Decolonization Models for America’s Last Colony: Puerto Rico

A Federal Plebiscite—so Close Yet so Far

216 A Federal Plebiscite—so Close Yet so Far February 25, 2010 On January 17 , 1989, Governor Rafael Hernández-Colón (Popular Democratic Party), Baltasar Corrada-del-Río, afterward replaced in the initiative by Carlos Romero-Barceló (New Progressive Party), and Rubén Berríos (Puerto Rican Independence Party) cosigned and sent a letter and joint declaration to the colonial power requesting that a plebiscite be held on Puerto Rico’s political status. On February 9, in his first address to Congress, President George H. W. Bush endorsed statehood for Puerto Rico and urged Congress to take the necessary steps to enable Puerto Ricans to decide their status by plebiscite. Senator Bennett Johnston (D-LA), the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over all matters regarding territories such as Puerto Rico, assumed the leadership of the process. The committee found that should independence prevail, the Puerto Ricans who wanted to do so would retain their US citizenship: “Nothing shall affect the citizenship of any person born prior to the date of the ratification.” It also determined that under independence all acquired benefits (Social Security, veterans’ and pension benefits) would continue in perpetuity because they had been contributed by the citizens and employers without regard to the place of residence of the citizen. The committee also decided that under independence all federal programs would continue operating until the end of the fiscal year, at which time they would become grants, payable every year for the following nine years. A Federal Plebiscite—so Close Yet so Far  217 [The committee] also confirmed the spirit of an agreement between sovereign nations “to affect a smooth and fair transition for the new Republic of Puerto Rico with a minimum of economic disruption, and to promote the development of a viable economy in the new Republic of Puerto Rico.” After months of public hearings, the House of Representatives unanimously approved a version of the bill that eliminated its self-executing character. The Senate committee voted on the bill, also having eliminated the self-execution condition because there was no consensus for committing to granting statehood to Puerto Rico, in case that should be the winning formula in the plebiscite. Just hours before the vote took place, President Bush called on the committee to approve a plebiscite. Though this effort was supported by all the political leaders of Puerto Rico and by the US president and had received a unanimous vote in the House of Representatives, Senate Bill 244, introduced by Senators Johnston (D–LA) and Malcolm Wallop (R–WY), died [in committee ] on February 27, 1991, when it failed to break a tie of ten to ten. Seven Republican senators and three Democrats voted against the bill. Some of the senators who voted for the bill said they had done so as a courtesy to Johnston, but that they would not necessarily vote for the bill on the Senate floor. The most important objection was the opposition to statehood, [an opposition] for which the New York Times gave three primary reasons: the high cost of the federal assistance that the new state would require; the new delegation in Congress, which would be mostly Democratic and larger than the delegations of almost half of the states; and revival of the proposal for statehood for Washington, DC. In 1991, both Puerto Rico and the United States were in a much better economic situation than at present. Puerto Rico had the [US Internal Revenue Code Section] 936 companies, and the United States did not have a deficit in the trillions of dollars. Since then, the Senate has not discussed the matter of Puerto Rico’s status, not even in 1998, when the House of Representatives passed the Young bill [with a vote of] 209 to 208. [HR 856 was introduced by Representative Don Young (R–AL), calling for a status plebiscite in Puerto Rico.] 218  Newspaper Columns The results of the local plebiscites of 1967, 1993, and 1998—two of them won by a formula that called for more powers for the commonwealth— have been ignored by Congress. It is unfortunate that we continue in a vortex of confusion, evaluating status alternatives that are unacceptable to the colonial power. In 1991, it was made clear that statehood is not an option, and, after we lost our valuable strategic military position, a commonwealth with more powers is not an option either...