In the name of our people-especially of those willing but unable to be here for economic reasons and because of the long distance to travel; and in the name of the Puerto Rico Independence Party, we reiterate our demand that hearings be conducted in Puerto Rico; not only at San Juan, but in different sections of our country. The said proceeding would be more in accord with the principles of equity, fair play, and democracy and with the magnitude of the task undertaken by this committee.

When Puerto Rico was a colony of Spain we had to go to Madrid. Now we are forced to come to Washington. The means of transportation are naturally different but the imposition and attitude is the same. Besides, we have to speak in English, which is not our mother tongue.

The delegation of the Peurto Rico Independence Party will limit itself to the discussion of H.R. 5945, the only resolution whose text is known in Puerto Rico. It was, certainly, a surprise to us, when we received last Saturday the letter of the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. O'Brien, and learned that companion bills to H.R. 5945 existed. In any event, this is the key resolution.

The Puerto Rico Independence Party vigorously opposes H.R. 5945. We strongly hold that the said resolution:

First. Violates the principle of self-determination;

Second. Creates a "compact commission" integrated in an antidemocratic manner;

Third. Gives a mandate to the Commission to draft a "proposed compact of permanent union between the Government of the United States and the people of Puerto Rico," with a view of making the said union "irrevocable," violating established principles of international association;

Fourth. Fixes no time limit to the Commission to render its report; Fifth. Uses confusing and misleading language; is contradictory in its terms and recurs to colonial semantics;

Sixth. Makes no special, direct provision for the transfer of all powers of sovereignty by the Congress of the United States to the people of Puerto Rico, without any conditions or reservations, as is declared in section 5 of Resolution 1514 (XV), adopted by the United Nations on December 14, 1960, with the express support, advocacy, and vote of the United States;

Seventh. Provides for the unilateral adoption of a "new compact" by the Congress, in a referendum to be held under the supervision of the party proposing the "compact"; and

Eighth. Imposes no obligation on the Congress "for the prompt settlement, in a democratic manner, of the political status of Puerto Rico," as the resolution says in the title; nor imposed any obligation whatsoever on the Congress of the United States to recognize independence or grant statehood if the people vote in favor of any of these political formulas.

Let us pursue further in the analysis of these objections:

I

The resolution violates the principle of self-determination, because the Congress places unilaterally in the hands of a mixed executivelegislative committee complete authority to draft a "compact," with

out the direct intervention and consultation of the people of Puerto Rico. Such unlimited delegation of powers by the people of Puerto Rico is inconceivable. No people with a sense of self-respect and dignity, like our people, can give their consent to such absurdity. The guides outlined in the resolution for the drafting of the "compact" are in conflict with the principles which govern existing associations; associations that are under discussion; and in conflict with the list of factors approved by the United Nations for cases in which colonialism is ended by the negotiation of a compact between the colonial power and the former territory.

Compacts are agreed by nations which want to enter into an association. The establishment of such associations presupposes the recognition of the complete sovereignty of the territory by the colonial power, as in the case of our Caribbean neighbors of Jamaica, Trinidad, Tobago, India, and other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. True compacts can be entered only between equals, on an equal footing.

Then, they can accord compacts by treaties or agreements by delegations of constitutional conventions of the contracting nations or by treaties or agreements accorded by the elected representatives of the people with express powers to act in their name.

The Puerto Rico Independence Party holds that (a) if a so-called compact is carried out under the terms of the II.R. 5945 the result would be utter frustration with unavoidable consequence. The situation would continue the same as under Law 600 (b). It would be in violation of well-known principles of international law; (c) it would violate universally accepted declarations of the United Nations on colonialism and (d) would try to perpetuate colonialism in the disguise of a pompous name. This is, what in our times is called neocolonialism.

II

Point 2 does not need much discussion. In the "compact Commission," Puerto Rico will have four members, appointed by the leader of the group of Puerto Ricans who favor H.R. 5945-the Governor of Puerto Rico and president of the party in power-and members appointed by the United States.

Thus, the Commission is in its integration undemocratic, both because of the manner it is organized and the way the members of the committee are appointed.

We, in Puerto Rico, have a sad experience with such kind of Commissions. Under the Foraker Act, of 1900, there was an executive council, composed of 11 members, 5 Puerto Ricans and 6 North Americans. The story of the abuses of the said council is a long and bitter one. Evidently, we are going backward, instead of forward, in the path of history. And this happens in the year of our Lord 1963.

III

As to point 3 let us remind this committee that in all existing associations, any one of the parties can withdraw from the association. This principle is recognized by the United Nations in the list of factors governing true associations. Even under the terms of Resolution 1541 (XV), which refers to the circumstances in which a non-self-governing territory can be said to have reached a full meas

ure of self-government, when the United Nations refer to free association, provides that "it should be one which respect the individuality and the cultural characteristics of the territory and its people, and retains for the people of the territory which is associated with an independent state the freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional processes."

IV

Under No. 4, since no time limit is set for rendering the report, the Commission can study, argue, and deliberate until doom's day. They can adopt a rule requiring unanimity to take any decision. This could result, in a given moment, in the paralysis of the whole Commission. We had recently this experience in the Puerto Rico Bar Association, when Mr. Trias Monges, legal adviser of Governor Muñoz-Marín, paralyzed committee on status considering H.R. 5945, by involving an absurd and antidemocratic unanimity rule that had been adopted by the committee under other circumstance.

V

The enacting clause recurs to the play of semantics when it speaks of "inherent rights," "juridical capacity," and "relationships to be freely agreed upon," without making any express mention to the transfer of jurisdiction to Puerto Rico nor to the express relinquishment of rights by the Congress of the United States. What the enacting clause means is anyone's guess.

It is true that the resolution asks the Commission to act in the light of the principles expressed by the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico, cited in quote, but it is also true that the section of such resolution on the question of sovereignty is confusing and contradictory, because it refers to "the recognition and reassertion of the Sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico." In law, it belongs to the field of the obvious; that is, you cannot recognize and reaffirm at the same time.

Recognition must precede reassertion. This is the kind of colonial semantics of which the Congress of the United States made such "splendid exhibition" when, at the time of the approval of Law 600 used clear misnomers as "in the nature of a compact," "constitution," "constitutional convention," and alter, implicitly approved the name "Free Associated State" to a territority which was not, and is not now, neither free nor associated to the United States.

VI

An examination of H.R. 5945 shows clearly that there is no provision in the resolution for the transfer of sovereignty to Puerto Rico. It certainly does not follow the language of Resolution 1514 (XV), of the United Nations, which constitute the most advanced declaration in all times, in the struggle against colonialism. It does not follow the language of the report on the status question. approved by the Puerto Rico Bar Association in an extraordinary general assembly last February 21, 1963.

Thus, spoke the Puerto Rico Bar Association in its referred to resolution:

A sovereign people is one which is invested with the ultimate source of power.

In our case, this means that the Congress of the United States should relinquish all power over Puerto Rico, transferring it to the people of Puerto Rico. (We hereby offer as an appendix to this testimony, the report of the Puerto Rico Bar Association of February 21, 1963.)

VII

Subdivision (a) of section 5 places the report of the Commission on the hands of the Congress. It is evident that the Congress can make as many modifications to the report as it sees fit, or may reject it completely. But the Congress can, under the said section, adopt the said report unilaterally, ignoring the people of Puerto

Rico.

Under subdivision (b) of the section referred to, in the case that a referendum is held, the said referendum would be held-if it is to take place "promptly"-under the supervision of those that have advocated the colonial "compact Commission" and the "new compact." This is clearly unfair under democratic principles and against an elementary sense of justice.

VIII.

The resolution pending before the Congress, H.R. 5945, turns inoecuous and useless, when it comes to subdivision (b) of section 5. At this point, the people of Puerto Rico realize that no serious attempt is made to solve the burning issue. No obligation is imposed to the Congress of the United States. Everything turns out to be something similar to a Gallup poll, with no consequences whatsoever. After such a long wait and after a referendum is held where independence and statehood are included, if any one of those formulas wins, what happens? Simply that "the President shall transmit such certification to the Congress of the United States for such action as it may consider appropriate."

At the end of the race, the people of Puerto Rico would be just where we are today.

The Independence Party of Puerto Rico challenges anybody to disprove our thesis that Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. According to the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act-which is part of the Jones Act of March 2, 1917-Puerto Rico "belongs to the United States."

The Congress holds ominous powers over Puerto Rico in matters so vital as tariffs, coast wise shipping laws, commercial treaties, air transportation, maritime transportation, labor relations, bankruptcy, radio, television, post offices, immigration, customhouses, shipping rates, passports, citizenship, currency, international relations, the power to declare war and negotiate peace, military conscription. international juridical personality and other fundamental matters to the life of our people. Congress imposes upon us a tax on blood without representation.

We could go on enumerating reasons to demonstrate that we live under colonial conditions; that we do not have a government by

consent.

But the Puerto Rico Independence Party prefers to rely on a report rendered by the Committee on Constitutional Government of the Puerto Rico Bar Association, dated August 1, 1962.

The committee was appointed to prepare a scientific study exclusively of a technical and juridical character about the constitutional system in Puerto Rico with a view to the effectiveness of democracy in Puerto Rico. The committee arrived, among others, to the following conclusions:

1. The approval of law 600 and the Federal Relations Act did not constitute the exercise by the people of Puerto Rico of the right of self-determination. Puerto Rico has never been given the opportunity to select a government of its own choice. This constitutes a violation of the norms required by the United Nations with respect to the right of a people to decide its future destiny. The Congress acted unilaterally.

2. The exercise of legislative authority by the Congress of the United States over Puerto Rico, vitiates the principle of democratic government in our country.

3. The most evident proof that the constitutional government of Puerto Rico is not responsive to the will of the Puerto Rican people is that the same legislative assembly, officially demanded from the Congress by Joint Resolution No. 2 of March 19, 1959, a larger measure of self-government. (No action was taken by the Congress on the Fernós-Murray bill.)

4. The execution in Puerto Rico of Federal statutes approved by the Congress of the United States without the intervention of Puerto Rico, both by judicial and executive authorities, constitute a constant denial of the democratic principle. (The delegation of the Puerto Rico Independence Party offers the said report of the Puerto Rico Bar Association as appendix No. 2.)

In the light of this situation, of clear violations of democratic rights in Puerto Rico and of the subjection of our country to a colonial status, the Congress of the United States cannot close its eyes to an evident reality and try to hide our colonial condition. under the shield of an undemocratic "Compact Commission" that cannot deceive anybody.

We are living in the most challenging times of humanity. The United States must live at the height of the traditions of the Founding Fathers. This country was born in revolution. The Declaration of Independence is a Magna Carta of all men who struggle for sovereignty everywhere. In the said document, the right to revolution is proclaimed.

This tradition of the United States is inconsistent with the maintenance of colonies. When it maintains a colony in America, not only the United States weakens the very pillars upon which it was built, but violates a fundamental principle of American international law.

In our times, colonialism is a remnant of the past. Only a few colonial powers cling to their old privileges. The anticolonial revolution that liberated Asia, Africa, Jamaica, Trinidad, Tobago and