Skip to content

Archives

Rep. George Miller

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

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

Rep. Jim Saxton

Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee, October 4, 2000, p. 7.  Now, it seems to me that if something looks like a duck and it acts like a duck and it talks like a duck, we all know that it is probably a duck.  But if something would look like a territory, act like a nation, and walk like a State, I think we know what it is, too.  It is unconstitutional and legislatively unattainable.Read More »Rep. Jim Saxton

Rep. Kildee

Rep. Kildee (D-MI), Statement before the House Natural Resources Committee, October 4, 2000, p. 29.  I think this proposal is legal fiction, at best, and a hoax, at worst.  I do not see how it can be done.  But if it could be done, if this legal fiction somehow could be defictionalized, then you could have that theoretical situation of one U.S. citizen voting against another U.S. citizen in the [United Nations].  It is never going to happen because I think this thing is patently unconstitutional.Read More »Rep. Kildee

Resident Commissioner Luis G. Fortuno

Resident Commissioner Luis G. Fortuno, Response to Written Questions Submitted by Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Senate Energy Committee, November 15, 2006, p. 59.  The fundamental problem with the Governor’s proposal is that it would invite Puerto Rico to choose a status proposal that is incompatible with the Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States and, thus, is not a status option.Read More »Resident Commissioner Luis G. Fortuno

Representative Jose Serrano

Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY), Statement before the House Natural Resources Committee, March 22, 2007, p. 14.  [N]o one in Puerto Rico supports the present status.  When they say they support commonwealth, they support a new commonwealth, which I call a letter to the Three Kings or a letter to Santa Claus.  Because it says let me be a state, but let me be an independent nation; let me change, but not change.Read More »Representative Jose Serrano

Resident Commissioner Luis G Fortuno

Resident Commissioner Luis G Fortuno (R-PR), Statement before the House Natural Resources Committee, March 22, 2007, pp. 6-7.  Governor Acevedo’s proposal for enhanced commonwealth, as included in his party’s 2004 platform, provides, among other things, number one, that Puerto Rico would be a sovereign nation but in permanent union with the U.S. as part of a covenant to which the United States will be permanently bound.Read More »Resident Commissioner Luis G Fortuno