of Puerto Rico. But there is a substantive difference between Puerto Rico and the States of the Union, the consent of the governed to the exercise of power by the government is embodied in the representation they enjoy in Congress, the consent of Puerto Rico was given by the acceptance of the compact, as provided for in Law 600 of 1950. The balance of powers between the central government and the individual units of the federal system has been shifting in favor of the central government. The States are so concerned that a Special Task Force on Federalism was created, and a report was rendered. (Cases like South Carolina v. Baker. 108 S. Ct. 1355 (1988) and García v. San Antonio Metro. Transit. 469 US 528 (1984) are examples of this shift). The States are directed by García, supra to seek protection through the national political process; Puerto Rico's protection is in the law that regulates its unique relationship to the United States as there is where the change is needed. The designation of a Commission to review the application of existing federal legislation (similar to the case of the Northern Marianas) is a good instrument, but is not enough. To specifically mentioned in Puerto Rico as within the purview of a Statute as the only test of its aplicability to the Island while perhaps necessary is not nearly sufficient. A specific mechanism to implement parameters of applicability, is the only legitimate and practical way to address this matter. The structure of the mechanism is accidental and, therefore, negotiable. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. With the Senate President and your statement, I think it makes your position very clear. Senator McClure. Senator MCCLURE. I have just one comment on the last point you raised. Mr. JARABO. Yes. Senator MCCLURE. The Congress, in statutory language, adopted the three-league formulation on territorial water. First of all, that is subject to a navigational servitude, I believe. Mr. JARABO. Of course. Senator MCCLURE. And I do not think that is at issue in your statement. Mr. JARABO. It is not at all. And sovereignty is not at issue either. And the right of innocent passage and all the other rights, and security, et cetera, et cetera, are not questioned. Senator MCCLURE. And I understand. But, first, I should point out that not all the states of the Union that have waters adjacent to them are treated as favorably. Mr. JARABO. Idaho does not, I know. Senator MCCLURE. My state of Idaho is an inland state, but despite that, I have never liked the federal assertion of jurisdiction that has applied to the states that border our continental land mass. But, nevertheless, that has been decided. The Spanish standard which was applicable to Texas and Florida in the Gulf is the standard which was applied here, but all other states had granted to them or recognized only the three-mile territorial limit with respect to the Federal Government. Again, I do not like that, but that is what happened. While we have recognized, by statute the three-league limit, that recognition was by statute in 1917, in 1932, in 1947 and in 1980, which leaves us somewhat open. I am certainly aware of your appeal to us to recognize inherent rights. I do not think Congress has established that, however. And so I guess I have to just say that that is an issue in which we hear your appeal, but it is certainly one in which the Congress may have to exercise some judgment. Mr. JARABO. Well, it certainly would please us to have the committee recognize that this is an open question. For us it is a matter of recognition of what we have as a matter of right. For you it would be a matter of setting standards. The Congress and the courts have in the past recognized that depending on their historic background, different units in the federal system have different rights to their territorial waters and jurisdiction. The 13 colonies, the states of the Gulf, et cetera. Right now, even though by statute Congress has gone as far as the three miles, or the 10.35 miles-three leagues are 10.35 milesthe President has, by proclamation, been talking about four, slightly broader territorial waters for the United States, and even as regards Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas, et cetera. So, I do feel that the question of the economic zone is an open question and that, as you expressed approval of the statehood proposal, that just claims the economic rights to exploit, use, lease, et cetera, et cetera, it would seem to us that under commonwealth, we should at least have recognition of our economic zone. Senator MCCLURE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Moynihan. Senator MOYNIHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Speaker for his excellent presentation. Mr. JARABO. Thank you, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for an excellent presentation, Mr. Speaker. Mr. JARABO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we have five witnesses left and 33 minutes left on the morning schedule, so we are simply going to have to move faster. I would like to welcome at this time the Honorable Nicholas Nogueras, Senator from Puerto Rico. STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS NOGUERAS, SENATOR FROM PUERTO Mr. NOGUERAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am an at-large member of the Senate of Puerto Rico for the New Progressive Party. It is my fourth term as such, having previously held the position of majority and minority leader, respectively, in this legislative body. I will try to the best of my ability to set my arguments within the time frame set by this committee. I intend to point out basic considerations in regard to the holding of a plebiscite among the Puerto Rican people to choose a final form of political status. And, at a further time, I expect to contribute to this analysis in a more detailed way. Let me state at the outset, as a prominent American said, I do not know the key to success, but the key to failure is try to please everyone. You are not here to please all of us; you are here and we are here to try to work out practical solutions to practical problems. Congress has to acknowledge that any decision it makes concerning the holding of a referendum or plebiscite on the political status of Puerto Rico involves moral as well as legal obligations on the part of our nation. This sort of decision does not occur in a vacuum. It not only affects Puerto Ricans, but it has also a bearing on national security, trade, internal government, the financing and policies of the Soviet Union and the East Bloc, the Third World countries and the possibilities of creating a U.S.-Caribbean Basin Common Market to achieve a reasonable measure of social and political stability in Central America. This process also will prove or disprove the belief that the United States practices the ethics and democratic principles it preaches. As John W. Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, once said, America's greatness has been the greatness of a free people who share certain moral commitments. Freedom without moral commitment is aimless and promptly self-destructive. Melvin Krauss, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, an expert on international trade and development issues, in addressing the needs of our nation to counter the communism in the Third World, has summed it up in the following manner: In countering Moscow's move in the Third World, Washington must develop tactics and strategies appropriate to U.S. institutions, values and strengths, and not simply imitate the tactics of our rivals. Our strong suit is our economy, and we must learn to use our enormous economic power to improve the material standard, not only for our citizens, but all of those who live with us in the western hemisphere. Other things being equal, the better off are our neighbors, the more secure they and we will be. Congress is bound by international principles of self-determination and decolonization in dealing with the political status of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris of 1898. The political and civil rights of our people are, under said Treaty, to be established by Congress. You gave us our American citizenship in 1917. I have to state that the statements contained in my appearance before you are of such a nature that were the product, of course, of previous misunderstandings before the clarification was made by the chairman of this committee in regard to the citizenship and the fact that it cannot be stripped, we cannot be stripped of the same by Congress. I think that follows very well the case of Afroyim v. Rusk as stated in 387 U.S. 25. The practical value of this plebiscite is to resolve our status by a grant of sovereignty to the people of Puerto Rico, either through statehood, independence, or free association. To allow a definition of a formula based on lack of sovereignty and incompatible with the United States constitutional or legal system is to subject our nation to the attacks of our international enemies and to weaken America's freedom image in the free world. By the same token, our local Puerto Rican realities show that the political leaders now in government, who conveniently state they promote permanent union with the United States while not claiming full sovereignty to accomplish a free association, want the best of both worlds for purely electoral reasons. They represent a substantial part of our voting population, controlled by a political party structure and improper use of governmental power. Statehood is, in my belief, the status supported by an overwhelming majority of the Puerto Rican people. Instead of trying to accommodate our status definition to our Puerto Rican standards of convenience, I propose that you draft the practical socioeconomic and political elements for each formula and submit said draft to each political party. Each party would then have the option of either going ahead with the plebiscite or referendum on its formula, or not participating at all in the process. If a representative majority of the voting population participates in said plebiscite or referendum and a status formula receives in the first voting round the support of a substantial majority of the voters, then said formula would be declared the winner. If there is a need of a runoff election, then statehood and independence should be the only contenders, inasmuch as pert the orld, Ow's and ths, Our not Est ur the election will have shown the lack of majority support for the so-called associated free state status. The other alternative is to submit the present so-called commonwealth status as is, or with its possible boundaries defined by you to a referendum. If it does not carry more than 51 percent of the vote, then a plebiscite will be held between statehood and independence. The final alternative, of course, would be to hold a referendum over statehood, yes or no, and find out the feelings of our people after 91 years of living under the American flag. I assure you that if this ever happens, Puerto Rico will be declared the 51st state of the Union. You should be aware of any language referred to as permanent union or termed itself as an enhancement of commonwealth status, because of its deliberately deceiving nature. In any event, the international community and our fellow American citizens in the continental United States will be earnestly awaiting your final decision. In that sense, I propose that you act expeditiously, providing the clearcut definitions and boundaries of all formulas as you would accept them. In regard to statehood, all I ask is that you provide us with a 10-year transition period and the economic measures that are considered necessary by us for full integration into the American system. Please bear in mind that uniformity does not mean equality of opportunity. As the courts have stated in other cases under different law, equality of opportunity is not enough. It is equality of results that really count. Neither you nor any of our political leadership has the right to keep us in this undignified, and colonial status. Yes, Senator Johnston, Senator McClure, Senator Moynihan, Puerto Rican statehooders have a dream. It is a dream, as a distinguished Massachusetts Senator once said, it is a dream of an America, what it means and what it can become, a place where we look to the stars and explore the heavens. We will never turn aside from those in need in the forgotten corners of our country. The question was left unanswered in response to whether it would satisfy statehood proponents to rely on the effectivity of their representation in Congress for the permanence of the 936 corporations in Puerto Rico. I believe so, and I guess it would be contradictory to our position not to say otherwise. I think that if we are effective in Congress, with two Senators and the corresponding Representatives, we will be able to persuade our colleagues in Congress that it is in the best interest of our Nation and to Puerto Rico to keep that section for a reasonable period of time and develop jointly with our colleagues a reasonable way to phase out 936. But that should also hold true for commonwealth, and it also should mean that in regard to the applicability of Federal laws to Puerto Rico, let the Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner try to work with the forces in Congress on persuasion of the inapplicability of the legislation or the applicability of the same. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Nogueras follows:] |