a majority of the votes.

        These, Mr. Chairman, are our recommendations. Thank you very much.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much. We appreciate your statement. We move into those who are with panel number three. Joachim Marquez, president of the Puerto Rican federation. We look forward to your statement. Please proceed.

        MR. MARQUEZ: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee on Energy and Natural Resources. My name is Joachim A. Marquez, and I appear before you as president of the Puerto Rican-American Foundation. In the interests of time, I will summarize my statement. However, I ask that my full statement be included in the record of this proceeding.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Without objection.

        MR. MARQUEZ: Mr. Chairman, I come to Congress today with a simple request: let my people vote. One hundred years ago, General Nelson Miles came to Puerto Rico bearing the banner of freedom, and promised to bestow on us the immunities and blessings of the liberal institutions of our government. One hundred years later, Puerto Ricans are still waiting to be given the opportunity to be given the political to exercise that most sacred blessing of our liberal institutions, the right of self-determination.

        Eighty-one years ago, Congress extended statutory citizenship to all residents of the island, albeit a truncated, second-class citizenship that still condemns our people today to political inequality. And yet, an overwhelming number of Puerto Ricans cherish their U.S. citizenship because of its implied promise of equality, which they hope will be obtained some day soon.

        How long must they continue to wait before Congress grants the opportunity to realize the full rights and obligations of their citizenship through the exercise of their self-determination? How many more times must we come before you to plead our right of self-determination? Must we wait another century?

        Can Congress not see the ugly stain of colonialism that soils the collective soul of our gallant republic? Our new yearning for the sweet breath of equality cannot be long contained by a policy of indifference, or of benign neglect.

        No, Mr. Chairman. The question before this body is one of awful moment to our nation. What is the real meaning of self-determination to this Congress? Is it merely a self-righteous slogan? Is self-determination available to all our citizens except those that are poor, weak, and disenfranchised?

        What manner of Congress is this, that would deny the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico the right of self-determination out of a fear that they may opt to seek equality of rights and obligations under statehood?

        For my own part, I consider this question as nothing less than a question of equality, or colonialism. All Americans cannot be equal, Mr. Chairman, as long as one American remains unequal. Let my people vote.

        We cannot vote for the president or vice president. We cannot elect voting representation to Congress. We cannot enact laws that may be judged to be incompatible with the laws of the metropolitan power. We cannot vote on the fundamental question of our future political relationship with a nation whose citizenship we proudly bear, and whose noble principles we defend with our lives in distant fields of battle.

        Our people have purchased the right to self-determination with the blood of thousands who gave their last full measure defending those very rights which we seek here today, and which are being denied to their survivors.

        What type of self-determination do we seek? I submit that we seek informed self-determination. Because of Puerto Rico's colonial status, any federal legislation providing for self-determination must unambiguously set forth only those alternatives which are compatible with the constitution and which are acceptable to the Congress.

        In simple English, the U.S. is the colonial power. Congress must tell us what is acceptable to it. They need not be extensive definitions, but they must be sufficiently clear that they cannot be misconstrued by self-serving politicians during the referendum that will soon follow.

        Please bear in mind that in order to have a valid exercise of self-determination, Congress must first clearly set forth definitions that fit within the rubric of the constitution and that will be acceptable to the Congress, and then, Congress must let my people vote.

        In this new era of communications that has truly turned our world into a global village, the nations of the world will be watching with interest what Congress does here. Thirty million Hispanics who are already an integral part, and productive part, of our nation, will also be watching with interest.

        What message will Congress convey to them? Will its message be that equality and self-determination in America is not available to those of Hispanic heritage? That at the American table of plenty, Puerto Ricans need not apply?

        The only way to disprove such a message, Mr. Chairman, is to let my people vote.

        I support H.R. 856 and S. 472, because they represent an appropriate Congressional response to the legitimate petitions of the Puerto Rican people. Neither of these bills will create a state or independent nation, nor should they do so. Instead, they begin a process to determine what is the popular will of our people and what steps would need to be taken if that popular will is to be implemented.

        The most important role that Congress should play in this process is to provide clear and unambiguous definitions for each of the alternatives to be presented to the people. self-determination for Puerto Rico must be a bipartisan effort. It is altogether fitting that a Republican Congress and a Democratic president should bring this shameful 100-year colonial period to a close for Puerto Rico and our nation by letting my people vote.

        I wish to conclude by thanking Chairman Murkowski and Senator Craig, Senator Graham, for their leadership in moving this legislation promptly through Congress, and for their courage and commitment to grant U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico an opportunity to exercise their self-determination. The time for legislative action in the last session of the 105the Congress runs perilously short. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the time for action is now. Let my people vote. Thank you.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Marquez. I'm going to depart to accommodate Senator Kyl, who has one question.

        SENATOR KYL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had intended to question the second panel, and then I was going to have to leave, which I will have to do, but I couldn't leave without first of all, expressing my appreciation to many people who have come to visit me and especially the hospitality that people like Miriam Ramirez have shown me in Puerto Rico.

        We first got together in another land, in El Salvador, when people there were having a very difficult time coming to grips with their electoral problems, and we provided some modest, I think, assistance in that situation. And I very much appreciate that.

        If I could, I would like to ask one question that plays directly off of the comment that Mr. Marquez just made, and it's a question of Dr. Ramirez. Do you agree that a plebiscite is only -- an effective plebiscite here would only be effective with the United States government providing the wording and the definitions, or is it possible that the vast majority of Puerto Ricans could come together on an agreement on the wording and themselves conduct a fair plebiscite? Or is that just not possible?

        DR. RAMIREZ: Well, sir, we've tried that before. We've had plebiscites in Puerto Rico, and the sad part is that each party polls its own because of the electoral process. They all want to win. So they place under each one of their options those elements that they think that the people of Puerto Rico want.

        So citizenship is up there up front, and you asked a question a little while ago, asking them if they wanted to be Puerto Ricans or U.S. citizens. I wish you would have asked them, would you relinquish your United States citizenship? No one is willing to do that.

        So we could do a process back there and say how we want it to be, you know, self-determinated, but we are going to require from the United States things like citizenship, permanent union, federal funding, we've got to ask you guys. We've got to ask you guys if you're willing to do that, and how much for each one of the options. Because we can't decide for you how far you're going to go with these different definitions, and that will allow us to kind of decide what we want, and come back, and start a process to see whether that's feasible or not.

        But we can't even get through stage one. I brought the petitions up here. We had a plebiscite in '93. The results were brought up here, it was marked down in the House committee. You heard here more or less what the aspirations of the Commonwealthers are. Would we be able to get that through a vote in the Senate, if that was the result of the plebiscite in Puerto Rico?

        So the best thing that you could do for us is just tell us what we can aspire to, and then we'll make the decision, and we'll go from there. But don't cut us short. We're really at your mercy and at your hands, and this is a very sad thing to say. And thank you so much.

        SENATOR KYL: Well, I appreciate that, and Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the passion of all of the witnesses. They've all been compliant with your requests to keep comments within bounds, and I'm sure it's not easy for any of them, and I'm sure all of us can appreciate the passion which animates all the different points of views. And I appreciate that answer very much. Thank you.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much, Senator Kyl. I think that kind of goes to the crux of the dilemma, as we address our obligation, and try and have the sensitivity to recognize the will of the people of Puerto Rico. Because if we dictate terms and conditions, why then you accept or reject, and we are criticized, then, for not being more responsive to the individual concerns, and so we run into this Catch 22.

        So we can be as much exposed, if you will, to charges that we've simply dictated a solution, as you reach, you know, your inability to come up with a consensus of what the definitions are. So I think it just is a self-evident reality of what this process is all about. You probably will never have a consensus on definitions.

        We can dictate terms and conditions; you can accept or reject. And maybe -- maybe that's as simple and direct as it has to be.

        But maybe we'll learn a little bit more from some of the other witnesses. The next witness is Jose Rivera, chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly. Please proceed.

        MR. RIVERA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Jose Rivera, and I am the national chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, an ally organization of the Republican National Committee created in 1974 by then RNC Chairman George Bush, who insured that the needs of the Hispanic community are properly addressed by the Republican Party and in the legislative process. I also have the honor of being the only island resident Puerto Rican serving in the U.S. Senate task force on Hispanic issues.

        I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Republican Hispanics across this nation of ours on the issue of self-determination for Puerto Rico. Let me emphasize from the outset -- from the outset -- that while I am a Puerto Rican, my organization represents all Hispanic Republicans, and in my remarks, I will reflect the views and concerns of all Hispanic Americans, not just of Puerto Ricans.

        As you may already know, Hispanics who are rapidly becoming the largest minority voting block in the United States, are dedicated in their daily lives to reach a level of full integration into American society. As we work towards that goal, there are many issues that concern us, including finding a means to provide better and more equitable educational opportunities to our children, insuring fair standards for immigrants who are legally allowed to remain and contribute to the economic wealth of our nation, retaining and promoting solid ethical standards and values in society, and yes, allowing an important and considerable group of fellow Hispanic-Americans who just happen to reside in Puerto Rico the opportunity to exercise their right of self-determination.

        Indeed, it is because Republican Hispanics support giving these American citizens the right to choose their political future that the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, or the RNHA, in a manner consistent with the position of the national Republican Party, as expressed in our platform since the 1940s, issued a resolution of support last year, and since then has promoted the enactment of legislation to allow for a self-determination vote on the island.

        With that in mind, we want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in assuring that this matter is carefully reviewed by the Senate through a series of hearings for developing a thorough and complete record, and for moving the legislative process to a point where your committee is ready to act on self-determination legislation to the full Senate for enactment this year.

        Some have argued, and will continue to argue, that non-Puerto Rico Hispanics do not care about self-determination for Puerto Rico, and therefore, there is no compelling political reason for Congress to act this year. To those voices, I say that through my travels around the nation, I have found nothing but support for all Latino groups, especially from my Mexican-American brothers and sisters.

        The fact that during the House vote on H.R. 856, a vast majority of the Hispanic House representatives, including all Mexican-Americans across party lines, voted in favor to final passage to show how important this issue is to them.

        Nevertheless, some of you may be wondering why, for example, a Mexican-American in Texas, or a Cuban-American in Florida, will care about what happens to the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico. The answer, as evidenced by the growing number of national Hispanic organizations that have endorsed self-determination for Puerto Rico, is that this issue has come to symbolize a concept that all Hispanics deeply cherish: the right to the free and open expression of our desire to fully enjoy the rights and obligations of being part of the world's greatest democracy.

        The legislation now before this committee for the first time in 100 years of shared history between Puerto Rico and the United States would create a congressionally authorized referendum on the island's political future. For Hispanics, congressional involvement is essential to the process of self-determination. There is a great difference between asking Puerto Rico to just do it alone, as the Senate did in 1991 -- which is why we are here today again -- and Congress demonstrating a genuine interest in participating in the self-determination efforts of four million American Hispanics.

        It is essential that the legislation contain meaningful and clear definitions of the standard options available to the voters of Puerto Rico. Congress, after all, was responsible for creating the current governing arrangement between Puerto Rico and the United States, and only Congress can provide accurate guidance for the voters of Puerto Rico to choose their political future in America is consistent with American law.

        The people of Puerto Rico deserve to have an educated vote. The legislation before this committee accomplishes this purpose in full.

        More importantly, adoption of self-determination legislation will send an unequivocal message to all Hispanics and Americans that Congress is sensitive to, and recognizes, the fundamental right of all U.S. citizens to define their political future.

        As a Republican Hispanic, I cannot sufficiently emphasize the importance of this legislation. Our party has supported self-determination for Puerto Rico in its platform for many years, and every Republican president since, and including Eisenhower, has advocated it. And Theodore Roosevelt, shortly after Puerto Rico became a part of the United States, advocated extension of U.S. citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico.

        Failure to act on this matter this year will translate into a denial of affording Hispanic-Americans a voice in the national political agenda. Ignoring the political voice of Hispanics in this country would be ill-advised. Statistics and demographics show increased voter participation in the Latino community, with the Republican increasing its voter registration among Hispanics at a really fast pace.

        It is suspected that by the year 2020, Hispanics will be the largest non-white group in our nation, and that one out of every four votes cast will have a Hispanic surname. This is due to the fact that the Hispanic community has a very strong tradition of participating in the political processes that affect them.

        This is a defining moment for us, and Hispanics are watching nationwide. If we work together to make our promise of self-determination a reality, not only will America benefit, but Republicans will be able to proudly let all Hispanics know that we believe in what we stand for, and that we are truly the party of inclusion.

        Again, Mr. Chairman, we commend you for your leadership for moving this process along, and we move forward to working with you to make sure that the legislation reaches full Senate consideration before the session ends. Thank you very much.

        Thank you very much, Mr. Rivera. Our next witness will be Mr. Charles Cooper, Cooper, Carbon and Rosenthal. Please proceed, Mr. Cooper.

        MR. COOPER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appear on behalf of the Popular Democratic Party.

        It is common ground among both the proponents and opponents of S. 472 that Congress has a duty to accurately inform the voters about the structure of each status option. I regret to submit to the committee, however, that I believe that the bill before the committee fails to fulfill this duty, because the proposed referendum ballot presents the people of Puerto Rico with a false choice as to their future political status.

        The ballot language included in S. 472 contains several fundamental inaccuracies about the attributes of Puerto Rico's current Commonwealth status, inaccuracies that will virtually insure that the statehood option prevails in any referendum, because even those most ardent supporters of continuing Commonwealth status will not likely subscribe to the version contained in the bill.

        The chairman has mentioned previously that defining Commonwealth status is perhaps the most vexing problem the committee faces, and I plan to speak to that very briefly here, and I do hope that my more complete statement will be included in the record.

        SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Without objection.

        MR. COOPER: I believe there are three principal inaccuracies in the proposed measure. First, the ballot language of the bill denigrates Puerto Rico's current political status by describing it as "an unincorporated territory of the United States." This characterization of Puerto Rico's current political arrangements is simply inaccurate.

        In 1950, Congress passed public law 600 which specifically declared that recognizing the principle of government by consent, this act is now adopted in the nature of a compact, so that the people of Puerto Rico may organize a government pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption."

        And when Congress later approved the constitution adopted by the people of Puerto Rico, it made clear that Public Law 600 -- again quoting -- "was adopted by the Congress as a compact with the people of Puerto Rico." Accordingly, Puerto Rico is not a mere unincorporated territory subject to the plenary control of Congress. Rather, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized -- and this is quoting the Court -- Puerto Rico, like a state, is an autonomous political entity, sovereign over matters not ruled by the constitution. And the First Circuit Court of Appeals has acknowledged this: "Puerto Rico's status changed in 1952 from that of a mere territory to the unique status of Commonwealth."

        The second inaccuracy contained in the ballot described by S. 472 relates to the statement that Congress may determine which rights under the United States constitution are guaranteed to Puerto Rico and therefore to the people of Puerto Rico.

        This statement is, I submit, wrong at several levels, but at its base, it rests upon the proposition that Congress has the authority to deprive the people of Puerto Rico of any and all of their constitutional right. Under this view, Congress could pass a law criminalizing attendance at Mass, prohibiting criticism of the United States in Puerto Rico, or denying the right to vote in Puerto Rico on the basis of skin color.

        No court, not surprisingly has ever endorsed such a view of Congress's powers in this, or any other, context. Indeed, even if Puerto Rico were still an incorporated territory, the people of Puerto Rico would be guaranteed all fundamental constitutional rights.

        Third, the ballot prescribed by S. 472 clearly implies that the people of Puerto Rico are merely statutory citizens of the United States, and therefore that their citizenship is subject to revocation unilaterally by Congress. In fact, the people of Puerto Rico are constitutional citizens. The citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." By its terms, this language extends United States citizenship to persons born or naturalized in the United States land the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is certainly in the United States, as Congress proclaimed many, many years ago in the immigration and nationality act, as well as elsewhere.

        Moreover the Supreme Court long ago rejected the contention that only citizens of a state are United States citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. In the slaughterhouse cases, the Court stated that a person need not be a citizen of a state to be a citizen of the United States.

        Thus, it is clear that the people born in Puerto Rico, like the District of Columbia, are constitutional citizens of the United States and may not be stripped of their citizenship by Congress unilaterally.

        Taken together, Mr. Chairman, I submit that these inaccuracies are fundamental, and that any referendum based upon the prescribed ballot could not be relied upon as an honest reflection of the voters' sentiments, and thus would be invalid. The referendum authorized by the act would result in two separate, though closely-related, constitutional violations.

        First, the act would deprive the PDP and its members of important associational rights. A central tenet of the PDP's political philosophy, as the chairman has previously recognized today, is the preservation o