Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
158701240
label
Immigration: Puerto Rico Issues
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
158701240
contentType
document
title
Immigration: Puerto Rico Issues
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Irene Bueno's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
158701240
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367472-20171120S-028-018-2019
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f403e376b7b5aba3
ocrText
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 18, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEFS OF STAFF OF ALL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FROM:
Erskine Bowles
Chief of Staff to Knew President
SUBJECT:
Coordination of Puerto Rico Matters
CC:
Mickey Ibarra
Thurgood Marshall, Jr.
The Office of the President has direct responsibility within the Executive Branch for policy
regarding the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The assignment recognizes that the islands in
which 3.8 million U.S. citizens live lack the representation that a State has in the Federal process.
It also recognizes that the issues are often: fundamental questions rooted in the Commonwealth's
status; distinct from those of the States; and interrelated.
To assist him in fulfilling this responsibility, President Clinton directed that a group of senior
White House and agency officials be organized under his Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to
coordinate matters concerning Puerto Rico. The President's Interagency Group on Puerto Rico
serves as the Administration's point of liaison and gives guidance on policy relating to the
Commonwealth.
Mickey Ibarra, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, has assigned Deputy Director of
Intergovernmental Affairs Fred DuVal to co-chair the Interagency Group. Jeffrey Farrow remains
the other Co-Chair. Decisions or significant activities relating to Puerto Rico should be
coordinated with them through the Interagency Group on Puerto Rico office, telephone number
482-0037, telefax 482-2337.
In addition to advising personnel of this, you should determine whether you need to replace the
official(s) previously designated to represent your department or agency on the Interagency
Group as soon as possible. A recent list of Interagency Group members is attached for your
review.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
INTERAGENCY GROUP ON PUERTO RICO
Co-Chairs
Fred DuVal - Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
Jeffrey L. Farrow - Co-Chair and Senior Advisor to the Department of Commerce for Puerto Rico
Members
Executive Office of the President
White House Office:
Maria Echaveste - Assistant to the President and Director of Public Liaison
Stephen B. Silverman - Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Cabinet Secretary
Janet Murguia - Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs
William P. Marshall - Associate Counsel to the President
Domestic Policy Council:
Vacant [formerly Jeremy Ben-Ami, Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy]
National Economic Council/Council of Economic Advisers:
Vacant [formerly Mark Mazur, Senior Director]
National Security Council:
James Dobbins - Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Inter-American Affairs
Office of Management and Budget:
Joseph J. Minarik - Associate Director for Economic Policy
United States Trade Representative:
Jonathan E. Huenemann - Deputy Assistant USTR for Western Hemisphere Affairs
Office of National Drug Control Policy:
Patricia McMahon - Senior Policy Advisor to the Director for Demand Reduction
Office of the Vice President
Vacant [formerly David Strauss, Deputy Chief of Staff]
Department of Agriculture
Mary Ann Keeffe - Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
Maria Hernandez - Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
Department of Commerce
LeeAnn Inadomi - Senior Advisor to the Secretary
Department of Defense
William J. Cassidy, Jr. - Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Navy for Conversion and Redevelopment
Department of Education
Mario Moreno - Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs
Department of Energy
Robert Alcock - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs
Department of Health and Human Services
Katie Steele - Acting Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Vacant [formerly Nelson Diaz, General Counsel]
Department of the Interior
Edward B. Cohen - Deputy Solicitor
Department of Justice
Randolph D. Moss - Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
John D. Trasvina - Special Counsel for Immigration Related and Fair Employment Practices
Department of Labor
Ida Castro - Acting Director, Women's Bureau
State Department
John R. Hamilton - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Caribbean and Central American Affairs
Victor Marrero - U.S. Representative to the United Nations Economic and Social Council
Department of Transportation
John C. Horsley - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs
Department of the Treasury
Michael F. Mundaca - Attorney Advisor, Office of International Tax Counsel
Alex Rodriguez - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration
Department of Veterans Affairs
Kathy Elena Jurado - Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs
Environmental Protection Agency
Vacant [formerly Shelly Metzenbaum, Associate Administrator for
Regional Operations, State and Local Relations]
General Services Administration
Eric Dodds - Deputy Chief of Staff
Small Business Administration
Irma Munoz - Assistant Administrator for Marketing and Customer Services
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Lacy Suiter - Executive Associate Director for Response and Recovery Directorate
Social Security Administration
Vacant [formerly Charlotte Brittian, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner]
2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Mr. Paul Weinstein
-
Chief Of Staff
Jubi
Domestic Policy Coucil
The White House
2Fl/ WW
Washington, DC 20500
Statement of Jeffrey L. Farrow
Co-Chair, The President's Interagency Group on Puerto Rico
to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
on H.R. 856 and S. 472
July 14, 1998
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members:
Thank you for inviting the Executive Branch to testify on the two bills before the Committee that
would establish a process for determining the ultimate political status of Puerto Rico.
This hearing is being held days before the Centennial of the beginning of the United States
taking of the Islands. The date -- July 25th -- is also the 46th anniversary of the present
arrangement for the governing of Puerto Rico, including the locally-drafted, insular constitution.
This arrangement is known by the name of the government that the constitution established:
Commonwealth. Under it, the insular government exercises authority similar to that of a State
while the Federal Government continues to have its broad power to govern territory under the
sovereignty of the United States. The arrangement also continued a number of Federal policies
concerning the Islands. The insular government is elected but the 3.9 million residents of Puerto
Rico are only represented in the Federal Government by a Resident Commissioner who is limited
to voting in House committees
even though Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens.
The arrangement was established by actions of the people of Puerto Rico as well as the Federal
Government. It was a substantial development in self-government that we honor and should be
respected. It was not, however, a political status choice and it did not change the Islands'
fundamental status, as your predecessor committee noted in approving it.
Almost since the arrangement took effect, Puerto Ricans have petitioned for greater self-
government. Today, all of Puerto Rico's political parties are based on one vision or another of a
fully democratic governing arrangement.
They are divided, however, on what the options really are (in addition to which would be best).
The debate primarily reflects their conflicting visions, but it is partially attributable to conflicting
Federal statements and a lack of clear Federal policies on the matter as well.
Almost all Puerto Ricans want a status that involves substantial interaction with the United
States. Because they cannot themselves determine what the Federal Government would be
willing to do, they have repeatedly petitioned for legislation such as the bills before you.
This is, obviously, a matter of transcendent importance. It concerns the still unrealized self-
government rights of millions of people: 3.9 million U.S. citizens under our flag by conquest
who sacrifice for us but have no vote in the government that makes their national laws.
It also is a pivotal question in determining many other Federal and insular policies, the
approaches to serious economic and social challenges faced in the Islands. Should policies be
geared toward Puerto Rico being permanently under the U.S. flag or eventual separation? And if
Puerto Rico is to remain permanently under our flag, will it someday become a part of our
country in all respects? Should it be treated equally or differently? Resolving the status question
is fundamental to resolving important economic and social policy questions. Further, the debate
is so intense that it hinders action on these issues to the detriment of Puerto Ricans and the
Nation.
This frustrating debate is likely to continue until the Federal Government finally responds to
years of questioning by Puerto Ricans and clarifies what the options are. Their decision largely
hinges on Federal decisions that have not been made or articulated:
Is statehood an option, as national leaders and a commission established by law have
said, for this U.S. area to which most national laws apply? Or are its U.S. citizens
somehow incompatible with their fellow citizens (including the three million
Puerto
Ricans who live in States) as others have suggested?
Will the United States help Puerto Rico if its people choose national sovereignty after a
century under our flag without full self-government? Or will we simply cut it adrift and
leave it to its own devices if its people choose to leave the family and the conditions as
well as the benefits of a U.S. status?
Will the Federal Government cede the exercise of its powers to Puerto Rico under a
Commonwealth arrangement? Can such an arrangement actually or effectively limit
Federal territory governing powers? Can Commonwealth become a form of national
sovereignty under which U.S. citizenship would continue to be granted?
President Clinton firmly believes that, after a century under the U.S. flag, Puerto Ricans should
be enabled to choose among all of the options: national sovereignty -- either independence or in
an association with the United States; membership in the Union; and continuing the present
arrangement. This is his highest priority regarding the Islands. He will strongly support
nationhood or statehood if Puerto Ricans vote for either status change and he will continue to
work to make the current governing arrangement work better for them as long as they do not. He
has no preference among the options, believing that the decision should be Puerto Ricans'.
The United States is internationally committed to supporting a Puerto Rican choice. Enabling
Puerto Ricans to choose is a Federal responsibility. The President's position is that we should
finally make it possible this Centennial year by providing the options through either of the bills
before you. He wants to establish a process that Puerto Ricans can act on as they are ready to and
that would channel the debate away from other issues and toward a constructive end. He does not
feel Puerto Rico should be forced to change, but deeply believes that all the fully democratic
options should be open to its people. We should clarify what their options are, having considered
2
their desires, so they can decide as they are ready to and we can all get to other business.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the President, I thank you for calling this hearing and for the
three prior sessions you have held on the status question itself and issues that a change in status
would raise. I also, on behalf of the President, thank Senators Craig and Graham for their
leadership on this matter and Senator Bumpers for his assistance to the Administration on it.
The two bills that are the subject of this hearing are companion bills. They are not identical,
particularly since the House acted on its bill, which was sponsored by the leaders of both parties
in the House and your counterpart committee. President Clinton strongly supported House
passage of H.R. 856 and hopes to be able to sign either of the two bills before you into law. The
Administration strongly urges the Committee to favorably report a bill as soon as possible, given
the planned number of session days left in this Congress. We are ready and anxious to work with
you to do this as well as to obtain full Senate passage and final congressional action.
Both bills contain the essential elements for a law on this matter: They would provide Puerto
Ricans with the options and provide for Federal action on a choice. They would also facilitate a
choice and establish a process that would move to the next stage when both sides are ready.
They would not change Puerto Rico's status. Indeed, they would require the enactment of two
more laws and two more popular mandates from the people of Puerto Rico over as long as more
than a decade for a status change to occur.
They would, however, finally enable a clear direction for the Islands to be determined and to be
worked towards. They would provide an orderly process for rationally addressing the matters that
would need to be addressed to prepare for a change in status and, then, to change status. They
would enable the transition to be smooth and deliberate. And they would ensure that the mandate
for change was sustained when and if one emerges, providing both Puerto Ricans and the Federal
Government with opportunities to rethink in the event that matters do not develop adequately.
Let me now comment on specific provisions of each bill.
First, H.R. 856.
Section 4(a) would authorize an initial referendum on Puerto Rico's future political status to be
held not later than December 31, 1998.
The President supports the goal of having a future status preference vote this year, but setting this
as a statutory deadline is unnecessarily restrictive. The Government of Puerto Rico should have
the flexibility to conduct the vote later if it feels that additional time is necessary for
arrangements or public education reasons. The Governor and the Legislative Assembly strongly
desire a vote, so there is no real chance that not setting a deadline will result in a referendum not
being held.
3
Section 4(a) would also provide Commonwealth, Separate Sovereignty, and Statehood options.
The options are based on and reasonably respond to proposals of Puerto Rico's political parties.
Each of the parties is associated with one of the status options traditionally discussed in the
Islands: Commonwealth; statehood; and independence. They have been recognized in Federal
and Commonwealth law as advocates for these differing status visions. The Popular Democratic
Party includes members who have various visions of what the current arrangement should
become.
We have a concern about the Commonwealth option. Paragraph 4 suggests that Puerto Rico may
only be enabled to participate equally with the States in the few programs where is it is not now
participating equally contingent on the payment of contributions to the cost of the programs.
Puerto Rico is treated equally with the States or otherwise equitably funded in almost all
programs. The exceptions to equitable treatment are a few major programs for the needy --
individuals who cannot contribute to the cost in any case. We do not disagree with the concept of
Puerto Rican contributions to the cost of these programs to provide equal funding but we do
disagree with suggesting that this is a universal rule.
It may be in the national interest to provide equal treatment without Puerto Rican contributions,
as it has been in the case of most programs. The programs at issue now are principally the
programs for: providing health insurance for needy children; aid to the needy aged, blind and
disabled; medical care for the needy; and temporary assistance for needy families. It may be
desirable to provide equal treatment in programs to meet compelling human needs even without
special Puerto Rican contributions. The current treatment in programs such as those I have
mentioned encourages migration to and imposes costs on States where Puerto Ricans, as U.S.
citizens, can quickly obtain equal treatment.
We also have a more fundamental comment regarding the option: If the Popular Democratic
Party makes a realistic proposal to you today for a fundamentally different option, it should be
considered and be the basis for your prompt action on the bill.
The Commonwealth party is dissatisfied with the House-passed Commonwealth option even
though the option is a reasonable response to what the party proposed. The party conceived of
Commonwealth as a status option. Democratic principles require that the expressed aspirations of
Puerto Ricans be central to the development of the options. The options also must also be viable
from the Federal perspective, of course, if they are to provide Puerto Ricans with a meaningful
choice. The President regards the consideration of party proposals -- and serious responses to
them -- as integral to the mutual determination process that is needed. Given that it has been a
year since the House provision was initially drafted, it would not be reasonable to wait for
another proposal. Given the limited number of matters that need to be addressed to enable Puerto
Ricans to make a status choice, you should be able to respond to a proposal without delaying the
legislation.
We have six concerns with respect to the Separate Sovereignty option, although it, too, is
4
acceptable. The first two address concerns of the Puerto Rican Independence Party.
One is the labeling of the option as "Separate Sovereignty".
We suggest "National Sovereignty" instead.
Second, while Paragraph 6 provides for "economic and programmatic assistance at levels and for
a reasonable period as provided on a government to government basis", it does not make clear
that the assistance would be adequate to ensure an smooth transition to nationhood.
Puerto Rico came under the U.S. flag by conquest a century ago. After all this time, we have a
responsibility to ensure a smooth tradition to nationhood if Puerto Ricans -- who have not been
really represented in our system -- want national sovereignty. We should take reasonable
measures to enable a sovereign Puerto Rico to compete in the world economically.
Third, there is a problem with using the term "free association" in Puerto Rico.
National sovereignty encompasses the internationally-recognized status of free association
between a small territory and a larger nation as well as independence. The option properly
includes it. However, in Puerto Rico, the arrangement called "Commonwealth" in English is
named by words that literally translate as "Free Associated State" in Spanish. Hence, there could
be confusion between the Commonwealth and National Sovereignty options.
Given the established use of "Estado Libre Asociado" in Puerto Rico, and the little that the term
"free association" has been used, it would be advisable to substitute something like "nationhood
in association with the United States" for "free association"in the introductory phrase and "an
association with the United States" for "a free association relationship" in Paragraph 7.
Fourth, we would also favor identifying any basic provisions of a free association that our
government would contemplate with Puerto Rico, although we note that the terms would be
subject to negotiation and subsequent congressional action and could be changed later.
By definition, the terms of free association should be negotiated between the parties. The
transition phase of the bill would provide the opportunity for conducting such negotiations. But
there are some fundamental elements of a free association that we would contemplate with a
sovereign Puerto Rico that would address the aspirations of Puerto Ricans or U.S. interests.
One that would address a major issue in Puerto Rico would enable Puerto Ricans to freely enter
the United States subject to appropriate security provisions. If Puerto Rico is to become a
sovereign nation, birth there would certainly cease being a basis for granting U.S. citizenship;
citizenship is a major element of nationhood. But the ties that have developed between Puerto
Ricans and the United States over a century are extensive and deep. Puerto Ricans are currently
U.S. citizens. Citizens of the Pacific islands states with which we are freely associated have the
5
right to freely enter, reside and work in the United States even though they were neither U.S.
citizens or nationals and did not have those rights while under our territorial administration.
Puerto Ricans should be treated at least as well, given the depth and length of our relationship
even if they decide to substitute Puerto Rican sovereignty and citizenship for that of the U.S.
Other matters that could be referenced are the intentions to continue United States military rights,
responsibility for Puerto Rican national defense, and some Federal programs. We would like to
work with the Committee on appropriate language on this matter if the options are to be as
extensive as those in the bill.
Fifth, Paragraphs 3 and 4, which concern the termination of U.S. law and citizenship under
Puerto Rican nationhood, should be revised, primarily for clarity.
We developed alternative language for these provisions with the Chairman and Ranking
Democrat of the House Committee. It is appended to my statement. We understand that it was
not substituted for the language in the bill because the time was not opportune for its
presentation.
Finally, Paragraph 2 of this option is unnecessary.
Much of the language in the Statehood option is also unnecessary.
In the event of a Puerto Rican choice for national sovereignty or statehood, Section 4(b) would
require the President to submit a plan to the Congress within 180 days to enable the selected
status to be implemented. The plan would be developed in consultation with Puerto Rico's
government, political parties and others. Additionally, in the event of a Puerto Rican choice for
national sovereignty, Puerto Rico would also be authorized to call a convention to formulate
proposals to implement the choice. The President would be required to transmit the proposals to
the Congress with views on them and, to the extent he deems advisable, incorporating them into
the transition plan.
We do not object to the six month deadline for developing a transition plan in the case of
statehood but it would be unrealistic given the greater complexities that would be involved in
changing Puerto Rico's status in the case of sovereignty. The range of matters to be addressed
would be much greater since Puerto Rico is treated as a State under most laws. The 180 days
would probably be barely enough time for Puerto Rico to call and conduct a sovereignty
convention. The President should have the benefit of Puerto Rico's proposals in developing a
transition plan and some matters should be proposed based on consultations with Puerto Rico's
representatives.
A more realistic requirement for submitting a transition plan in the case of Puerto Rican
sovereignty would be one year after the conclusion of a Puerto Rican sovereignty convention.
6
We also think that a Puerto Rican convention would be essential in the case of a sovereignty
choice and, therefore, that it should be required. Formal Puerto Rican input should be provided to
the President on a host of issues that would be raised by transferring sovereignty.
We also have two technical concerns with the drafting of Section 4(a).
The initial paragraph mandates the actual presentation of the options on the ballot (in addition to
their content).
We recommend leaving such decisions to the Government of Puerto Rico and replacing the
words "presented on the ballot as follows" with "the following options".
Finally, this subsection and Subsection (c) purport to require the President to submit legislation -
- first, a transition plan and, then, an implementation resolution to the Congress. In order to
conform to our constitutional separation of powers, we recommend that the word "shall" be
replaced with "should" or "shall, as the President deems appropriate".
Finally, the bill begins with a number of Congressional Findings. They relate to Puerto Rico's
history, current situation and political status in general. These Findings would not be part of the
procedure for resolving Puerto Rico's status issue and have contributed to controversy about the
legislation in the Islands. They were substantially rewritten during the process of House
consideration to make them more accurate, but they are still somewhat subjective. They are also
not essential. It may be more productive to delete them.
History has given us the conflicting facts and ambiguities which have fueled Puerto Rico's status
debate. Rather than relitigate them now, it would be more productive to simply provide the
process for resolving the debate.
If they are retained, we urge consideration of two changes to Paragraph 4, which concerns the
creation of the Commonwealth arrangement.
First, it does not make clear the full extent of the mutual creation of the arrangement. The first of
two laws on the matter required the approval of an insular referendum to be effective. The second
states that the arrangement was a "compact." The Popular Democratic Party very much wanted
this legislation to recognize the compact. It is appropriate in a bill as extensive as this one.
Second, Paragraph 4 refers to the arrangement as providing for "internal" self-government.
"Internal" has been used to describe the Commonwealth's scope of authority but it has resulted
in some confusion. Some infer that this means that the arrangement legally eliminated Federal
powers.
"Insular" or "local" would be more precise terms.
7
Let me now turn to S. 472.
S. 472 was a companion to H.R. 856 that was initially similar but not identical to the House bill.
It does not reflect some of the improvements that were made to the House bill.
This bill also begins with Findings that are not essential and, in this case, would need to be
revised.
Paragraph 1 imprecisely describes the acquisition of U.S. nationality by most Puerto Ricans
pursuant to the treaty by which Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States.
Paragraph 2 states that Congress carries out all Federal responsibilities with respect to Puerto
Rico pursuant to the Territory Clause of the Constitution.
Setting aside the fact that Congress does not carry out all Federal responsibilities with respect to
Puerto Rico -- the President and the courts also have their roles, Congress makes policy relating
to Puerto Rico under other powers in addition to those of the Territory Clause.
Paragraph 3 states that civil government for Puerto Rico was provided by the 1917 law that is
also known as the Jones Act.
The Foraker Act, enacted fifteen years earlier, had already provided for civil government in
Puerto Rico.
Paragraph 4 states that Congress amended the territorial constitution in approving it.
In fact, Congress merely approved Puerto Rico's constitution subject to Puerto Rico's
constitutional convention making certain amendments.
Section 2(b) would ostensibly require the Government of Puerto Rico to conduct political status
referenda.
Rather than suggest a mandate that would be difficult to enforce if necessary, it would be more
appropriate to simply authorize referenda. If an elected government of Puerto Rico did not want
to conduct a referendum, forcing it do to do so would conflict with democratic principles. As I
have already noted, Puerto Rico's current Government very much wants to conduct a
referendum.
This subsection would also require that an initial referendum be conducted this year. I have
already suggested the deletion of this deadline as unnecessary and, perhaps, unrealistic.
Section 2(d) provides Commonwealth, Separate Sovereignty, and Statehood options.
8
The Commonwealth option is not based on a proposal of the Popular Democratic Party. It should
be if the party submits a proposal.
Paragraph 1 of the description in the bill states that Puerto Rico conducts self-government with
respect to "internal affairs".
Again, "insular" or "local" affairs would be more precise terms.
Paragraph 2 states that provisions of the U.S. Constitution apply to Puerto Rico as determined by
Congress.
Some provisions apply of their own force.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 seem to be redundant in light of Paragraphs 1 and 2.
The Committee may wish to consider incorporating provisions of the Commonwealth option in
the House passed bill as we have suggested amending it. While it might not prove to be
satisfactory to the Popular Democratic Party, it would, at least, be a fair Federal response to a
Party proposal.
All of my comments with respect to the Separate Sovereignty option in H.R. 856 apply to the
Separate Sovereignty option in this bill.
The Statehood option suggests that Puerto Rico would become fully self-governing prior to
statehood.
We would suggest striking the phrase "through United States sovereignty leading to".
Additionally, while Puerto Ricans would be fully self-governing under statehood, Puerto Rico
itself would not be fully self-governing. It would, instead, be fully a part of a fully self-governing
country.
Much of the rest is unnecessary. If it is desired to provide an explanation of statehood as
extensive as the one in the bill, we recommend that the language of the option of H.R. 856 be
substituted for the language in S. 472. It reflects several revisions that we developed with the
House Committee leaders and the Resident Commissioner.
Section 3(b) would ostensibly require further status referenda at least every four years in Puerto
Rico if there is a majority for the continuation of the current governing arrangement in an initial
referendum or Puerto Ricans reject a Federally-approved transition plan or implementation bill.
I have already recommended that it would be more appropriate to authorize the status votes than
to suggest a mandate for them. Additionally, we suggest giving the Government of Puerto Rico
greater flexibility on the timing of additional votes. Further votes might not be desired by Puerto
9
Ricans every four years. In such a case, the call for revoking so often would be a disruptive
burden. Further, if Puerto Ricans were to reject Federally-approved transition or implementation
legislation, further Federal action might be advisable prior to further status choice votes.
While we would prefer leaving votes to the call of the Government of Puerto Rico, we consider
the language of the House bill calling for votes at least every decade acceptable.
Finally, further votes should also be authorized in the case of no option obtaining majority
support -- a possibility covered by the House bill's provision that is not covered in this one.
Section 3(c)(1) would require the President to submit transition plan legislation to Congress
within 180 days of a Puerto Rican choice of statehood or national sovereignty. There is no
provision for a Puerto Rican convention in the event of a choice of national sovereignty.
As I explained in my comments on H.R. 856, we think such a convention is essential. As I also
explained, six months would not be adequate for the calling of the convention, the conduct of its
business, and considering its recommendations. Again, a year after the conclusion of a Puerto
Rican sovereignty convention is the minimum amount of time that we can conceive of as
necessary for developing a Puerto Rico sovereignty transition plan.
Section 3(c)(2) would require a referendum on actually implementing a new status in Puerto Rico
prior to the end of the transition period. Unlike H.R. 856, however, it does not also propose
Federal implementation legislation. This raises the question of how the referendum would relate
to implementation of the new status.
If there is no separate implementation legislation, the status change theoretically could occur as
provided in the transition plan even if the referendum disapproves final implementation of the
new status
as unlikely as that seems. There should, at least, be language preventing this
situation if the process is to be as detailed as in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, those are the specific comments we have to offer on the bills. We would be
pleased to address questions about them. I want to stress that our recommendations suggest the
need for relatively minor amendments and that these can be made in concert with expeditious
action in the case of either bill. They also suggest that many provisions can be deleted. We will
be flexible on the extent of the details in the bills so long as the essentials are included. Our goal
is to reach the Federal consensus necessary to enact a law this year.
The real question that these bills present are really very simple: Are we going to finally answer
Puerto Ricans' questions of what their status options are so that they can determine their
preference? Are we going to facilitate the determination of the direction they want to work in, if
it is different from the present? Are we going to establish a process that can finally end the
frustrating debate over the most fundamental decision of any society? Are we going to provide a
process for the Federal Government and Puerto Ricans to thoughtfully and non-disruptively
10
address the issues step-by-step? Are we going to meet our responsibilities on this matter a
century after we took control of the Islands? Are we going to enter the new Millennium having
enabled nearly four million U.S. citizens who are not fully self-governing to take a step towards
becoming so if and when they want to?
We stand ready to work with the Committee to answer these questions affirmatively as soon as
possible.
e bills before you today have their origin in hundreds of thousands of Puerto Rican petitions for
Federal authorization for a referendum on statehood and implementation of a majority approval
over a dozen years ago. This initiative was followed by the last administration in Puerto Rico -- a
pro-Commonwealth one -- proposing a Federally-authorized referendum among the traditionally-
discussed options of Commonwealth, statehood, and independence with the commitment of
Federal implementation of a majority choice. This proposal was joined in by the presidents of the
statehood and independence parties and supported by President Bush. Your Committee and other
committees of the Senate passed a bill in the 10 Congress that would have provided
Commonwealth, statehood, and independence options and implemented a majority choice. The
House passed a bill that promised implementing legislation for a Puerto Rican majority choice
among three similar options. After the effort began again in the 10 Congress, this Committee
deadlocked between a bill that provided for final consideration of a Puerto Rican choice among
the options and a substitute that proposed Puerto Ricans seek final action after selecting a status.
That led to a locally-held vote in Puerto Rico that resulted in a plurality choice of a
Commonwealth option
11
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM:GAYMON, D.
P. 1/20
* Revised *
Total Pages:
LRM ID: MJG274
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20503-0001
Tuesday, July 7, 1998
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution below
FROM:
James J. Jukes (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference Ning
OMB CONTACT:
M. Jill Gibbons
PHONE: (202)395-7593 FAX: (202)395-3109
for In lubs
SUBJECT:
Testimony on HR856 United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act
DEADLINE:
4:00 Thursday, July 9, 1998
In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB requests the views of your agency on the above
subject before advising on its relationship to the program of the President. Please advise us if this
item will affect direct spending or receipts for purposes of the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions of Title
XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
COMMENTS: Please ensure that your agency's response is coordinated with your agency's
representatives on the Interagency Working Group on Puerto Rico (membership list attached). Also
attached FYI is the House SAP on HR856. Thank you.
Please be prepared to attend a meeting Friday morning if there are open issues that need to be
resolved relating to the attached testimony. Time and room TBA.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
AGENCIES:
29-DEFENSE - Samuel T. Brick Jr. - (703) 697-1305
30-EDUCATION - Jack Kristy - (202) 401-8313
61-JUSTICE - Andrew Fois - (202) 514-2141
76-National Economic Council - Sonyia Matthews - (202) 456-6630
83-National Security Council Glyn T. Davies - (202) 456-9221
114-STATE Paul Rademacher - (202) 647-4463
118-TREASURY - Richard S. Carro - (202) 622-0650
128-US Trade Representative Fred Montgomery - (202) 395-3475
110-Social Security Administration Judy Chesser - (202) 358-6030
EOP:
Joseph J. Minarik
Barbara Chow
Jeffrey L. Farrow
Randolph M. Lyon
Barry White
Jack A. Smalligan
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM:GAYMON, D.
P. 2/20
Joanne Clanci
Larry R. Matlack
Debra J. Bond
Charles Konigsberg
Kate P. Donovan
Bruce K. Sasser
Joseph G. Pipan
Kenneth L. Schwartz
Steven M. Mertens
Sandra Yamin
Anna M. Briatico
Richard H, Kodl
Fred DuVal
Mickey Ibarra
Janet Murguia
Maria Echaveste
Julie A. Fernandes
James C. Murr
William P. Marshall
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM:GAYMON, D.
P.3/20
LRM ID: MJG274
SUBJECT: Testimony on HR856 United States-Puerto Rico Political Status
Act
RESPONSE TO
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL
MEMORANDUM
If your response to this request for views is short (e.g., concur/no comment), we prefer that you respond by
e-mail or by faxing us this response sheet. If the response is short and you prefer to call, please call the
branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a message with a legislative assistant.
You may also respond by:
(1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be connected to voice mail if the analyst does not
answer): or
(2) sending us a memo or letter
Please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below.
TO:
M. Jill Gibbons Phone: 395-7593 Fax: 395-3109
Office of Management and Budget
Branch-Wide Line (to reach legislative assistant): 395-3454
FROM:
(Date)
(Name)
(Agency)
(Telephone)
The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on the above-captioned subject:
Concur
No Objection
No Comment
See proposed edits on pages
Other:
FAX RETURN of
pages, attached to this response sheet
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM:GAYMON, D.
P. 4/20
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
THE PRESIDENT'S INTERAGENCY GROUP ON PUERTO RICO
Co-Chairs
Fred DuVal - Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
Jeffrey L. Farrow - Co-Chair and Senior Advisor to the Department of Commerce for Puerto Rico
Members
Executive Office of the President
White House Office:
Maria Echaveste - Deputy Chief of Staff
Janet Murgula . Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs
William P. Marshall . Associate Counsel to the President
Estella Mendoza - Assistant Press Secretary
Domestic Policy Council:
Vacant [formerly Elena Kagan, Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy]
National Economic Council/Council of Economic Advisers:
Brian Barreto . Deputy Chief of Staff
Chuck Marr - Senior Advisor for Budget Policy
National Security Council:
James Dobbins . Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Inter-American Affairs
Office of Management and Budget:
Joseph J. Minarik - Associate Director for Economic Policy
Office of National Drug Control Policy:
Dennis E. Greenhouse - Associate Director for State and Local Affairs
United States Trade Representative:
Jonathan E. Huenemann - Assistant USTR for North American Affairs
Department of Agriculture
Maria Hernandez . Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
Department of Defense
William J. Cassidy, Jr. - Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Conversion and Redevelopment
Department of Education
Mario Moreno . Assistam Secretary for Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs
Department of Energy
Robert Alcock - Depury Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs
Department of Health and Human Services
Lance Simmens - Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM:GAYMON, D.
P.5/20
-2-
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Nancy Kirshner-Rodriguez . Director of Intergovernmental Relations
Department of the Interior
Allen Stayman - Director of Insular Affairs
Department of Justice
Randolph D. Moss - Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
John D. Trasvina . Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices
Department of Labor
ida Castro . Acting Director, Women's Bureau
State Department
John R. Hamilton - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Caribbean and Central American Affairs
Victor Marrero - U.S. Representative to the Organization of American States
Department of Transportation
John C. Horsley - Associate Depury Sectetary and Director for Intermodalism
Department of the Treasury
Michael F. Mundaca - Attorney Advisor, Office of International Tax Counsel
Department of Veterans Affairs
John Hanson - Depury Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs
Environmental Protection Agency
Vacant [formerly Shelly Metzenbaum. Associate Administrator for Regional Operations,
State and Local Relations]
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Lacy Sulter - Executive Associate Director for Response and Recovery Directorate
General Services Administration
Eric Dodds - Deputy Chief of Staff
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
James A. Farrell . Special Assistant for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
Small Business Administration
Andrew Rivera - Special Assistant to the Administrator
Social Security Administration
Vacant [formerly Charlotte Brittian, Execurive Assistant to the Commissioner]
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM: GAYMON, D.
P. 6/20
Draft
Statement of Jeffrey L. Farrow
Co-Chair, The President's Interagency Group on Puerto Rico
to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
on H.R. 856 and S. 472
July 14, 1998
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members:
Thank you for inviting the Executive Branch to testify on the two bills before the Committee that
would establish a process for determining the ultimate political status of Puerto Rico.
This hearing is being held days before the Centennial of the beginning of the United States
taking of the Islands. The date July 25th is also the 46th anniversary of the present
arrangement for the governing of Puerto Rico, including the locally-drafted, insular constitution.
This arrangement is known by the name of the government that the constitution established:
Commonwealth. Under it, the insular government exercises authority similar to that of a State
while the Federal Government continues to have its broad power to govern territory under the
sovereignty of the United States. The arrangement also continued a number of Federal policies
concerning the Islands. The insular government is elected but the 3.9 million residents of Puerto
Rico are only represented in the Federal Government by a Resident Commissioner who is limited
to voting in House committees
even though Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens.
The arrangement was established by actions of the people of Puerto Rico as well as the Federal
Government. It was a substantial development in self-government that we honor and should be
respected. It was not, however, a political status choice and it did not change the Islands'
fundamental status, as your predecessor committee noted in approving it.
Almost since the arrangement took effect, Puerto Ricans have petitioned for greater self-
government. Today, all of Puerto Rico's political parties are based on one vision or another of a
fully democratic governing arrangement.
They are divided, however, on what the options really are (in addition to which would be best).
The debate primarily reflects their conflicting visions, but it is partially attributable to conflicting
Federal statements and a lack of clear Federal policies on the matter as well.
Almost all Puerto Ricans want a status that involves substantial interaction with the United
States. Because they cannot themselves determine what the Federal Government would be
willing to do, they have repeatedly petitioned for legislation such as the bills before you.
This is, obviously, a matter of transcendent importance. It concerns the still unrealized self-
government rights of millions of people: 3.9 million U.S. citizens under our flag by conquest
who sacrifice for us but have no vote in the government that makes their national laws.
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM:GAYMON, D.
P. 7/20
It also is a pivotal question in determining many other Federal and insular policies, the
approaches to serious economic and social challenges faced in the Islands. Should policies be
geared toward Puerto Rico being permanently under the U.S. flag or eventual separation? And if
Puerto Rico is to remain permanently under our flag, will it someday become a part of our
country in all respects? Should it be treated equally or differently? Resolving the status question
is fundamental to resolving important economic and social policy questions. Further, the debate
is SO intense that it hinders action on these issues to the detriment of Puerto Ricans and the
Nation.
This frustrating debate is likely to continue until the Federal Government finally responds to
years of questioning by Puerto Ricans and clarifies what the options are. Their decision largely
hinges on Federal decisions that have not been made or articulated:
Is statehood an option, as national leaders and a commission established by law have
said, for this U.S. area to which most national laws apply? Or are its U.S. citizens
somehow incompatible with their fellow citizens (including the three million Puerto
Ricans who live in States) as others have suggested?
Will the United States help Puerto Rico if its people choose national sovereignty after a
century under our flag without full self-government? Or will we simply cut it adrift and
leave it to its own devices if its people choose to leave the family and the conditions as
well as the benefits of a U.S. status?
Will the Federal Government cede the exercise of its powers to Puerto Rico under a
Commonwealth arrangement? Can such an arrangement actually or effectively limit
Federal territory governing powers? Can Commonwealth become a form of national
sovereignty under which U.S. citizenship would continue to be granted?
President Clinton firmly believes that, after a century under the U.S. flag, Puerto Ricans should
be enabled to choose among all of the options: national sovereignty -- either independence or in
an association with the United States; membership in the Union; and continuing the present
arrangement. This is his highest priority regarding the Islands. He will strongly support
nationhood or statehood if Puerto Ricans vote for either status change and he will continue to
work to make the current governing arrangement work better for them as long as they do not. He
has no preference among the options, believing that the decision should be Puerto Ricans'.
The United States is internationally committed to supporting a Puerto Rican choice. Enabling
Puerto Ricans to choose is a Federal responsibility. The President's position is that we should
finally make it possible this Centennial year by providing the options through either of the bills
before you. He wants to establish a process that Puerto Ricans can act on as they are ready to and
that would channel the debate away from other issues and toward a constructive end. He does not
feel Puerto Rico should be forced to change, but deeply believes that the fully democratic options
should be open to its people. We should clarify what their options are, having considered their
2
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM: GAYMON, D.
P. 8/20
desires, so they can decide when they are ready to and we can all get to other business.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the President, I thank you for calling this hearing and for the
three prior sessions you have held on the status question itself and issues that a change in status
would raise. I also, on behalf of the President, thank Senators Craig and Graham for their
leadership on this matter and Senator Bumpers for his assistance to the Administration on it.
The two bills that are the subject of this hearing are companion bills. They are not identical,
particularly since the House acted on its bill, which was sponsored by the leaders of both parties
in the House and your counterpart committee. President Clinton strongly supported House
passage of H.R. 856 and hopes to be able to sign either of the two bills before you into law. The
Administration strongly urges the Committee to favorably report a bill as soon as possible, given
the planned number of session days left in this Congress. We are ready and anxious to work with
you to do this as well as to obtain full Senate passage and final congressional action.
Both bills contain the essential elements for a law on this matter: They would provide Puerto
Ricans with the options and provide for Federal action on a choice. They would also facilitate a
choice and establish a process that would move to the next stage when both sides are ready.
They would not change Puerto Rico's status. Indeed, they would require the enactment of two
more laws and two more popular mandates from the people of Puerto Rico over as long as more
than a decade for a status change to occur.
They would, however, finally enable a clear direction for the Islands to be determined and to be
worked towards. They would provide an orderly process for rationally addressing the matters that
would need to be addressed to prepare for a change in status and, then, to change status. They
would enable the transition to be smooth and deliberate. And they would ensure that the mandate
for change was sustained when and if one emerges, providing both Puerto Ricans and the Federal
Government with opportunities to rethink in the event that matters do not develop adequately.
Let me now comment on specific provisions of each bill.
First, H.R. 856.
Section 4(a) would authorize an initial referendum on Puerto Rico's future political status to be
held not later than December 31, 1998.
The President supports the goal of having a future status preference vote this year, but setting this
as a statutory deadline is unnecessarily restrictive. The Government of Puerto Rico should have
the flexibility to conduct the vote later if it feels that additional time is necessary for
arrangements or public education reasons. The Governor and the Legislative Assembly strongly
desire a vote, so there is no real chance that not setting a deadline will result in a referendum not
being held.
3
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM: GAYMON, D.
P.9/20
Section 4(a) would also provide Commonwealth, Separate Sovereignty, and Statehood options.
The options are based on and reasonably respond to proposals of Puerto Rico's political parties.
Each of the parties is associated with one of the status options traditionally discussed in the
Islands: Commonwealth; statehood; and independence. They have been recognized in Federal
and Commonwealth law as advocates for these differing status visions. The Popular Democratic
Party includes members who have various visions of what the current arrangement should
become.
We have a concern about the Commonwealth option. Paragraph 4 suggests that Puerto Rico may
only be enabled to participate equally with the States in the few programs where is it is not now
participating equally contingent on the payment of contributions to the cost of the programs.
Puerto Rico is treated equally with the States or otherwise equitably funded in almost all
programs. The exceptions to equitable treatment are a few major programs for the needy
individuals who cannot contribute to the cost in any case. We do not disagree with the concept of
Puerto Rican contributions to the cost of these programs to provide equal funding but we do
disagree with suggesting that this is a universal rule.
It may be in the national interest to provide equal treatment without Puerto Rican contributions,
as it has been in the case of most programs. The programs at issue now are principally the
programs for: providing health insurance for needy children; aid to the needy aged, blind and
disabled; medical care for the needy; and temporary assistance for needy families. It may be
desirable to provide equal treatment in programs to meet compelling human needs even without
special Puerto Rican contributions. The current treatment in programs such as those I have
mentioned encourages migration to and imposes costs on States where Puerto Ricans, as U.S.
citizens, can quickly obtain equal treatment.
We also have a more fundamental comment regarding the option: If the Popular Democratic
Party makes a realistic proposal to you today for a fundamentally different option, it should be
considered and be the basis for your prompt action on the bill.
The Commonwealth party is dissatisfied with the House-passed Commonwealth option even
though the option is a reasonable response to what the party proposed. The party conceived of
Commonwealth as a status option. Democratic principles require that the expressed aspirations of
Puerto Ricans be central to the development of the options. The options also must also be viable
from the Federal perspective, of course, if they are to provide Puerto Ricans with a meaningful
choice. The President regards the consideration of party proposals -- and serious responses to
them as integral to the mutual determination process that is needed.
During the course of the year since the House provision was initially drafted, we have repeatedly
invited the party to propose amendments to address any substantive concerns and pledged to
consider the proposals. As of the preparation of this testimony, the party had not done so
although we have had some general discussions on the matter and it has made some statements
on its aspirations. Any lack of proposals on its part should not be the cause of your inaction.
4
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM: GAYMON, D.
P. 10/20
We have six concerns with respect to the Separate Sovereignty option, although it, too, is
acceptable. The first two address concerns of the Puerto Rican Independence Party.
One is the labeling of the option as "Separate Sovereignty".
We suggest "National Sovereignty" instead.
Second, while Paragraph 6 provides for "economic and programmatic assistance at levels and for
a reasonable period as provided on a government to government basis", it does not make clear
that the assistance would be adequate to ensure an smooth transition to nationhood.
Puerto Rico came under the U.S. flag by conquest a century ago. After all this time, we have a
responsibility to ensure a smooth tradition to nationhood if Puerto Ricans -- who have not been
really represented in our system want national sovereignty. We should take reasonable
measures to enable a sovereign Puerto Rico to compete in the world economically.
Third, there is a problem with using the term "free association" in Puerto Rico.
National sovereignty encompasses the internationally-recognize status of free association
between a small territory and a larger nation as well as independence. The option properly
includes it. However, in Puerto Rico, the arrangement called "Commonwealth" in English is
named by words that literally translate as "Free Associated State" in Spanish. Hence, there could
be confusion between the Commonwealth and National Sovereignty options.
Given the established use of "Estado Libre Asociado" in Puerto Rico, and the little that the term
"free association" has been used, it would be advisable to substitute something like "nationhood
in association with the United States" for "free association"in the introductory phrase and "an
association with the United States" for "a free association relationship" in Paragraph 7.
Fourth, we would also favor identifying any basic provisions of a free association that our
government would contemplate with Puerto Rico, although we note that the terms would be
subject to negotiation and subsequent congressional action and could be changed later.
By definition, the terms of free association should be negotiated between the parties. The
transition phase of the bill would provide the opportunity for conducting such negotiations. But
there are some fundamental elements of a free association that we would contemplate with a
sovereign Puerto Rico that would address the aspirations of Puerto Ricans or U.S. interests.
One that would address a major issue in Puerto Rico would enable Puerto Ricans to freely enter
the United States subject to appropriate security provisions. If Puerto Rico is to become a
sovereign nation, birth there would certainly cease being a basis for granting U.S. citizenship;
citizenship is a major element of nationhood. But the ties that have developed between Puerto
Ricans and the United States over a century are extensive and deep. Puerto Ricans are currently
5
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM: GAYMON, D.
P. 11/20
U.S. citizens. Citizens of the Pacific islands states with which we are freely associated have the
right to freely enter, reside and work in the United States even though they were neither U.S.
citizens or nationals and did not have those rights while under our territorial administration.
Puerto Ricans should be treated at least as well, given the depth and length of our relationship
even if they decide to substitute Puerto Rican sovereignty and citizenship for that of the U.S.
Other matters that could be referenced are the intentions to continue United States military rights,
responsibility for Puerto Rican national defense, and some Federal programs. We would like to
work with the Committee on appropriate language on this matter if the options are to be as
extensive as those in the bill.
Fifth, Paragraphs 3 and 4, which concern the termination of U.S. law and citizenship under
Puerto Rican nationhood, should be revised, primarily for clarity.
We developed alternative language for these provisions with the Chairman and Ranking
Democrat of the House Committee. It is appended to my statement. We understand that it was
not substituted for the language in the bill because the time was not opportune for its
presentation.
Finally, Paragraph 2 of this option is unnecessary.
Much of the language in the Statehood option is also unnecessary.
In the event of a Puerto Rican choice for national sovereignty or statehood, Section 4(b) would
require the President to submit a plan to the Congress within 180 days to enable the selected
status to be implemented. The plan would be developed in consultation with Puerto Rico's
government, political parties and others. Additionally, in the event of a Puerto Rican choice for
national sovereignty, Puerto Rico would also be authorized to call a convention to formulate
proposals to implement the choice. The President would be required to transmit the proposals to
the Congress with views on them and, to the extent he deems advisable, incorporating them into
the transition plan.
We do not object to the six month deadline for developing a transition plan in the case of
statehood but it would be unrealistic given the greater complexities that would be involved in
changing Puerto Rico's status in the case of sovereignty. The range of matters to be addressed
would be much greater since Puerto Rico is treated as a State under most laws. The 180 days
would probably be barely enough time for Puerto Rico to call and conduct a sovereignty
convention. The President should have the benefit of Puerto Rico's proposals in developing a
transition plan and some matters should be proposed based on consultations with Puerto Rico's
representatives.
A more realistic requirement for submitting a transition plan in the case of Puerto Rican
sovereignty would be one year after the conclusion of a Puerto Rican sovereignty convention.
6
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM: GAYMON, D.
P. 12/20
We also think that a Puerto Rican convention would be essential in the case of a sovereignty
choice and, therefore, that it should be required. Formal Puerto Rican input should be provided to
the President on a host of issues that would be raised by transferring sovereignty.
We also have two technical concerns with the drafting of Section 4(a).
The initial paragraph mandates the actual presentation of the options on the ballot (in addition to
their content).
We recommend leaving such decisions to the Government of Puerto Rico and replacing the
words "presented on the ballot as follows" with "the following options".
Finally, this subsection and Subsection (c) purport to require the President to submit legislation -
- first, a transition plan and, then, an implementation resolution to the Congress. In order to
conform to our constitutional separation of powers, we recommend that the word "shall" be
replaced with "should" or "shall, as the President deems appropriate".
Finally, the bill begins with a number of Congressional Findings. They relate to Puerto Rico's
history, current situation and political status in general. These Findings would not be part of the
procedure for resolving Puerto Rico's status issue and have contributed to controversy about the
legislation in. the Islands. They were substantially rewritten during the process of House
consideration to make them more accurate, but they are still somewhat subjective. They are also
not essential. It may be more productive to delete them.
History has given us the conflicting facts and ambiguities which have fueled Puerto Rico's status
debate. Rather than relitigate them now, it would be more productive to simply provide the
process for resolving the debate.
If they are retained, we urge consideration of two changes to Paragraph 4, which concerns the
creation of the Commonwealth arrangement.
First, it does not make clear the full extent of the mutual creation of the arrangement. The first of
two laws on the matter required the approval of an insular referendum to be effective. The second
states that the arrangement was a "compact." The Popular Democratic Party very much wanted
this legislation to recognize the compact. It is appropriate in a bill as extensive as this one.
Second, Paragraph 4 refers to the arrangement as providing for "internal" self-government.
"Internal" has been used to describe the Commonwealth's scope of authority but it has resulted
in some confusion. Some infer that this means that the arrangement legally eliminated Federal
powers.
"Insular" or "local" would be more precise terms.
7
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM: GAYMON, D.
P. 13/20
Let me now turn to S. 472.
S. 472 was a companion to H.R. 856 that was initially similar but not identical to the House bill.
It does not reflect some of the improvements that were made to the House bill.
This bill also begins with Findings that are not essential and, in this case, would need to be
revised.
Paragraph 1 imprecisely describes the acquisition of U.S. nationality by most Puerto Ricans
pursuant to the treaty by which Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States.
Paragraph 2 states that Congress carries out all Federal responsibilities with respect to Puerto
Rico pursuant to the Territory Clause of the Constitution.
Setting aside the fact that Congress does not carry out all Federal responsibilities with respect to
Puerto Rico .. the President and the courts also have their roles, Congress makes policy relating
to Puerto Rico under other powers in addition to those of the Territory Clause.
Paragraph 3 states that civil government for Puerto Rico was provided by the 1917 law that is
also known as the Jones Act.
The Foraker Act, enacted fifteen years earlier, had already provided for civil government in
Puerto Rico.
Paragraph 4 states that Congress amended the territorial constitution in approving it.
In fact, Congress merely approved Puerto Rico's constitution subject to Puerto Rico's
constitutional convention making certain amendments.
Section 2(b) would ostensibly require the Government of Puerto Rico to conduct political status
referenda.
Rather than suggest a mandate that would be difficult to enforce if necessary, it would be more
appropriate to simply authorize referenda. If an elected government of Puerto Rico did not want
to conduct a referendum, forcing it do to do SO would conflict with democratic principles. As I
have already noted, Puerto Rico's current Government very much wants to conduct a
referendum.
This subsection would also require that an initial referendum be conducted this year. I have
already suggested the deletion of this deadline as unnecessary and, perhaps, unrealistic.
Section 2(d) provides Commonwealth, Separate Sovereignty, and Statehood options.
8
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM: GAYMON, D.
P. 14/20
The Commonwealth option is not based on a proposal of the Popular Democratic Party. It should
be if the party submits a proposal.
Paragraph 1 of the description in the bill states that Puerto Rico conducts self-government with
respect to "internal affairs".
Again, "insular" or "local" affairs would be more precise terms.
Paragraph 2 states that provisions of the U.S. Constitution apply to Puerto Rico as determined by
Congress.
Some provisions apply of their own force.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 seem to be redundant in light of Paragraphs 1 and 2.
The Committee may wish to consider incorporating provisions of the Commonwealth option in
the House passed bill as we have suggested amending it. While it might not prove to be
satisfactory to the Popular Democratic Party, it would, at least, be a fair Federal response to a
Party proposal.
All of my comments with respect to the Separate Sovereignty option in H.R. 856 apply to the
Separate Sovereignty option in this bill.
The Statehood option suggests that Puerto Rico would become fully self-governing prior to
statehood.
We would suggest striking the phrase "through United States sovereignty leading to".
Additionally, while Puerto Ricans would be fully self-governing under statehood, Puerto Rico
itself would not be fully self-governing. It would, instead, be fully a part of a fully self-governing
country.
Much of the rest is unnecessary. If it is desired to provide an explanation of statehood as
extensive as the one in the bill, we recommend that the language of the option of H.R. 856 be
substituted for the language in S. 472. It reflects several revisions that we developed with the
House Committee leaders and the Resident Commissioner.
Section 3(b) would ostensibly require further status referenda at least every four years in Puerto
Rico if there is a majority for the continuation of the current governing arrangement in an initial
referendum or Puerto Ricans reject a Federally-approved transition plan or implementation bill.
I have already recommended that it would be more appropriate to authorize the status votes than
to suggest a mandate for them. Additionally, we suggest giving the Government of Puerto Rico
greater flexibility on the timing of additional votes. Further votes might not be desired by Puerto
9
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM: GAYMON, D.
P. 15/20
Ricans every four years. In such a case, the call for revoking so often would be a disruptive
burden. Further, if Puerto Ricans were to reject Federally-approved transition or implementation
legislation, further Federal action might be advisable prior to further status choice votes.
While we would prefer leaving votes to the call of the Government of Puerto Rico, we consider
the language of the House bill calling for votes at least every decade acceptable.
Finally, further votes should also be authorized in the case of no option obtaining majority
support -- a possibility covered by the House bill's provision that is not covered in this one.
Section 3(c)(1) would require the President to submit transition plan legislation to Congress
within 180 days of a Puerto Rican choice of statehood or national sovereignty. There is no
provision for a Puerto Rican convention in the event of a choice of national sovereignty.
As I explained in my comments on H.R. 856, we think such a convention is essential. As I also
explained, six months would not be adequate for the calling of the convention, the conduct of its
business, and considering its recommendations. Again, a year after the conclusion of a Puerto
Rican sovereignty convention is the minimum amount of time that we can conceive of as
necessary for developing a Puerto Rico sovereignty transition plan.
Section 3(c)(2) would require a referendum on actually implementing a new status in Puerto Rico
prior to the end of the transition period. Unlike H.R. 856, however, it does not also propose
Federal implementation legislation. This raises the question of how the referendum would relate
to implementation of the new status.
If there is no separate implementation legislation, the status change theoretically could occur as
provided in the transition plan even if the referendum disapproves final implementation of the
new status
as unlikely as that seems. There should, at least, be language preventing this
situation if the process is to be as detailed as in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, those are the specific comments we have to offer on the bills. We would be
pleased to address questions about them. I want to stress that our recommendations suggest the
need for relatively minor amendments and that these can be made in concert with expeditious
action in the case of either bill. They also suggest that many provisions can be deleted. We will
be flexible on the extent of the details in the bills so long as the essentials are included. Our goal
is to reach the Federal consensus necessary to enact a law this year.
The real question that these bills present are really very simple: Are we going to finally answer
Puerto Ricans' questions of what their status options are so that they can determine their
preference? Are we going to facilitate the determination of the direction they want to work in, if
it is different from the present? Are we going to establish a process that can finally end the
frustrating debate over the most fundamental decision of any society? Are we going to provide a
process for the Federal Government and Puerto Ricans to thoughtfully and non-disruptively
10
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM:GAYMON, D.
P. 16/20
address the issues step-by-step? Are we going to meet our responsibilities on this matter a
century after we took control of the Islands? Are we going to enter the new Millennium having
enabled nearly four million U.S. citizens who are not fully self-governing to take a step towards
becoming SO if and when they want to?
We stand ready to work with the Committee to answer these questions affirmatively as soon as
possible.
11
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM:GAYMON, D.
P. 17/20
Attachment
3. At the time of independence the soversignty of the
United States in Puerto Rico terminates and the Constitution and
laws of the United States would cease to apply to Puerto Rico,
except to the extent they would be retained by the legislature of
Puerto Rico.
4. (a) Residents of Puerto Rico who are citizens of the
United States on the day preceding independence and who were born
in Puerto Rico would cease to be citizens of the United States
and will owe allegiance to and be citizens of Puerto Rico, unless
they would opt to remain citizens of the United States in which
case they would cease to be citizens of Puerto Rico. Their
United States citizenship, however, could not be transmitted to
their children born in Puerto Rico on or after the day of
independence.
(b) Residents of Puerto Rico who are citizens of the United
States on the day preceding independence and who were not born in
Puerto Rico treatment would remain citizens of the United States enjoying
national status in Puerto Rico, unless they would opt to become
citizens of Puerto Rico in which case they would cease to be
citizens of the United States.
(c) The independence of Puerto Rico would not affect the
citizenship of the United States citizens residing outside Puerte
Rico, provided, however, that persons born in Puerto Rico could
opt to acquire Puerto Rican citizenship, in which case they would
cease to be citizens of the United States.
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM:GAYMON, D.
P. 18/20
(d) In contested cases the question whether a person was a
resident of Puerto Rico on the day preceding independence would
be determined by an agency or tribunal to be determined by future
legislation.
- 2 -
07/03/97 (Thursday) 4:05pm
N:\UDD\MARCUSEH\PRDRAFT
ROD
X
Y
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM: GAYMON, D.
P. 19/20
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
TOTAL
THE
March 3, 1998 (SENT)
(House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 856 . United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act
(Young (R) AK and 87 others)
The Administration strongly supports House passage of the Resources Committee substitute to
HR 856 which would provide a three-stage process for determining the ultimate political status
of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico's future status is the fundamental issue concerning the islands' 3.75 million residents
and a pivotal question in determining many Federal and insular economic and social policies. The
islands exercise governing authority similar to that of a State under the jointly established
Commonwealth arrangement. The Federal Government has broad governing authority in the
islands, but their residents are represented in it only by a Resident Commissioner - who is limited
to voting in House committees.
Many Presidents, a commission established by law, and the House (in 1990 with overwhelming
support) have held Puerto Rico's options to include statehood and independence, as well as
Commonwealth The Congress in 1979 and several Administrations have committed to support a
Puerto Rican status choice, and have repeatedly conveyed that commitment to international
questioners of Puerto Rico's status.
Because Puerto Ricans cannot unilaterally determine what their relationship with the United
States will be, they have petitioned for years for legislation that would provide options and for
implementation of their choice. The President is committed to establishing such a process, and
supporting a majority choice among all of the various, long-discussed options.
The committee substitute would provide for a referendum in which voters would choose from
among three options: (1) retain Puerto Rico's current status; (2) full self-government through
independence or free association; or (3) full self-government through statehood. If voters select
the continuation of commonwealth status, the substitute provides for consideration of Puerto
Rican economic and social development proposals within its current status. If voters approve full
self-government through either independence or statehood, the President would be required to
submit to the Congress a legislative transition plan, and, if approved by the Congress and Puerto
Ricans, a joint resolution on implementation, which would also require both Congressional and
Puerto Rican approval. While most of the Administration's concerns with the Committee-
reported bill have been addressed in the substitute, the Administration intends to work for further
improvements in the Senate.
JUL-08-1998 15:18 TO:410 JULIE FERNANDES
FROM:GAYMON, D.
P. 20/20
The Administration objected when the original bill effectively eliminated Commonwealth an
option and called for an option based on a proposal of Puerto Rico's Commonwealth party.
The Administration will similarly strongly oppose amendments that would effectively bar
statehood as an option based on the islands' Hispanic culture. Puerto Rico's people have been
citizens for 80 years; their culture is an asset to our country. To exclude them from full voting
rights and responsibilities, if they so choose, would be wrong.
*******
TOTAL P.20
Maria Echaveste
07/06/98 03:31:15 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Jeffrey L. Farrow/WHO/EOP
CC:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
bcc:
Subject: Re: Puerto Rico Moment of Truth
Jeff--this strikes me as strange--seems like you either are a us citizen or you are not and if the
commonwealthers want an enhanced free association, with the equivalent of an independent
sovereign nation, how can you be citizen? but what do I know, I've never looked at the legal
arguments--do you think we need a meeting on this and if so, can DOJ/state really give us an
impartial legal analysis--and do you think this is going anywhere in the senate and if not, why do
we have to take view on this citizenship issue?
Jeffrey L. Farrow
Jeffrey L. Farrow
07/06/98 01:52:33 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
CC:
Subject: Puerto Rico Moment of Truth
The subject I listed for this e-mail might seem hyperbolic, but next Tuesday's Senate hearing on the
Puerto Rico status choice legislation will force us to answer a make or break issue with the
Commonwealthers and the statehooders: whether we would favor continuing to grant U.S.
citizenship if Puerto Rico becomes a nation that lets the U.S. exercise some of its sovereign powers
("free association"). Over the weekend, Gov. Rossello called to say its imperative that we say
ASAP that we do not; Miguel Lausell called to say the opposite. A "yes" would make free
association competitive with statehood and get the Commonwealthers to go for it.
It also, though, combines contradictory concepts (independence and U.S. citizenship) and would be
opposed by Justice and State, I am trying to get them to go along with what we're giving the
much smaller three nations freely associated with us in the Pacific, i.e., free entry rights for Puerto
Rican citizens into the U.S. (subject to necessary exclusions). The issues are that we're dealing
with a population base 30 times larger and there is some desire to restrict what we've done with
the Pacific islands, but I don't think WE can support less.
Those of us involved with our VP meetings discussed that this point would come. I wanted to make
sure you knew we were at it. Some of you may be lobbied on it.
Any questions?
Message Sent To:
Fred DuVal/WHO/EOP
Mickey Ibarra/WHO/EOP
Janet Murguia/WHO/EOP
Maria Echaveste/WHO/EOF
Julie A. Fernandes/OPD/EOP
James J. Jukes/OMB/EOP
Message Copied To:
Julie A. Fernandes/OPD/EOP
Fred DuVal/WHO/EOP
Mickey Ibarra/WHO/EOP
Janet Murguia/WHO/EOP
Elena Kagan/OPD/EOP
Jeffrey L. Farrow
07/08/98 02:50:34 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Julie A. Fernandes/OPD/EOP
CC:
Subject: 5:45 today
We are meeting in Mickey Ibarra's office at 5:45 today. If you have a chance would you call me at
6-5179? Thanks..
Our positim is:
Puento Rico sovereign a nd freely assoc.
no citizenship
*
Special access rights
for Puento Ricans
If P.R. "freely assor." status like ndependen ce.
Island delegates some of powers to another Co.
(Post office; military control)
Their citizens can enter U.S. freely
No voting
endn desn't qualified nots.
No pregram benefits
Tougher call:
If freely assoc. can't be come citizens
(unhappy - communicalthers)
No political support here except for citizenship
Grieney
Velasguer
)
ENS idea:
make them U.S. nationals
P.R. citizens, but U.S. nationals
free entry into U.S.
some program beuefits
Some laws protects them
<50,000 U.S. nationals
(Amer. Samoa)
who controls
the laws where They
live.
Why being a national better
May be easier for INS
us passport
Draft testimony
DOJ having an internal mtg: tomorrow
Q: what will we do for Puento Ricaus
if they set sovengaty.
If trey get free assoc
Statehood wins if citingenship not party Soverejsary.
A18 SATURDAY. JULY 18. 1998
The Washington Post
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Puerto Rico's Moment
T
HIS IS A key moment for Congress to
but not as extensive. Keeping up the legisla-
bear down on the Puerto Rico question,
tive pace is what the Puerto Rican issue is now
which has troubled Americans through
about.
the full 100 years since the United States
In the past, mainland Americans were not
seized the island from Spain. The now nearly 4
prepared to bestow equal rights on an island of
million residents are American citizens but are
a different cultural, social and economic com-
denied the full political rights of citizens in the
position. But changes in immigration patterns
50 states. They sacrifice for the nation in war
and social attitudes have produced and sanc-
but have no vote in the government that makes
tioned a broader ethnic diversity in the Ameri-
their national laws. Gentle as the denial of
can population. and have at least lowered
rights may now seem, it is still fairly described
barriers to Puerto Ricans. Earlier, the easy
as colonialism. Speaker Newt Gingrich was on
assumption was made that Puerto Ricans
the mark when he said earlier this year of
would vote Democratic. Tellingly, the Senate
Puerto Rico, "I just think personally that to
advisory committee on Hispanic issues,
keep a colony is a very dangerous idea in the
chaired by Sen. Orrin Hatch, noted just last
21st century."
month that Alaska had been expected to send
The solution to the rankling way in which
Democrats to Congress and Hawaii Republi-
Puerto Ricans are treated has long been
cans. and both predictions proved wrong. His
evident but only now is being seriously pur-
sued. The first requirement is to afford is-
committee noted that a recent poll indicated
landers a full range of democratic choices of
"strong support in Puerto Rico for conserva-
political status: either (1) continuing and
live principles (e.g. 82 percent oppose abor-
enhancing the current commonwealth or (2)
tion and 91 percent favor school prayer)."
moving to statehood or (3) to national sover-
The bills cooking on the Hill would not
eignty, the latter either by independence or in
bestow a particular status but would simply set
association with the United States. The sec-
up a process for Washington to define Puerto
ond requirement is to ensure that the execu-
Rico's choices and for Puerto Ricans to choose
tive and legislative branches in Washington
by plebiscite. The process would require of
define precisely the terms of each choice they
Congress two more bills and of Puerto Ricans
offer Puento Rico and commit themselves to
three separate votes; a phase-in period, should
carrying the choice out
independence or statehood be selected, would
President Clinton has committed himself to
run to 2010. This is a sensible procedure that
self-determination legislation this year. The
would end the unfairness and embarrassment
House passed a bill in March, and the Senate
of denying one innocent and deserving group
has been working on a measure that is similar
of American citizens their essential rights.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
The President's Interagency Group on Puerto Rico
Telephone (202) 482-0037
Facsimile (202) 482-2337
Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
Date: 7/20/98
To:
Julie Fernandes
Fax Number:
From: JEPR Farrow
Message: I want to make sure that you didn't
miss this
Note: The information contained in this facsimile message is CONFIDENTIAL and
is intended for the recipient ONLY. If there is a problem with this
transmission, please contact the sender as soon as possible.
Number of pages with cover: 2
Statement of Jeffrey L. Farrow
Co-Chair, The President's Interagency Group on Puerto Rico
to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
on H.R. 856 and S. 472
July 15, 1998
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members:
My name is Jeffrey L. Farrow, and I am Co-Chair of the President's Interagency Group on Puerto
Rico. Let me begin by thanking you for inviting the Executive Branch to testify on the two bills
before the Committee that would establish a process for determining the ultimate political status
of Puerto Rico: H.R. 856, which has passed the House, and S. 472.
This hearing is being held days before the beginning of the Centennial of the United States taking
of the Islands. The date -- July 25th -- is also the 46th anniversary of the present arrangement for
the governing of Puerto Rico, including the locally-drafted, insular constitution.
The arrangement is known by the name of the government that the constitution established:
Commonwealth. Under it, the insular government exercises authority similar to that of a State
while the Federal Government continues to have its broad power under our national
Constitution's Territory Clause to govern non-State areas under the sovereignty of the United
States. Through the arrangement, Puerto Ricans also consented to a number of provisions of
Federal law concerning the Islands.
This arrangement was established by actions of the people of Puerto Rico as well as actions of the
Federal Government. It was an important step in the development of Puerto Rico's self-
government that we honor and that should be respected.
It was not, however, a political status choice and it did not change the Islands' fundamental
relationship to the United States, as your predecessor committee noted in approving it.
It also did not rectify the problem of Puerto Ricans not having real voting representation in the
government that makes national laws for them. Insular officials are elected but the 3.9 million
residents of Puerto Rico, although U.S. citizens, are represented in the Federal Government only
by a single Resident Commissioner who is limited to voting in House committees.
Almost since Commonwealth took effect, Puerto Ricans have petitioned for greater self-
government. Today, all of Puerto Rico's political parties are based on one vision or another of a
fully democratic governing arrangement.
They are divided, however, on what the options really are -- in addition to which would be best.
The debate primarily reflects their conflicting visions, but it is partially attributable to conflicting
Federal statements and a lack of clear Federal policies on the matter as well.
Almost all Puerto Ricans want a status that involves substantial interaction with the United States.
Because they cannot themselves determine what the Federal Government would be willing to do,
they have repeatedly petitioned for legislation such as the bills before you.
This is, obviously, a matter of transcendent importance. It concerns the still unrealized self-
government rights of millions of people: 3.9 million U.S. citizens under our flag by conquest who
sacrifice for us in war but have no vote in the government that makes their national laws.
It also is a pivotal question in determining many other Federal and insular policies, the approaches
to serious economic and social challenges. Should policies be geared toward Puerto Rico being
permanently under the U.S. flag or eventual separation? And if Puerto Rico is to remain
permanently under our flag, will it someday become a part of our country in all respects? Should
it be treated equally or differently? Resolving the status question is fundamental to resolving
important economic and social policy questions. Further, the debate is so intense that it hinders
action on these issues to the detriment of Puerto Ricans and the Nation.
This frustrating situation is likely to continue until the Federal Government finally responds to
years of questioning by Puerto Ricans and clarifies what the options are. Their decision largely
hinges on Federal decisions that have either not been made or articulated:
Is statehood an option, as national leaders and a commission established by law have
said, for this U.S. area to which most national laws apply? Or are Puerto Ricans somehow
incompatible with their fellow U.S. citizens (including the three million Puerto Ricans
who live in States) as others have suggested?
Will the United States help and remain open to Puerto Rico if its people choose to
become a sovereign nation after a century under our flag without full self-government?
Or will we simply cut it off and leave it to its own devices if its people choose to leave
the family and the restrictions as well as the benefits of a U.S. status?
Will the Federal Government cede the exercise of its substantial national government
authority to Puerto Rico under a Commonwealth arrangement? Can such an arrangement
limit Federal powers to govern U.S. territory? Can Commonwealth be a form of national
sovereignty under which U.S. citizenship would continue to be granted?
President Clinton firmly believes that, after a century under the U.S. flag, Puerto Ricans should be
enabled to choose among all of the options: national sovereignty -- either independence or in an
association with the United States; membership in the Union of States; and continuing the present
arrangement. This is his highest priority regarding Puerto Rico. He will strongly support
nationhood or statehood if Puerto Ricans vote for either status change and he will continue to
work to make the current arrangement work better for them as long as they do not. He has no
preference among the options, believing that the decision should be Puerto Ricans'.
2
The United States has committed itself internationally to supporting a Puerto Rican choice.
Enabling Puerto Ricans to choose is a Federal responsibility. The President's position is that we
should finally carry it out this Centennial year by providing the options through either of the bills
before you. He wants to establish a process that Puerto Ricans can act on as they are ready to and
that would channel the debate away from other issues and toward a constructive end. He does not
feel Puerto Rico has to change, but he also believes that all the fully democratic options should be
open to its people. Most fundamentally, though, our government has a responsibility to tell non-
fully self-governing Puerto Ricans what their fully democratic options are so they can decide as
they are ready to and we can all get to other business.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the President, I thank you for calling these hearings and for the
three prior sessions you have held on the status question itself and issues that a change in status
would raise. I also, on behalf of the President, thank Senators Craig and Graham for their
leadership on this matter and Senator Bumpers for his assistance to the Administration on it.
The two bills that are the subject of this hearing are companion bills. They are not identical,
especially since the House acted on its bill, which was sponsored by the leaders of both parties in
the House and your counterpart committee. President Clinton strongly supported House passage
of H.R. 856 and hopes to be able to sign either of the two bills before you into law. The
Administration strongly urges the Committee to favorably report a bill as soon as possible, given
the number of session days left in this Congress. We are ready and anxious to work with you to
do this as well as to obtain full Senate passage and final congressional action.
Both bills contain the essential elements for a law on this matter: They would provide Puerto
Ricans with the options, authorize a choice until one is made, and provide for a Federal action on
a choice. They would also facilitate a choice and lay out a process that would move to the next
stage when both sides are ready.
The bills would not change Puerto Rico's status, however. Indeed, they would require the passage
of two more bills and three popular mandates from the people of Puerto Rico over a period of up
to a dozen years or more for a status change to occur.
They would, though, finally enable a clear direction for the Islands to be determined and to be
worked towards. They would provide an orderly process for rationally addressing the myriad and
complex matters that would need to be addressed to prepare for a change in status and, then, to
change it. They would enable the transition to be smooth and deliberate. Finally, they would
ensure that the mandate for change was sustained when and if one emerges, providing both Puerto
Ricans and the Federal Government with opportunities to rethink in the event that matters do not
develop adequately.
Let me now comment on specific provisions of each bill.
First, H.R. 856.
3
Section 4(a) would authorize an initial referendum on Puerto Rico's future political status to be
held not later than December 31, 1998.
The President supports the goal of having a future status preference vote this year, but setting this
as a statutory deadline is unnecessarily restrictive. The Government of Puerto Rico should have
the flexibility to conduct the vote later if it feels that additional time is necessary for arrangements
or for public education reasons. The Governor and the Legislative Assembly strongly desire a
vote, so not setting a deadline will not result in a failure to hold a referendum
Section 4(a) would also provide Commonwealth, Separate Sovereignty, and Statehood options.
The options are based on and reasonably respond to proposals of Puerto Rico's major political
parties. Each of the parties is associated with one of the status options traditionally discussed in
the Islands: Commonwealth; statehood; and independence. The parties have been recognized in
Federal and Commonwealth law as the leading advocates for these differing status visions.
Our comment regarding the Commonwealth option is a fundamental one.
Democratic principles require that the expressed aspirations of Puerto Ricans be central to the
development of the options -- which also must be viable from the Federal perspective if they are
to provide Puerto Ricans with a meaningful choice. The President regards the consideration of
party proposals -- and serious responses to them -- as integral to the mutual determination process
that is needed to resolve the Puerto Rico future status question.
H.R. 856 earlier contained a Commonwealth option written by the bill's primary sponsors based
on their own understanding of the option. We and the Ranking Democrat of the House committee
insisted that the Popular Democratic Party, which conceived of Commonwealth as a status option,
be able to propose substitute language since the party said that the option did not reflect its
aspirations. The primary sponsors agreed and the bill was subsequently amended to reflect a
reasonable response to what the party proposed. Because of this, it remains acceptable to us.
The option is now based on and is similar to what the party proposed but the party is still
dissatisfied with it. The issues have centered on the party's contentions that Federal Territory
Clause powers with respect to Puerto Rico were legally limited by the current Commonwealth
arrangement and that the citizenship of Puerto Ricans is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
During the year since the response to the party's proposal was initially drafted, we have
repeatedly invited the party to propose amendments or an entirely different alternative, pledged
to seriously and sympathetically consider such a proposal, and pledged work for its congressional
consideration. The party includes members who advocate various enhancements or more
fundamental changes to the current arrangement and has had internal discussions on the matter.
The president of the party has discussed it in general with us and made some suggestions of his
4
ideas, but the party has made no new proposal to us. The latest communication we have had from
the party president suggests that its priority request is for the option to guarantee that U.S.
citizenship will continue to be granted and that a secondary aspiration is for a grant of national
sovereignty with an association with the United States.
You heard from the president of the party yesterday. His presentation should be the basis for your
prompt action. It should respond to the extent that he proposed a description that is legally
possible and advisable from a policy perspective. We are ready to work with you in this regard.
We have six concerns with respect to the Separate Sovereignty option, although it, too, is
acceptable as passed. The first two address concerns of the Puerto Rican Independence Party.
One is the labeling of the option as "Separate Sovereignty".
"National Sovereignty" would be equally clear and sound more neutral.
The second concern relates to Paragraph 6, which suggests a willingness to assist the new nation
economically and programmatically and that goods and citizens would be able to go between it
and the United States. It does not, however, make clear that the assistance would be geared
toward helping Puerto Rico tap its potential for prosperity as a nation, that we would hope the
trade to be free, and that the movement of citizens should be on terms that respond to our century
of ties with the Islands.
This is especially an oversight since the Puerto Rican Independence Party has proposed that there
continue to be close ties between an independent Puerto Rico and the United States. More
fundamentally, though, we have an obligation to take sympathetic and generous measures
with if the Islands' people want national sovereignty after we took them by conquest and
governed them without their having a vote in our system for 100 years.
Third, there is a problem with using the term "free association" in Puerto Rico.
National sovereignty encompasses the internationally-recognized status of free association
between a small territory and a larger nation as well as independence. The option properly
includes both. However, in Puerto Rico, the arrangement called "Commonwealth" in English is
named "Estado Libre Asociado" in Spanish, which literally translates as "Free Associated State".
Hence, there could be confusion between the Commonwealth and National Sovereignty options.
Given the established use of "Estado Libre Asociado" in Puerto Rico, and the little that the term
"free association" has been used, it would be advisable to substitute something like "nationhood in
association with the United States" for "free association" in the introductory phrase and "an
association with the United States" for "a free association relationship" in Paragraph 7.
Fourth, we would also favor identifying any basic provisions of a free association with Puerto
5
Rico that Congress would join us in contemplating, although we note that the terms would be
subject to negotiation and subsequent congressional action and that they could be changed later.
By definition, the terms of free association should be negotiated between the parties. The
transition phase of the bill would provide the opportunity for conducting such negotiations. But
there are some fundamental elements of a free association that we would contemplate with a
sovereign Puerto Rico that would address the aspirations of Puerto Ricans or U.S. interests.
One that would address a major issue in Puerto Rico would say that we would enable Puerto
Ricans to freely enter the United States subject to appropriate security provisions. If Puerto Rico
is to become a sovereign nation, birth there would cease being a basis for granting U.S.
citizenship: citizenship is a major element of nationhood. But the ties that have developed
between Puerto Ricans and the United States over a century are extensive and deep. Puerto
Ricans are currently citizens. Citizens of the Pacific islands states with which we are freely
associated have the right to freely enter, reside and work here even though they were neither U.S.
citizens or nationals and did not have those rights while under our territorial administration.
Puerto Ricans should be treated at least as well, given the depth and length of our relationship
even if they decide to substitute Puerto Rican sovereignty and citizenship for that of the U.S.
Other matters that could be referenced are the intentions to continue: the presence of United
States military bases; U.S. responsibility for Puerto Rican national defense; and some Federal
programs. We would like to work with the Committee on appropriate language on this matter if
the options are to be as extensive as those in the bill.
Fifth, Paragraphs 3 and 4 should be revised, primarily for clarity.
We developed alternative language for these provisions with the Chairman and Ranking Democrat
of the House Committee. It is appended to my statement. We understand it was not substituted
for the language in the bill because the time was not opportune for its presentation.
Finally, Paragraph 2 of this option is unnecessary and are, essentially, redundant.
Much of the language in the Statehood option is also unnecessary. Statehood is defined in the
Constitution of the United States.
In the event of a Puerto Rican choice for national sovereignty or statehood, Section 4(b) would
require the President to submit a plan to the Congress within 180 days to enable the selected
status to be implemented. The plan would be developed in consultation with Puerto Rico's
government, political parties and others. Additionally, in the event of a Puerto Rican choice for
national sovereignty, Puerto Rico would also be authorized to call a convention to formulate
proposals to implement the choice. The President would be required to transmit the proposals to
the Congress with views on them and, to the extent he deems advisable, incorporate them into the
transition plan.
6
We do not object to the six month deadline for developing a transition plan in the case of
statehood but it would be unrealistic given the greater complexities that would be involved in the
case of Puerto Rican sovereignty. The range of matters to be addressed would be much greater
since Puerto Rico is treated as a State under most laws. The 180 days would probably be barely
enough time for Puerto Rico to call and conduct a sovereignty convention. The President should
have the benefit of Puerto Rico's proposals in developing a transition plan and some matters
should be proposed based on consultations with Puerto Rico's representatives. The matters would
vary depending on whether the convention chooses full independence or nationhood in association
with the United States.
A more realistic requirement for submitting a transition plan in the case of Puerto Rican
sovereignty would be one year after the conclusion of a Puerto Rican sovereignty convention.
We also think that a convention would be essential in the case of a national sovereignty choice
and, therefore, that it should be required. Formal Puerto Rican input should be provided to the
President on a host of issues that would be raised by transferring sovereignty.
We also have two technical concerns with the drafting of Section 4(a).
The initial paragraph mandates the actual presentation of the options on the ballot (in addition to
their content).
We recommend leaving such decisions to the Government of Puerto Rico and replacing the words
"presented on the ballot as follows" with "the following options".
Finally, this subsection and Subsection © purport to require the President to submit legislation
-- first, a transition plan and, then, an implementation resolution to the Congress. In order to
conform to our constitutional separation of powers, we recommend that the word "shall" be
replaced with "should" or "shall, as the President deems appropriate".
Finally, the bill begins with a number of Congressional Findings. They relate to Puerto Rico's
history, current situation and political status in general. These Findings would not be part of the
procedure for resolving Puerto Rico's status issue and have contributed to controversy about the
legislation in the Islands. They were substantially rewritten during the process of House
consideration to make them more accurate, but they are still somewhat subjective. They are also
not essential. It may be more productive to delete them.
History has given us the conflicting facts and ambiguities which have fueled Puerto Rico's status
debate. Rather than relitigate them now, it would be more productive to simply provide the
process for resolving the debate.
If they are retained, we urge consideration of two changes to Paragraph 4, which concerns the
creation of the Commonwealth arrangement.
7
First, the paragraph does not make clear the full extent of the mutual nature of the arrangement's
creation. The first of two Federal laws on the matter required the approval of an insular
referendum to be effective. The second states that the arrangement was a "compact."
The Popular Democratic Party very much wanted this legislation to recognize the compact. The
objection in the House related to a history of suggestions that the compact legally bound the
Federal Government to all provisions of law it involved rather than morally to the governing
arrangement itself. The latter is correct, of course, and this legislation is consistent with the
commitment not to replace the arrangement without the agreement of the people of Puerto Rico.
The compact exists and it is appropriate to mention in a bill as extensive as this one.
Second, Paragraph 4 refers to the arrangement as providing for "internal" self-government.
"Internal" has been used to describe the Commonwealth's scope of authority but it, like
"compact" has resulted in some confusion. Some infer that its use means that the arrangement
legally eliminated Federal powers.
"Insular" or "local" would be more precise terms.
Let me now turn to S. 472.
This bill is a companion to H.R. 856. While similar, it is not as extensive. It also does not reflect
some of the improvements that the House made to H.R. 856.
A major difference between the bills is that S. 472 would only provide a process for making
Puerto Rico a territory destined for statehood, rather than make it a State, in the event of a choice
of statehood. To be clear about the distinction, the process in H.R. 856 would make Puerto Rico
a State if two more laws are enacted after H.R. 856 and three referenda vote for statehood. S.
472 lays out a process that through one law in addition to S. 472 and three referenda, Puerto Rico
would be an incorporated territory. Congress would have to act beyond what is specified in the
bill to grant statehood.
Another significant difference is that S. 472 would not provide rules for congressional
consideration of subsequent legislation in the process. H.R. 856 and the transition plan in the
H.R. 856 includes provisions intended to ensure that its transition plan and implementation
resolution are considered by the Congress as a whole and expeditiously.
Like H.R. 856, S. 472 also begins with Congressional Findings. They are not essential and should
be revised if they are favorably reported.
Paragraph 2 states that Congress carries out all Federal responsibilities with respect to Puerto
Rico pursuant to the Territory Clause of the Constitution.
Setting aside the fact that Congress does not carry out all Federal responsibilities with respect to
8
Puerto Rico -- the President and the courts also have their roles, Congress makes policy relating
to Puerto Rico under powers in addition to those of the Territory Clause.
Paragraph 3 states that civil government for Puerto Rico was provided by the 1917 law that is
also known as the Jones Act.
The Foraker Act, enacted fifteen years earlier, had already provided for civil government in
Puerto Rico.
Paragraph 4 states that Congress amended the territorial constitution in approving it.
In fact, Congress merely approved Puerto Rico's constitution subject to Puerto Rico's
constitutional convention making certain amendments.
Section 2(b) would ostensibly require the Government of Puerto Rico to conduct political status
referenda.
Rather than suggest a mandate that would be difficult to enforce if necessary, it would be more
appropriate to simply authorize referenda. If an elected government of Puerto Rico did not want
to conduct a referendum, forcing it do to do so would conflict with democratic principles. As I
have already noted, Puerto Rico's current government very much wants to conduct a referendum.
Section 2© would require that an initial referendum be conducted this year.
I have already suggested the deletion of this deadline as unnecessary and, perhaps, unrealistic.
Section 2(d) provides Commonwealth, Separate Sovereignty, and Statehood options.
The Commonwealth option is not based on a proposal of the Popular Democratic Party. It should
be either through your action in response to what was proposed yesterday or through the option
in the House bill or something similar.
Paragraph 1 of the description in the bill states that Puerto Rico conducts self-government with
respect to "internal affairs".
Again, "insular" or "local" affairs would be more precise terms.
Paragraph 2 states that provisions of the U.S. Constitution apply to Puerto Rico as determined by
Congress. Some provisions apply by their own force.
We would rewrite the paragraph as follows: (2) The provisions of the Constitution of the United
States that do not apply by their own force and the laws of the United States apply to Puerto Rico
as determined by the Congress.
9
Paragraphs 3 and 4 seem to be redundant in light of Paragraphs 1 and 2.
All of my comments with respect to the Separate Sovereignty option in H.R. 856 apply to the
Separate Sovereignty option in this bill. In addition, the option suggests that Puerto Rico would
attain sovereignty prior to becoming independent or entering into a free association relationship.
The Statehood option suggests that Puerto Rico would become fully self-governing prior to
statehood.
We would suggest striking the phrase "through United States sovereignty leading to"
Additionally, while the option suggests that Puerto Rico would be fully self-governing under
statehood, it would be more precise to say that Puerto Ricans would be. The Islands would,
instead, be fully a part of a fully self-governing country.
Much of the rest is unnecessary. If it is desired to provide an explanation of statehood as
extensive as the one in the bill, we recommend that the language of the option of H.R. 856 be
substituted for the language in S. 472. It reflects several revisions that we developed with the
House Committee leaders and the Resident Commissioner.
Section 3(b) would ostensibly require further status referenda at least every four years in Puerto
Rico if there is a majority for the continuation of the current governing arrangement in a status
referendum or if Puerto Ricans reject a Federally-approved transition plan or implementation of a
selected status.
I have already recommended that it would be more appropriate to authorize the status votes than
to suggest a mandate for them. Additionally, we suggest giving the Government of Puerto Rico
greater flexibility on the timing of additional votes. Further votes might not be desired by Puerto
Ricans every four years. In such a case, the call for revoting so often would be a disruptive
burden. Further, if Puerto Ricans were to reject Federally-approved transition or implementation
legislation, additional Federal action might be advisable prior to further status choice votes.
While we would prefer leaving votes to the call of the Government of Puerto Rico, we consider
the language of the House bill calling for votes at least every decade acceptable.
Additionally, this subsection would prohibit a referendum within 180 days of a general election.
The decision of whether to schedule a referendum in concert with or separate from a general
election should be left to the Government of Puerto Rico.
Finally, this subsection does not authorize further votes in the case of no option obtaining majority
support -- a possibility covered by the House bill's provision that should also be covered in this
one.
Section 3(c)(1) would require the President to submit transition plan legislation to Congress
within 180 days of a Puerto Rican choice of statehood or national sovereignty. There is no
10
provision for a Puerto Rican convention in the event of a choice of national sovereignty.
As I explained in my comments on H.R. 856, we think such a convention is essential. As I also
explained, six months would not be adequate for the calling of the convention, the conduct of its
business, and considering its recommendations. Again, a year after the conclusion of a Puerto
Rican sovereignty convention is the minimum amount of time that we can conceive of as
necessary for developing a Puerto Rico sovereignty transition plan.
Section 3(c)(2) would require a referendum on actually implementing a new status in Puerto Rico
prior to the end of the transition period. As I have noted, in the case of a status choice of
statehood, the status that would be implemented would be incorporation leading to statehood
rather than statehood.
Unlike H.R. 856, however, S. 472 does not also propose Federal implementation legislation.
Thus, nationhood could theoretically be implemented as provided in the transition plan even if the
referendum disapproves final implementation of the new status
as unlikely as that seems.
Additionally, Congress would have to act beyond what is contemplated in this bill to implement
statehood.
Mr. Chairman, those are the specific comments we have to offer on the bills. We would be
pleased to address questions about them. I want to stress that our recommendations suggest the
need for relatively minor amendments and that these can be made in taking expeditious action in
the case of either bill. They also suggest that many provisions of the bills are not essential. We will
be flexible on the extent of the details in the bills so long as the essentials are included. Our goal is
to reach the Federal consensus necessary to enact a law this year.
The real questions that these bills present are really very simple: Are we going to finally answer
Puerto Ricans' questions of what their status options are so that they can determine their
preference? Are we going to facilitate the determination of the direction they want to work in, if it
is different from the present? Are we going to establish a process that can finally end the
frustrating debate over the most fundamental decision of any society? Are we going to provide a
process for the Federal Government and Puerto Ricans to thoughtfully and non-disruptively
address the issues step-by-step? Are we going to meet our responsibilities on this matter a century
after we took control of the Islands? Are we going to enter the new Millennium having enabled
nearly four million U.S. citizens who are not fully self-governing to take a step towards becoming
so if and when they want to?
We stand ready to work with the Committee to answer all or any of these questions affirmatively
as soon as possible.
11