hadeninteractive

Edward S.G. Dennis, Acting Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Testimony before the Senate Energy Committee, July 11, 1989, p. 18.   So long as Puerto Rico remains under the sovereignty of the United States, it is essential that this fact be made clear beyond peradventure.  Any statements that the island is autonomous . . . must make clear that this autonomy is limited to internal affairs, and that as a commonwealth Puerto Rico remains under the sovereignty of the United States.  Congress retains the authority to legislate with respect to Puerto Rico, and federal law may not be preempted or nullified by the local government.Read More »Edward S.G. Dennis

Mary V. Mochary, Department of State Principal Deputy Legal Adviser, Testimony before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, July 11, 1989, pp. 153-155.  The proposal for an enhanced commonwealth . . . would create an unprecedented political status for Puerto Rico.  It would grant to Puerto Rico significant attributes of sovereignty which would be incompatible with remaining a part of the United States.Read More »Mary V. Mochary

Robert Dalton, Assistant Legal Advisor for Treaty Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Written Testimony and Oral Testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee, October 4, 2000, pp. 19-21.  We are concerned about the foreign relations aspect of the [Enhanced Commonwealth proposal], particularly the proposed provisions regarding Puerto Rico’s ability to enter into agreements with foreign nations and participate in international organizations.Read More »Robert Dalton

Jeffrey L. Farrow, Co-Chair of President Clinton’s Interagency Group on Puerto Rico, Testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee, October 4, 2000, p. 15-16.  Although it is called a commonwealth proposal, it is for a very different governing arrangement than the present one.  It is also different from the commonwealth in the only other status referendum in Puerto Rico in recent decades, and it differs from the commonwealth proposal that the leaders of the party made to you in 1997.Read More »Jeffrey L. Farrow

Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL), Senate Floor Statement upon the Introduction of S. Con. Res. 75, Relating to the Commonwealth Option in Puerto Rico, September 30, 1994.  In the interests of comity, the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico permitted each of the three political parties represented in the plebiscite–the Statehood Party, the Commonwealth Party, and the Independence Party–to draw up its own definition of its status option for inclusion on the plebiscite ballot. This attempt to be fair, however, led to the formulation and appearance of completely unrealistic status options on the November 14 ballot.Read More »Sen. Paul Simon

Committee on Resources Report on the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act (HR 856), June 12, 1997, Report Number 105-131, Part 1, pp.22-23 and 26.   [I]n the case of “commonwealth” it quite clearly was a conscious decision of PDP leaders to define it as they would like Congress to change and improve it, rather than it actually is at this time.Read More »Committee on Resources Report on the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), House Floor Debate on H.R. 856, United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, March 4, 1998, Congressional Record, page H774 (oral remarks). … Read More »Rep. George Miller

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), Testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee, October 4, 2000, p. 9.  Maybe [Enhanced Commonwealth] is the result of pure ignorance or maybe it is the brainchild of political opportunists seeking to confuse or complicate the issue.  Regardless, it is our duty to clarify these statements that have misled millions of U.S. citizens and that have been perpetuated by the lack of Congressional action.  The fact that a political faction in Puerto Rico promises this definition as feasible is an affront to the truth and to our shared democratic principles.  I suspect that if the “enhanced commonwealth definition” was, in fact, constitutionally viable, the United States of America would not have 50 independent States, we would have 50 enhanced commonwealths rather than what we have today.Read More »Rep. Dan Burton