dollars, and they don't pay taxes? Our constituents have to pay taxes but yours are not paying. Now, how can I have pride and do it with my head up high and ask for the grants when we do not pay? When we contribute, when we are on the same footing, we meet our obligations, then we have the right to demand, but to ask and ask and ask and never be willing to contribute, we look like beggars. We are demeaning ourselves. Mr. ARRARAS. The problem is that we-I believe that you have very strong opinions regarding your concept of statehood for the poor. Our problem is that we want to do and get as many benefits as we can but we are very interested in developing our economy because we don't want to become a welfare state. We want to Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. We are one under the commonwealth. Mr. ARRARAS. We want to produce jobs, to give people the opportunity to develop themselves. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And that is exactly what we want. Mr. ARRARAS. We have the same goal but different roads. Your road is more Federal benefits. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. With jobs. Mr. ARRARAS. There is a contradiction; that you have to look at the economic aspects of this. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Perhaps I would refer you to the GAO study again where it indicated that most of the money that is made by the companies leaves Puerto Rico, okay? Now, with additional benefits, let us take for instance Medicaid. There will be an additional billion dollars a year in the economy in Puerto Rico. What would that $1 billion do? It will certainly create jobs and certainly create opportunities. That money is money that is spent in Puerto Rico and that heightens the demand for goods and services_substantially, and any economist can explain that to you very well. And it would be more meaningful to Puerto Rico in terms of jobs than the 936 because we can have the investments of the companies and then more solid investments if we don't give away our house, if we bring companies in because of what we have to offer, because of our manpower, our capability, because of our geographical strategical location. Because we are in the only place right now within the United States where both languages are official and, naturally, the Center for Interchange with Latin America, geographically, culturally and as a State we will be even more so. That is a strategy for development; depending on our people, and not by giving money away to the ones that make the most money. We are prejudicing our people, the ones that do need it. Because every time we ask for more money in the Federal program, let us treat our people the same as you do the U.S. citizens, we hear, you are getting enough money as it is. You don't pay taxes. How can we have respect for ourselves if we come here asking all the time and we are never willing to contribute? Do you think it is a good position to be in where we don't contribute but we are asking for more? Mr. ARRARAS. What I understand is that section 936, which doesn't have anything to do with the resolution that we are discussing Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. It does. Mr. ARRARAS. It is very, very important for Puerto Rico. It is a tool for economic development, and it is something that we should not surrender nor trade for Federal benefits. Mr. DE LUGO. At that point I think Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Nor for Federal votes or participation in Congress? Mr. DE LUGO. This battle will continue between now Mr. ARRARAS. We have a whole period of four months to debate. Mr. DE LUGO. That is right and it will continue on the soil of Puerto Rico. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Mr. Chairman, one last question. Don't you feel you are selling away your political rights when you say 936 is more important than political rights? Mr. ARRARAS. No, certainly not. What we want to have is a good economy and jobs for our people. Mr. DE LUGO. At that point, let me ask the gentleman from Guam if he has any questions. Mr. UNDERWOOD. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DE LUGO. Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I want to thank the Minority Leader, Representative Árraras, very much for your presentation here. We have been working here in this Committee for over four hours, almost four and a half hours. We have another outstanding witness who we will be hearing from, but we are going to take a break right now. It will be a one-half hour break to get lunch. The gavel will come down in exactly 30 minutes. Our next witness will also be a resident, the Honorable Antonio J. Colorado, former Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico. Tito, good to see you, and we look forward to hearing from you. He, of course, is one who has contributed tremendously to building the economy of Puerto Rico. And then we have three outstanding panels that will appear. We have Senator McClintock and the Honorable Marco A. Rigau; they will be appearing in the first panel; then there will be a second panel, Dr. Miriam J. Ramirez Ferrer, President of the Puerto Ricans in Civic Action; Carlos Gallisa, Secretary General of Puerto Rican Socialist Party; Benny Frankie Cerezo, President of the Puerto Rican Statehood Forum; and Arturo J. Guzman, Co-chairman, IDEA of Puerto Rico. And the final panel will be the Honorable Angel Luis Ortiz, member of the Philadelphia City Council; Wilfredo Santiago Valiente, President, United Statehooders Organization of New York; Luis Alvarez of Sparta, New Jersey; and Jose Garriga-Pico, Associate Professor of the University of Puerto Rico. So we will take a break and the gavel will come down exactly at 3:00 o'clock. Mr. DE LUGO. The Committee on Insular and International Affairs, the hearing on the Serrano Resolution, H.Con.Res. 94, will come to order and continue. When we broke 30 minutes ago, I announced that our next witness would be a distinguished representative of the people of Puerto Rico, former Resident Commissioner, one that I had had the great pleasure of serving with here in this House and on this Committee, and it is a pleasure to welcome him back to this chamber where he has served with such distinction. He is one that has contributed tremendously to the economic vitality of Puerto Rico, so it is a pleasure for the Chair to welcome Antonio J. Colorado, better known to all his friends as Tito. STATEMENT OF HON. ANTONIO J. COLORADO, FORMER RESIDENT COMMISSIONER FROM PUERTO RICO Mr. COLORADO. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here again. I am Antonio Colorado, former Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to the United States and a former member of this Committee. I appear before you on my own behalf, not on behalf or in representation of any other person, organization or entity, to express my opinion on House Concurrent Resolution 94, a sense of the Congress resolution on self-determination by the people of Puerto Rico. Everybody is in favor of self-determination, Presidents (including Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton), majors, Governors, Congressmen, Democrats, Republicans and their political platforms. In my judgment, the question is not if you are, as everyone else is, in favor of "self-determination," the question is: "What does the Congress of the United States understand by self-determination by the people of Puerto Rico?" The answer to this question is the crux of the most important issue in the life of a people, my people, who although very proud of their American citizenship, are nevertheless a distinct people, the people of Puerto Rico, and also very proud of being so. We negotiated and entered into a compact in 1950 with the Government of the United States to establish the respective areas of authority for both the Federal Government and the government to be created by the people of Puerto Rico under the Constitution of its own adoption. Under that compact, Law 600 of 1950, the legitimacy of all authority was established to be "the consent of the governed." This to us meant sovereign consent. By this understanding we, as a people, acted upon and accepted the compact by popular referendum, and appeared with the U.S. Delegation at the 1953 session of the United Nations to bear witness that the United States had fulfilled an international obligation: That the governmental authority in Puerto Rico was the will of the people, freely expressed, and that finally, that the terms of such arrangement were embodied in a compact. As to this, the alternate U.S. Ambassador, Mr. Mason Sears declared: "As you know, a compact is more binding than a treaty; it cannot be altered except by bilateral agreement." On those assurances and testimony, including a direct statement from the President of the United States to the General Assembly, the United Nations adopted Res. 748 (VIII) of 27 November 1953. Since then, however, this Congress has paid only, at best, lip service to that commitment. And increasingly, the judicial branch of the government has expressed serious doubts about the mere existence of such compact. Congress talks about self-determination but refuses to act when requested to by Puerto Rico. At least six times Puerto Rico has come to Congress for amendments to the compact and has returned not only empty-handed, but with serious disappointment as to congressional and U.S. Govern ment commitment to honor its word. Why should we believe today that our next request would be treated differently. This cannot go on. You must express clearly what you understand by: One, self-determination; two, people of Puerto Rico; three, nature or origin of congressional authority to legislate for Puerto Rico; four, the so-called "Jibaro statehood," or "Hispanic statehood" being offered by the statehood party. Let me say this very clearly, Mr. Chairman. I believe we have had a compact with the U.S. Since 1950; it is not perfect but it is a compact. I believe so because the authorized representative of the United States have said so, I believe your authority over Puerto Rico is legitimate only because we consented to it under the terms of the compact, and thus are not subject to you under the territorial clause of the Constitution. To me this is clear, since we are a people, the people of Puerto Rico; we are not either a "territory" nor "property" of the United States. But if Congress thinks that we are either one of them or both, please say so, it is very important for us to know where we stand. The present administration in Puerto Rico has legislated a status referendum for November 14 of this year. This was approved_unilaterally without consensus of the political parties in Puerto Rico. Only residents of the island would be entitled to vote, excluding Puerto Ricans living in the mainland. The statehood party is offering our people a statehood with two official languages, two equal flags, preservation of our identity and culture, and preservation of international representation in sports and cultural events. This means that the official languages in our courts, in our legislature, in our schools and in the rest of our government agencies would be both English and Spanish, but as the language spoken by all Puerto Ricans is Spanish, this would be in practice the language utilized by everyone in such places. It also means that we would continue to participate with our Olympic representation in all sports and therefore continue to compete against the official United States Olympic Teams. They also tell our people that we will be able to continue to compete as Puerto Rico in pageants like Miss Universe, which we recently won, and we have won twice before. Is there such statehood? Mr. Chairman, what is the answer of the Congress to these questions? The people of Puerto Rico have a most sacred right to know what they are voting for. Where does the Congress of the United States stand? Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you very much. [Prepared statement of Mr. Colorado follows:] TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO J. COLORADO PRESENTED BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs July 13, 1993 Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Antonio J. Colorado, former Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to the United States and a former Member of this Committee. I appear before you on my own behalf, not on behalf of or in representation of any other person, organization or entity, to express my opinion on House Concurrent Resolution 94, a Sense of the Congress Resolution on self determination by the people of Puerto Rico. Everybody is in favor of self-determination, Presidents (including Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton), Majors, Governors, Congressmen, Democrats, Republicans and their political platforms. In my judgment, the question is not if you are, as everyone else is, in favor of "self-determination", the question is: What does the Congress of the United States people of Puerto Rico"? The answer to this question is the crux of the most |