sion for statehood bill will be submitted to the people of Puerto Rico for ratification and that is a yes or no vote and there will have to be a majority.

To say beforehand what are the majority, what would constitute a majority, is it 49.5 percent, is it 45, or 44, I think we would be trying to out guess what Congress would do. Maybe Congress with a 45.5 majority would act; maybe it wouldn't. Maybe even with over 50 percent it would not act. And we all recognize this principle; that the more votes we get for statehood, the more likely it is we are going to get it, there is no doubt about that, and the least votes we get, the less opportunities we have. But that is our choice and our option.

We are trying to find out whether the people of Puerto Rico will be getting a process where everybody has an opportunity to vote; expresses what they want for Puerto Rico, to become a State or independent or whether we want to keep being a colony. So once we make that decision, then we will come to Congress and exercise our right to have that enacted, and that is the only way that we can do it.

That is why I say we have to recognize that we have not had a significant change in status because we have not asked for a significant change in status. The political process is there; we can do it, and we recognize we have the authority to enact a plebiscite whenever it wants to enact a plebiscite, whenever it has the votes, and we can vote, but we have not done it.

The only time we have had a plebiscite in Puerto Rico we selected a colonial status, which is to our shame. And it is to our shame forever that we convalidated the colony. But now we are trying to start a process for decolonization, and to say beforehand you have to have that number of votes, whoever wins will go ahead and try to obtain a decision from the Congress to respect the will of the majority, and the vote will be yes or no finally. So there will have to be a majority, otherwise we will be in this quagmire forever.

To wait for a decision from Congress or an expression of Congress for us to act is to convalidate the colony and allow the colonial relationship to remain.

Mr. Secretary, I, of course, agree with your statement. I would like to, however, ask you about something we have discussed here today and that is the right of the participation of Puerto Ricans who do not reside in Puerto Rico, who reside on the mainland. Have you, as Secretary of State, or as a member of the party or participating in all the discussions in the Fortaleca, have you ever received or seen any definition or how would you define the Puerto Ricans in the mainland that would have a right to vote that could be enforceable?

Mr. DEL RIO. There have been different proposals, some say that they ought to be either—at times people have said Puerto Ricans who were born in Puerto Rico and then moved, or Puerto Ricans who have Puerto Rican parents, both the father and the mother; others say, well, if the father is Puerto Rican or the mother is Puerto Rican it should be enough; some say that it should go on to a second or third generation. So there is a lot of confusion in that regard.

However, let me say, Mr. Congressman, that I have done some research on the legal implications of this which I believe the Subcommittee ought to know. Remember that we had a plebiscite in 1967, 26 years ago. There was a case decided in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, it is called the case of Sola v. Sanchez-Vilella.

Mr. CORRADA DEL RIO [continuing.] Judge Elmo Hunter, sitting as a visiting judge in the Federal District Court of the District of Puerto Rico, resolved in the following manner a lawsuit filed by some Puerto Ricans residing in New York and New Jersey who wanted to have the right to vote in that plebiscite.

The judge decided as follows: Such provisions, the ones that relate to determining the eligibility of voters, are not merely to help identify the voter or protect against fraud, but afford some protection against those who have been living in the States only a short time or who have ceased to be a resident of the State and have no reasonable interest or opportunity to be informed voters on a particular local matter because they do not personally reside there.

In that case, the Judge then went on and said, referring to these people who were challenging the law and asking for a right to participate: "They are residents of one of three States-New York, New Jersey or Massachusetts-where they have resided for many years. They are not citizens or residents of Puerto Rico, although they may sometimes decide to return to Puerto Rico to live, and have an interest in the solution of the political status of Puerto Rico. Some of them possess property in Puerto Rico. These facts,' says the court, “are insufficient to give plaintiff the requisite standing to bring this suit.

"

"Plaintiffs are in no different a position than citizens and residents of New York or New Jersey or Massachusetts than one who was born, for example, in Missouri; and to economically better himself would move to another State and become a citizen and resident of this State and who, although owning property in Missouri and having nostalgia for Missouri, cannot meet the citizenship and residential requirements for voting in a Missouri election, even though the Missouri election may be on fundamental matters as amending the State constitution or adopting a new one.

"Technically," says the court, "the interest of these parties in the plebiscite is purely personal rather than legal and can be expressed"-this is very important "can be expressed by their corresponding with their own State's particular Senators and Representatives in Congress who, in turn, can bring plaintiff's views to the attention of Congress, just as a result of the plebiscite would advise Congress of the views of those who vote in it.'

I think this case is clearly in point with the issues we are discussing here. Constitutionally and electorally those who vote in an election are the official residents domiciled in the area or body politic where the election takes place.

It is not that we would not like Puerto Ricans in New York to vote. It is that we are constrained constitutionally and legally from allowing them to do so, and furthermore allowing other people who are not residents of Puerto Rico to vote would dilute the power of the vote of the Puerto Ricans who reside there and the principle of one man-one vote.

Therefore, I think we are wasting our time discussing something that cannot happen, constitutionally and electorally.

Secondly, who is going to register the voters? If Puerto Ricans on the mainland are going to vote, where do they register to vote? Who will supervise that? Who will be eligible to make a challenge on someone who is trying to register? Who decides who is a Puerto Rican and who is not a Puerto Rican?

All these are very complex questions that really would not allow a practical solution on this matter by allowing Puerto Ricans other than Puerto Ricans residing on the island of Puerto Rico to vote.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Have you heard those questions being addressed and heard conclusions being offered to those questions? When they ask for a voice, it is a merely, I think, we should vote. Mr. CORRADA DEL RIO. It is a desire that is legitimate. The point is that it is unconstitutional and electorally unmanageable and otherwise against all the principles by which voting in this Nation is known.

In Europe, there is something called ius sanguini. In the United States, there is something called ius soli. There are two ways, ius soli or ius sanguini. The United States tradition is ius soli, based on domicile or residence in the body politic rather than ius sanguini which comes from the European concept that allows members of a family to vote even if they went abroad; and based on blood relationship, they would be allowed to vote.

This is entirely contradictory to American constitutional and electoral principles.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Our electoral system was based on which one of those in Puerto Rico?

Mr. CORRADA DEL RIO. The electoral system of Puerto Rico, of course, follows the American model.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Would you describe for the record how the voters are registered in Puerto Rico and also on election day how the process goes? How is the position represented in the polls?

Mr. CORRADA DEL RIO. We have in Puerto Rico a very well-ordained, detailed voting principle where people would challenge anyone who is not on the voting list, who is not eligible if they moved away from one street to the next neighborhood, et cetera.

Questions that election day, each party is represented by a pollster at each polling place and they constitute a board presided over by a member of the party that has the majority. But the other two members have a voting right. If they cannot agree on a decision, a judge is called to make a decision. So we are very well organized and very detailed in those processes.

The question is, if Puerto Ricans who live outside of Puerto Rico are voting in New York, Massachusetts or New Jersey, who is going to manage that the Electoral Commission of Puerto Rico, the State or City of New York or New Jersey, the Congress of the United States? You don't even get involved in presidential elections. Presidential elections in the United States are ruled by State law, not Federal law, except that they have to comply with the constitutional principles of one man-one vote in such elements of reapportionment or redistricting.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Can you think of a way to have the electoral processes carried out in the 50 States of the Union with the

same guarantees that they have in Puerto Rico in the electoral process?

Mr. CORRADA DEL RIO. That is another important element. It is not just saying, well, because there are many Puerto Ricans in New York, New Jersey or Connecticut, Puerto Rican residents of New York, Connecticut and New Jersey will be allowed to vote. You will have to allow to vote 35 Puerto Ricans in Alaska or in Hawaii, those who came at the turn of the century and moved to Hawaii at the turn of the century.

Not only that, a Puerto Rican resident of Australia who is a resident of Australía. A Puerto Rican who resides in a foreign country may claim that he has as much right to vote as a Puerto Rican in New York.

Therefore, unless they are allowed to vote, they will challenge the vote.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. I bring this up because when people are told that there is a possibility that they can vote in the plebiscite, because it is so emotional to the Puerto Ricans who live in the mainland, I don't think it is fair for those people to be told there is an opportunity for them to vote. Constitutionally, legally, from a practical and organizational point of view, it is not possible.

Mr. CORRADA DEL RIO. Personally, I would love to see Puerto Ricans, wherever they are, vote on this matter. Legally and constitutionally, it cannot be done.

If they want to move back to Puerto Rico, establish their domicile and residence there, suffer, and enjoy whatever we have under the current Commonwealth status, live there long enough to understand whether it is good or bad for us, then they can vote.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. What was the citation of the case that you read?

Mr. CORRADA DEL RIO. I don't have the Federal citation. The name of the case is Sola v. Sanchez Vilella in the U.S. District Court of 1967. I can get more for you. 1967 was the year of the plebiscite.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you very much.

[The information follows:]

Solá v. Sánchez-Vilella, 270 F.Supp. 459 (D.C.P.R. 1967) offd 390 F.2d 160 (CA 1, 1968).

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for your presentation on behalf of the Rossello administration. It is always a pleasure to see you.

Mr. CORRADA DEL RIO. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I am sorry that Mr. Underwood is not here, but I heard what he said, he was willing to take what our Resident Commissioner wants to get rid of, which is Commonwealth status. If Puerto Rico was the size of Guam, had 100,000 inhabitants, perhaps I would support Commonwealth if I did not have the hope or expectation on a shortterm basis of being able to become a State.

I, as a Puerto Rican, want Puerto Rico to become a State. But I don't want to force Guam or any other territory to decide what they want to be. It may be that Guam has made up their mind that, based on their population and distance from the United States and other factors, they want to be a Commonwealth. So be it, if that is the way they feel.

We Puerto Ricans believe we can get dignity and equality. We are ready. We have the population, the economy and the right to be a State of the Union. So I do understand why our Resident Commissioner wants to discard Commonwealth.

Well, Mr. Underwood may wish to have Commonwealth. It just depends whether you have the expectation on a short-term basis of becoming a State or not.

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you for that classification, Mr. Secretary. Our next witness is a representative of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, one of the leaders of all parties of exceptional ability. Fernando Martin Garcia, the Vice President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, was one with distinction within that group who was truly an impressive spokesman. It is an honor for the Chair to welcome him

STATEMENT OF HON. FERNANDO MARTIN GARCIA, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PUERTO RICAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the vice president of the Independence Party. I will testify on behalf of the president of the party, Ruben Berrios, who could not be here because of pending legislative business in Puerto Rico.

We welcome the initiative by Congressman José Serrano in introducing House Concurrent Resolution 94, as well as the decision by this Subcommittee to hold public hearings on the Serrano resolution at this time.

Although the working of the resolution can, and should, be revised in order to ensure that the question of the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination is addressed in the clearest possible terms; and to ensure further that consideration and approval of this resolution will make an effective contribution to the decolonization of Puerto Rico; the Serrano resolution is an important first step. It is a step in the right direction. It ought to meet with a prompt and straightforward response on the part of Congress to the results of the vote on political status preferences that will take place in Puerto Rico next November 14.

Those of us who took a direct part in the discussions and negotiations that led to the approval of H.R. 4765 in 1990 in the House, and who observed with dismay the defeat in committee of S.244 in 1991, witnessed the profound reluctance of Congress as a whole to tackle, head on, the question of Puerto Rico's territorial status under the U.S. Constitution for which, after all, Congress is both originally and ultimately responsible.

After a long history of political neglect in which Congress created and nurtured successive colonial regimes in Puerto Rico, from the Foraker Act of 1900 to the present Law of Federal Relations, at the same time that it promoted economic dependence, it was not surprising to see Congress as a whole recoiling from sponsoring a plebiscite in Puerto Rico that would have then, in all probability, resulted in a victory for the statehood option.

I have no doubt that sighs of relief were heard in this city when it became evident in 1991 that a congressionally sponsored referendum would not happen. It is critically important therefore that those of us who favor the final extinction of colonialism in Puerto