Senators: Statehood or Nationhood Only Ways to Resolve Status Issue

The chairman of the U.S. Senate committee with responsibility over U.S. territories said yesterday that Puerto Rico’s current undemocratic relationship with the United States – its “status” – could be permanently resolved only by transitioning to either statehood or nationhood.

Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) opened and closed a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on Puerto Rico’s plebiscite vote last November and the Obama Administration’s response to it by calling for such a choice between the two options to permanently resolve Puerto Rico’s current territorial limbo.

Senator Wyden and other members of the Committee who spoke recognized that Puerto Ricans rejected continuing its territory status in the 2012 plebiscite. On the first of two questions of the ballot, which asked voters whether or not Puerto Rico should keep its current territorial status, 54% said no.

Sen. Wyden and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico) repeatedly said that the plebiscite left Puerto Rico with limited options: statehood or nationhood (with or without a free association arrangement similar to what the U.S. has with three Pacific Island nations). In the plebiscite, statehood won 61.2% of the vote among the alternatives, nationhood in a free association with the U.S. got 33.3%, and independence 5.5%.

Committee Ranking Minority Member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) did not go as far as saying continuing territory status should be off the table. She suggested that whether to continue to consider the current territory status along with the permanent options to resolve the issue should be a Puerto Rican decision, consistent with the position she set forth in a 2010 letter to President Obama.

But Murkowski agreed with the other senators that the current “Commonwealth” is a territory status and that the Puerto Rico commonwealth party’s proposal for a new “commonwealth status” is impossible for constitutional and other reasons.

Alluding to claims of the ‘commonwealth’ and independence parties that statehood had won a plurality of the vote instead of the supermajority certified by the tri-partisan territorial Elections Commission, Wyden agreed with President Obama’s proposal to resolve the dispute through a Federally-sponsored referendum. The plebiscite would be on a status option or options that would conclusively resolve the issue.

The option or options would be proposals of the insular Elections Commission but only to the extent that the U.S. Justice Department agrees the proposals do not conflict with the Constitution, laws, and policies of the U.S.

Wyden explained that this “is essential to ensuring that the proposed new ‘commonwealth status’ or a proposal with similar features will not be on the ballot.”

Under the “commonwealth” proposal, the U.S. would be powerless as Puerto Rico sought to nullify specific Federal laws and court jurisdiction that currently cover the island, and Puerto Rico would be able to enter into international agreements as if it were a nation. Meanwhile, the U.S. would be required to grant Puerto Rico greater economic benefits than at present and to continue to grant birthright U.S. citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico.

Referring to the ‘commonwealth’ option, Committee Chairman Wyden cautioned that, “Persistence in supporting this option … undermines resolution of Puerto Rico’s status question.”

He also said that the Obama plebiscite should reflect that Puerto Rico’s remaining status options after rejecting territory status are statehood and nationhood. He suggested the vote be “Yes” or “No” on both statehood and nationhood.

The Chairman also judged that, “After 115 years, it’s clearly time for Puerto Rico to determine what political path it will take.”

He said that not having a decision on eventual statehood or nationhood contributes to Puerto Rico’s economic and social problems. And he recalled that President Obama’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status found that “identifying the most effective means of assisting the Puerto Rican economy depends on resolving” the question.

Wyden also said that the current territory status “undermines the United States’ moral standing in the world” because “nearly four million U.S. citizens do not have a vote in the government that makes the national laws which affect their daily lives.”

The witnesses at the hearing were the presidents of Puerto Rico’s three political parties: the commonwealth party’s Alejandro Garcia Padilla, the territory’s new governor; the statehood party’s Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico’s elected representative to the Federal government; and the Independence Party’s Ruben Berrios.

The Obama Administration was asked to send a representative to testify but did not. Administration testimony could have embarrassed Garcia. The Obama Administration supported the plebiscite, and the President’s spokesman said that its results demonstrated Puerto Ricans want to resolve the issue and that statehood won a majority. In addition, the President’s Status Task Force reported that Puerto Rico would remain a territory under any “commonwealth” arrangement and any new “commonwealth status” proposal would be unconstitutional.

As it was, Garcia appeared to be out of sync with the senators attending the committee hearing. Garcia disputed that Puerto Rico was a territory and that the new “commonwealth status” proposal had been found unconstitutional by Federal authorities. He cited snippets of statements by past Federal officials that have since been superseded.

When repeatedly asked to explain the proposal or even identify any elements, he could not and merely referred to old proposals that had failed to pass Federal approval.

When Sen. Heinrich asked if the current proposal would allow Puerto Rico to limit the application of Federal laws, the Governor did not provide a clear response and instead vaguely suggested that there could be a process for joint determination of which laws would apply. A frustrated Heinrich finally said that Garcia had “danced semantically around the question [of what the new “commonwealth status” would do] long enough.”

Berrios brought additional clarity to the question by commenting that the proposal was “juridical hocus pocus … bull” but really just another name for territory status.

Garcia also puzzled senators by arguing that proposals such as Wyden’s plan to offer voters straight up-or-down votes on both statehood and nationhood and Pierluisi’ plan to provide voters with a straight up-or-down vote on statehood would “disenfranchise commonwealth.”  He compared the proposals to racial segregation but did not back up this claim.

Pierluisi pointed out that Garcia’s assertion was “nonsense” because voters could as easily vote “No” as “Yes.” And Wyden noted that Garcia’s predecessor as commonwealth party president had called for a Statehood: Yes or No plebiscite before the Committee just three years ago.

Garcia and Berrios both contended that Puerto Rico would be a “ghetto” under statehood, although Berrios called it a ghetto under the current territory status as well.

Berrios also seemed to be an outlier among witnesses and Senators at the hearing when he questioned statehood as an option for Puerto Rico. All of the senators present said or seemed to regard statehood as a leading option.

The arguments of Garcia and Berrios that statehood is not an option for Puerto Rico prompted Heinrich to ask whether Puerto Ricans should vote on whether the territory should become a part of the U.S. Although Puerto Rico is treated as a State in many laws, it is an unincorporated territory, a possession rather than a part of the U.S.

Territories that are part of the U.S. are destined for statehood – a question that has not been answered for Puerto Rico, which also has the option of nationhood.

Heinrich explained that Puerto Ricans could choose whether or not to pursue free association with the U.S. if a majority of the voters rejected statehood in favor of independence.

After the hearing, Committee Member Joe Manchin III (D-West Virginia), who was not present, issued a written statement contending that Puerto Rico’s plebiscite had not been impartial and inclusive. The statement did not explain how since the plebiscite included all four of the possible status options, neutrally described. But Manchin expressed confidence in Garcia.

He also agreed with the Governor that other issues were higher priorities than the territory’s status, disagreeing with Committee Chairman Wyden.