Order Code RL32933
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Political Status of Puerto Rico: Background,
Options, and Issues in the 109th Congress
May 25, 2005
Keith Bea
Specialist, American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options and Issues in
the 109th Congress
Summary
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has a unique history as a part of the United
States. United States suzerainty over Puerto Rico originated with the acquisition of
the islands in 1898 after the conclusion of the Spanish-American War. For decades,
the federal government administered government operations in Puerto Rico through
military liaisons or civilian officials appointed by the President. Legislation enacted
by Congress in 1950 (P.L. 81-600) and in 1952 (P.L. 82-447) granted Puerto Rico
authority to establish a republican form of local government through a constitution
approved by the citizens of Puerto Rico and the Congress in 1952.
Puerto Rico remains subject to congressional jurisdiction under the Territorial
Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under this authority, Congress has passed
legislation that governs elements of Puerto Rico’s relationship to the United States.
For example, residents of Puerto Rico hold U.S. citizenship, serve in the military, are
represented in the House of Representatives by a Resident Commissioner elected to
a four-year term who does not have privileges to vote on the floor of the House, are
subject to federal laws and are beneficiaries of federal aid as approved by Congress,
do not vote in national elections, and pay no federal income tax.
While these and other aspects of the relationship of Puerto Rico to the United
States are matters of record, other elements of the relationship have been and
continue to be subject to debate by some officials and analysts. Some contend that
the Commonwealth has a special status outside the Territorial Clause that derives
from 1950 legislation “in the nature of a compact” agreed to by the people of Puerto
Rico and Congress, as well as from declarations made to the United Nations in the
1950s. Also, certain federal court rulings and statements by past presidents buttress
claims to special status. Such advocates contend that the current political status of
the Commonwealth, perhaps with enhancements, remains a viable option for the
future. Others argue that the commonwealth status is (or should be) only a temporary
fix to a problem to be resolved in favor of other permanent non-colonial and non-
territorial solutions — either statehood or independence as a foreign nation, the latter
possibly negotiated with formal ties in certain policy areas.
For many years, some Members of Congress, elected representatives of Puerto
Rico, federal administration officials, and interested members of the public have
discussed options for reconsidering the political status of Puerto Rico. Legislation
recently passed by the Puerto Rican legislature may be one factor that initiates
renewed congressional attention on the political status issue. A White House task
force is expected to release a report in 2005 that may serve as another catalyst for
change.
This report, which will be updated as events warrant, provides background
information on the political status of the commonwealth and congressional actions
taken over the past two decades, summarizes issues that might be a factor in
congressional debate, and reviews possible options.

Contents
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background on the Commonwealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Summary of Federal Activity Since 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
In Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
In the Executive Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Overview of Pertinent Activity in the Commonwealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Legislative Authorization for a 2005 Referendum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Past Referenda and Plebiscite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Issues of Debate on Political Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Process Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Definitions of Status Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Effect on the U.S. Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A: Brief Chronology of Status Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix B: Congressional Activity on Puerto Rico’s Political Status,
1989 - 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Summary of Legislative Debates and Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
101st Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
102nd Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
103rd Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
104th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
105th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
List of Tables
Table 1. Puerto Rico Status Votes in Plebiscites and Referendum,
1967 - 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table A-1. Significant Political Status Events for the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, 1898-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table B-1. Status Legislation, 1989-1998: Summary Information . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table B-2. Status Legislation, 1989-1998: Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table B-3. Status Legislation, 1989-1998: Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table B-4. Status Legislation, 1989-1998: Substantive Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Background,
Options, and Issues in the 109th Congress
Recent Developments
Two developments — one involving the government of Puerto Rico and the
other reportedly underway in the White House — may renew congressional attention
to the political status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its relationship with
the United States. First, in March and April of 2005, the legislature of Puerto Rico
debated and approved legislation that included a “demand” that the President and the
U.S. Congress “express their commitment to respond” to calls to resolve the issue of
the political status of the commonwealth. The legislation would have authorized a
referendum to be held on July 10, 2005, in Puerto Rico. However, the Governor
vetoed the legislation on April 10, 2005. News reports indicate that the Governor
and members of the legislature continue to debate other legislative options. The
legislature approved a concurrent resolution in April 2005 that petitions Congress
and the President to establish a method by which the citizens of Puerto Rico can
select a relationship with the United States “from among fully democratic, non-
territorial and non-colonial alternatives.”
Second, the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, established in the
last years of the Clinton Administration and reconfigured by President Bush,
reportedly will produce a report in 2005 on political status options for Puerto Rico.
The executive order that established the Task Force requires that members of the
Task Force “ensure official attention to and facilitate action on” status proposals and
advise the President and Congress on such matters.
Background on the Commonwealth
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which lies approximately 1,000 miles
southeast of Florida, comprises four larger islands (Culebra, Mona, Vieques, and
Puerto Rico) and numerous smaller islands in the Greater Antilles. Their total land
area is roughly 3,500 square miles. The United States has exercised suzerainty over
Puerto Rico since 1898.1
More than 50 years ago, Congress, President Truman, and the people of Puerto
Rico established the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in a multi-step process. First,
in 1950, the 81st Congress enacted and President Truman approved legislation
“adopted in the nature of a compact” that authorized the convening of a constitutional
1 Refer to Appendix A of this report for a chronology of the entities and authorities that
governed Puerto Rico from 1898 to the present.

CRS-2
convention to develop the first constitution for the governance of Puerto Rico.2
Second, voters approved the initiation of the process through a referendum. Third,
voters elected delegates to the constitutional convention in 1951; the delegates
worked on the document throughout the year. Fourth, the product of the convention,
a constitution that established the structure and operation of a republican form of
self-government, was approved by the voters in Puerto Rico and submitted to
Congress and President Truman early in 1952. Fifth, the 82nd Congress modified the
constitution and voted its approval of the amended version in July 1952.3 Sixth, the
Puerto Rican constitutional convention approved the modified document shortly
thereafter and Governor Luis Muñoz Marin declared the constitution in effect on July
25, 1952.4 That constitution remains in effect.
The constitution establishes a republican form of local government; contains a
bill of rights; sets out provisions related to municipal government, finance and
revenue mechanisms; and outlines the following framework for local governance:
! The Legislative Assembly consists of a 27-member Senate and a 51-
member House of Representatives.
! The executive branch is headed by a Governor elected to a four year
term. The Governor makes executive appointments (with the advice
and consent of the Senate), serves as commander-in-chief of the
militia, and exercises emergency powers.
! The authority for the judicial branch is vested in a Supreme Court (a
Chief Justice and six Associate Justices), a U.S. district court, and
other courts established by the Legislative Assembly. The Supreme
Court adopts rules for other courts, and the Chief Justice directs the
administration of the commonwealth courts.
While the approval of the commonwealth constitution marked a historic change
in the civil government for the islands, neither it, nor the public laws approved by
Congress in 1950 and 1952, revoked statutory provisions concerning the legal
relationship of Puerto Rico to the United States. This relationship is based on the
Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution.5 The statutory provisions that set forth
the conditions of the relationship are commonly referred to as the Federal Relations
2 P.L. 81-600, 64 Stat. 319, 48 U.S.C. 731b.
3 P.L. 82-447, 66 Stat. 327, 48 U.S.C. 731d.
4 According to one commission report the three changes required by Congress to the
Commonwealth Constitution “were made by Puerto Rico and approved by the Puerto Rican
Constitutional Convention and later by another referendum.” See United States-Puerto Rico
Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico, Status of Puerto Rico (Washington: GPO, 1966),
p. 36.
5 “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations
respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this
Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any
particular State.” U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2.

CRS-3
Act (FRA).6 While specified subsections of the FRA were “adopted in the nature of
a compact,” other provisions, by comparison, are excluded from the compact
reference.7 Matters still subject to congressional authority and established pursuant
to legislation include the citizenship status of residents, tax provisions, civil rights,
trade and commerce, public finance, the administration of public lands controlled by
the federal government, the application of federal law over navigable waters,
congressional representation, and the judicial process, among others. While the
commonwealth constitution provides for self-government by Puerto Ricans, Congress
continues to exercise authority over at least one internal governance matter; urban
development and slum clearance authority remains subject to federal limitations set
out in the FRA.8
International debate over the political status of Puerto Rico introduces another
element into a consideration of the islands’ relationship to the United States. From
1946 through 1953, the United States submitted annual reports to the United Nations
on its territories of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American
Samoa. The General Assembly of the United Nations agreed, in 1953, to terminate
the requirement for annual reports after considering statements by Puerto Rican and
federal officials on the establishment of the commonwealth.9 This agreement,
however, has not resolved the issue for all. As summarized by one analyst:
Few domestic issues have consistently generated as much international
debate as that of Puerto Rico. It has been on the U.N. agenda since
representatives of the Puerto Rican Nationalist party went to San Francisco for
the signing of the U.N. Charter in June, 1945. Although the U.S. government
6 48 U.S.C. 731 et seq. The FRA includes provisions originally contained in the Organic
Act of 1917 (39 Stat. 951 et seq.) that established a civil government in Puerto Rico. The
Act of 1917 is referred to as the Jones Act. This was the second organic act Congress
approved for Puerto Rico. The first was the Foraker Act approved by Congress in 1900 (31
Stat. 77 et seq.).
7 “Fully recognizing the principle of government by consent, sections 731b to 731e of this
title are not adopted in the nature of a compact so that the people of Puerto Rico may
organize a government pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption.” See 48 U.S.C.
731b.
8 For example, provisions of the FRA authorize the government of Puerto Rico to establish
authorities for slum clearance and urban redevelopment but prohibit such entities from
imposing taxes, and authorize the legislature of Puerto Rico to empower such authorities to
undertake urban renewal projects. This provision was amended by Congress in 1955,
subsequent to establishment of the constitutional government. See 48 U.S.C. 910, 910a.
Also, the FRA authorizes the Puerto Rican legislature to enable such authorities to issue
financial instruments (bonds or other obligations) to accomplish slum clearance and urban
redevelopment objectives. See 48 U.S.C. 914.
9 United Nations General Assembly, “Cessation of the Transmission of Information Under
Article 73e of the Charter in Respect of Puerto Rico,” in Resolutions Adopted by the
General Assembly at Its Eighth Session During the Period from 15 September to 9
December 1953
(New York: General Assembly Official Records, 1953), Supplement No.
17 (A/2630), pp. 25-26.

CRS-4
may have convinced itself that it removed Puerto Rico from the international
agenda in 1953, few others are convinced.10
Federal court decisions also direct and influence the debate over status. At the
beginning of the 20th century, the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions
generally referred to as the “Insular Cases.”11 In these rulings, the Court declared that
territories were not integral parts of the United States, but belonged to the nation, and
that certain fundamental rights, but not all constitutional rights, extended to residents
of the territories.12 Many analysts appear to agree with this contention.13 Some
argue, however, that other Supreme Court rulings indicate that Puerto Rico holds a
unique status in relation to the United States.14 In these cases, justices arguably have
concluded that Puerto Rico may exercise certain authority in a fashion comparable
to that of the states, as opposed to a territory.15
In summary, roughly five decades after imposing a government structure on
Puerto Rico through unilateral measures (either military rule or through federal
appointees and statutes), Congress approved a constitution for local self-government
in 1952 that was largely written by the people of Puerto Rico. On the basis of this
legislation that authorized the establishment of a local government, federal and
Puerto Rican officials sought and gained a United Nations resolution that Puerto Rico
had gained a degree of autonomy and could be considered to be self-governing. The
commonwealth constitution, however, did not materially change the relationship of
Puerto Rico to the federal government, nor did it abrogate congressional authority
under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Certain federal court rulings
have resulted in arguably conflicting decisions indicating that Puerto Rico has a
unique relationship to the United States that may be considered non-colonial. Other
decisions arguably stand in contradiction. The latter cases are seen as buttressing
contentions that Congress may legislate (and has legislated) on matters involving
10 Robert A. Pastor, “Puerto Rico as an International Issue,” in Richard J. Bloomfield, ed.,
Puerto Rico: The Search for a National Policy (Boulder: Westview Press, 1985), p. 114.
11 DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901);
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 224 (1901); Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904); Balzac
v. Porto Rico
, 258 U.S. 298 (1922).
12 See, in particular, Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 312-313 (1922). In 1975 the court
reaffirmed that Congress and the Supreme Court could determine “the personal rights to be
accorded to the inhabitants of Puerto Rico.” See Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426
U.S. 590. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress “may treat Puerto Rico differently from
states so long as there is a rational basis for its actions.” See Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S.
651 (1980).
13 For a discussion on the authority of Congress to exercise jurisdiction over Puerto Rico see
Arnold H. Leibowitz, Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States
Territorial Relations
(Boston: Kluwer/Academic pub., 1989).
14 Rep. Jamie Fuster, “Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act,” remarks in the House,
Congressional Record, vol. 136, Oct. 10, 1990, pp. 28335-36.
15 See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U.S. 41 (1970). Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic
Party,
457 U.S. 1 (1982), followed by a federal Court of Appeals decision in United States
v. Manuel Quinones
, 758 F. 2d 40 (1985). Also, Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426
U.S. 596; Córdova & Simonpietri Ins. Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 649 F2d 36 (1981).

CRS-5
governance in Puerto Rico and its relationship to the United States. Congressional
actions taken (and not taken) in recent years, however, indicate that political status
changes are most likely to occur through bilateral agreements between the people of
Puerto Rico and Congress.
Summary of Federal Activity Since 1998
In Congress. Relatively little attention has been given to the issue of the
political status of Puerto Rico in recent years. One may contend that the most
significant recent action taken by Congress occurred in 1998 when the House (105th
Congress) approved H.R. 856, which would have authorized a referendum through
which the people of Puerto Rico would select a “permanent political status” among
three options — commonwealth, separate sovereignty, or statehood. The Senate did
not act on the measure. Despite the lack of Senate action on the 1998 legislation, the
people of Puerto Rico participated in a referendum that same year in which no status
option received support from a majority of voters.
The most recent formal congressional action on the status issue occurred in
October 2000, when the House Committee on Resources held a hearing on H.R. 4751
(106th Congress). H.R. 4751 would have recognized Puerto Rico “as a nation legally
and constitutionally,” but was not acted upon. Legislation on the status issue has not
been introduced since this hearing was held. Appendix B of this report provides
information on H.R. 856 and other significant legislation considered by Congress on
the status issue since 1952.
In the Executive Branch. President Clinton issued an executive order in
2000 that established the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status.16 The task
force originally was directed to report on its actions by May 1, 2001. The deadline
provision of the executive order has been amended twice. The first amendment
extended the deadline to August 1, 2001.17 The second amendment established a
more flexible time frame, as follows.
The Task Force shall report on its actions to the President as needed, but no less
frequently than once every two years, on progress made in the determination of
Puerto Rico’s ultimate status.18
Members of the Task Force presently include the director of the Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs in the White House (Mr. Rubén Barrales) and officials
from various federal departments including Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland
16 U.S. President (Clinton), “Establishment of the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s
Status,” Executive Order 13183, Federal Register, vol. 65, Dec. 29, 2000, p. 82889.
17 U.S. President (Bush), “Amendment to Executive Order 13183, Establishment of the
President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status,” Executive Order 13209, Federal Register,
vol. 66, Apr. 30, 2001, p. 22105.
18 U.S. President (Bush), “Executive Order Amendment to Executive Order 13183,
Establishment of the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status,” Executive Order
13319, Federal Register, vol. 68, Dec. 3, 2003, p. 68233.

CRS-6
Security, and Interior.19 According to one news report, a White House spokesperson
has stated that the task force “is preparing to present its report before December of
this year.”20
In a further effort to move toward consensus on the status issue, Congress
appropriated $2.5 million in FY2001 for “objective, non-partisan citizens’ education
for a choice by voters on the islands’ future status.”21 The appropriation could not
be allocated, however, until the Elections Commission of Puerto Rico to the U.S.
House and Senate Appropriations Committees submitted an expenditure plan
developed by the three major political parties in Puerto Rico. The statute also
required that views not in agreement with the plan would have to be communicated
to Congress as well. Those funds were not expended.22
Overview of Pertinent Activity in the Commonwealth
Legislative Authorization for a 2005 Referendum. The government of
Puerto Rico is divided between those who advocate continuation of the
commonwealth status and advocates of statehood. In a narrow and contested election
held in November 2004, the voters of Puerto Rico elected Anibal Acevedo Vilá as
Governor. During the four year period immediately preceding his election the
Governor served as Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to Congress.23 The
Governor is an advocate of commonwealth status and head of the Popular
Democratic Party (PDP).
The legislature, also elected in November 2004, is dominated by elected
officials seeking statehood. In addition to approving a majority of New Progressive
Party (NPP) representatives in both chambers of the legislature, voters in Puerto Rico
elected Luis Fortuño to represent Puerto Rico in Congress as Resident
Commissioner. Mr. Fortuño ran for office as a member of the NPP.
19 The list of members is available on the White House website at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031205-6.html], visited Apr. 1, 2005.
20 “White House Task Force on Status May Conduct More Interviews in P.R.,” The San Juan
Star
, Apr. 4, 2005, p. 15.
21 P.L. 106-346, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
FY2001, 114 Stat. 1356A-47.
22 The $2.5 million was not the first appropriation approved by Congress for the purpose of
furthering status discussions. In 1989, $1.5 million was appropriated for grants to the three
main political parties in Puerto Rico for the costs associated with participating “in the
legislative process involving the future political status of Puerto Rico.” See P.L. 101-45,
Supplemental Appropriations Act for the Department of Veterans Affairs, 103 Stat. 125.
23 The Resident Commissioner, like delegates from the District of Columbia, Guam,
American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, represents his (or her) constituency in
Congress. For background on such offices, see CRS Report RL32340, Territorial Delegates
to the U.S. Congress: Current Issues and Historical Background
, by Betsy Palmer and Paul
Rundquist and CRS Report RL31856, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, by R. Eric
Petersen.

CRS-7
Through the early months of 2005, these individuals, as well as others,
reportedly worked on the compromise legislation to achieve, as one analyst
summarized, “convergence” of the disparate status opinions.24 In early April 2005,
the legislature of Puerto Rico enacted legislation authorizing a referendum to be held
on July 10, 2005. The “Act to Petition and for the Self-Determination of the People
of Puerto Rico” provides that voters cast ballots in response to the following
proposition.
We, the People of Puerto Rico, in the exercise of our right to self-determination,
demand that the President and the Congress of the United States of America,
before December 31, 2006, express their commitment to respond to the claim of
the People of Puerto Rico to solve our problem of political status from among
fully democratic options of a non-colonial and non-territorial nature.
The bill would have provided that the majority of valid votes cast that day (over
50%) would have determined the acceptance or rejection of the proposition that
called for federal action. According to news reports, the legislation embodied a
proposal developed by the Puerto Rico Independence Party, or PIP, which holds a
small minority of seats in the legislature.25
On April 10, 2005, Governor Acevedo Vilá vetoed the legislation. In letters to
the assembly leadership, the governor noted that statements made by NPP legislators
following enactment of the bill “fly in the face” of a commitment to use a constituent
assembly to address the political status issue if Congress and the White House did not
respond.26 In the closing days of April 2005, the NPP-dominated legislature
approved a concurrent resolution that did not require the governor’s signature. The
resolution petitions Congress and the President “to respond to the democratic
aspirations of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico, in order to ensure that with
all deliberate speed, they provide us with an electoral method through which we,
ourselves, may choose which shall be our political relationship with the United States
of America, if any, from among fully democratic, non-territorial and non-colonial
alternatives.” This resolution did not receive support from PDP legislators.
According to one report, officials associated with the PDP insist that the definitions
of the status options should be developed by an assembly — “We should not turn it
over to Congress to define the options. Mainly, that’s our problem....If we leave it
to Congress nothing will get approved in the way of status...”27
24 Juan M. García Passalacqua, “The Days of Convergence on Status Are Here,” The San
Juan Star
, Mar. 20, 2005, p. 70.
25 Rosario Fajardo, “Berríos Moves to Break Status Impasse,” The San Juan Star, Feb. 18,
2005, p. 5.
26 “Governor Vetoes Status Bill,” Press Release, Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico, Apr.
10, 2005.
27 Remarks of José Hernández Mayoral in Robert Friedman, “P.R. Lawmakers Push for Non-
colonial Options,” The San Juan Star, Apr. 17, 2005, p. 5.

CRS-8
Past Referenda and Plebiscite. Voters in Puerto Rico twice exercised
direct involvement in the formation of the commonwealth government. First,
pursuant to congressional directive, voters indicated support (by roughly 387,000
yeas to 119,000 nays) in 1951 for P.L. 81-600, the enabling legislation for the
development of the commonwealth constitution.28 Second, a majority of voters
expressed support in 1952 for the resultant constitution and the establishment of the
commonwealth government by an even larger margin (roughly 375,000 yeas to
83,000 nays).
Four popular votes have been held over the past five decades on the status issue.
Since establishment of the commonwealth in 1952, residents of Puerto Rico have
participated in three plebiscites and one referendum on status options.29 This section
provides summary information on the plebiscites and referendum in reverse
chronological order.
1998 Plebiscite. The most recent popular vote in Puerto Rico on status
occurred on December 13, 1998, when voters took part in a plebiscite. Five options
were listed on the ballot — “limited self-government,” “free association,”
“statehood,” “sovereignty,” and “none of the above.” A slim majority of voters in
that plebiscite selected “none of the above” (50.3%) from among the five options.
Advocates for the commonwealth option reportedly urged a vote for “none of the
above” because the commonwealth definition on the ballot “failed to recognize both
the constitutional protections afforded to our U.S. citizenship and the fact that the
relationship is based upon the mutual consent of Puerto Rico and the United
States.”30 Following an examination of the plebiscite, a congressional committee
report concluded there was a need to “continue the process of enabling the people of
Puerto Rico to implement a structured process of self-determination based on
constitutionally valid options Congress is willing to consider.”31
28 “This Act shall be submitted to the qualified voters of Puerto Rico for acceptance or
rejection through an island-wide referendum to be held in accordance with the laws of
Puerto Rico. Upon the approval of this Act, by a majority of the voters participating in such
referendum, the Legislature of Puerto Rico is authorized to call a constitutional convention
to draft a constitution for the said island of Puerto Rico.” P.L. [81]-600, Sec. 2, 64 Stat. 319.
29 Plebiscites and referenda are similar in that they are fora for voters to express their
position on policy issues. A plebiscite is a vote on matters of governance that have not
previously been considered by the legislature. A referendum is a vote on an issue that has
previously been approved by the legislature.
30 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, The Results of the 1998 Puerto Rico
Plebiscite
, Serial No. 106-A, 106th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 20.
31 Ibid, p. 7.

CRS-9
The lack of consensus in the 1998 plebiscite led some in Congress to suspend
consideration of the issue.32 In response to the inconclusive results of the plebiscite,
four Members of Congress who chair committees and a subcommittee with
jurisdiction over Puerto Rico summarized the impact of the vote as follows.
However, after almost fifty years of local constitutional government in Puerto
Rico by U.S. citizens, now the lack of majority consent to the current form of
internal self-government by those who are disenfranchised nationally, calls into
question the continued acceptability of the status quo. This problem cannot be
unilaterally resolved by the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico acting under the local
constitution, but rather, by working with the federal government which has the
sole power, as well as a duty, to change Puerto Rico’s political status into one of
full enfranchisement.33
1993 Plebiscite. In the 1992 election campaign, the NPP candidate for
Governor urged, and the legislature agreed, that a plebiscite on status be held “after
the U.S. Congress failed to approve” status legislation (H.R. 3024).34 Since
definitions on the ballot were formulated by the political parties themselves, neither
Congress nor executive branch officials intervened to ensure that the alternatives
presented to the voters would pass constitutional muster. As summarized in the
House report accompanying H.R. 3024:
The 1993 definition of “Commonwealth” failed to present the voters with status
options consistent with full self-government, and it was misleading to propose
to the voters an option which was unconstitutional and unacceptable to the
Congress in almost every respect.35
No option on the ballot in 1993 received a majority of votes. Some contend that
statehood may have suffered the greatest loss, considering the Governor and the
legislature were members of the NPP and the plebiscite itself was a major campaign
promise for the Governor.36
32 “House Narrowly Supports Puerto Rico Plebiscite; Senate Takes No Action,”
Congressional Quarterly 1998 Almanac (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1998),
pp. 13- 6 and 7. See also “Puerto Rico Political Status,” Congressional Digest, vol. 77, May
1998 (Washington: Congressional Digest Corp., 1998), pp. 142-160.
33 Reps. Don Young, Benjamin Gilman, Dan Burton, and Elton Gallegly, letter to Hon.
Charlie Rodriguez, President, Senate of Puerto Rico and Honorable Edison Misla-
Aldarondo, Speaker, Puerto Rico House of Representatives, Apr. 5, 2000.
34 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, United States-Puerto Rico Political
Status Act
, report to accompany H.R. 3024, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 107-713 Part 1,
(Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 18.
35 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, United States-Puerto Rico Political
Status Act
, report to accompany H.R. 3024, H.Rept. 104-713, Part 1, 104th Cong., 2nd sess.
(Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 19.
36 For a discussion of the 1993 plebiscite and lessons learned see the following articles:
Juan M. Garcia Passalacqua, “The 1993 Plebiscite in Puerto Rico: A First Step to
Decolonization?,” Current History, vol. 93, Mar. 1994, pp. 103-107; José O. Díaz, “Puerto
Rico, the United States, and the 1993 Referendum on Political Status,” Latin American
(continued...)

CRS-10
1991 Referendum. In September 1991, the Puerto Rican legislature approved
legislation that required a referendum be held on December 8, 1991. The voters in
the referendum were asked to vote on self-determination or rights that would be
incorporated into the commonwealth constitution, if the majority of voters approved.
The specific proposals included in the referendum included rights to determine
the status of Puerto Rico without being subject to the plenary powers of Congress,
guarantees of the continuance of Puerto Rico’s culture (including official use of the
Spanish language and retention of a separate Olympic team), and a guarantee of U.S.
citizenship based on constitutional, not statutory, authority. Both the PDP and the
PIP urged a “yes” vote.
A majority of voters (53%) cast ballots against the proposal. Some contended
that the vote was an indirect step to block statehood. Others perceived the rejection
to reflect dissatisfaction with the Governor. Another explanation offered for the vote
is that some cast their ballots out of fear that a “yes” vote would result in a further
degradation of federal benefits and the loss of U.S. citizenship.
1967 Plebiscite. Following the recommendation of the Commission on the
Status of Puerto Rico (established pursuant to P.L. 88-271), the government of Puerto
Rico organized a popular vote on the status options in July 1967. The
commonwealth option received a majority of the votes. Members of the
independence and statehood party reportedly boycotted the plebiscite.37 One political
analyst contended that the 1967 plebiscite “was tainted by blatant interference by
United States intelligence agencies documented and denounced as `hanky-panky’”
in a White House memorandum issued during the Carter presidency.38 Another
author commented, as follows, that all parties claimed victory.
Each status group celebrated the results of the plebiscite: the
independentists because their boycott had been so effective; commonwealth,
because of their clear majority; and statehood because of their gains.39
Table 1, below, summarizes the results of those votes in the four votes held
since 1952 in Puerto Rico.
36 (...continued)
Research Review, vol. 30, 1995, pp. 203-211.
37 Opposition to the plebiscite is discussed in Henry Wells, The Modernization of Puerto
Rico: A Political Study of Changing Values and Institutions
(Cambridge, Harvard University
Press, 1969), p. 262. C. Arthur Borg, “The Problem of Puerto Rico’s Political Status,
Revista del Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, vol. 37, Aug. 1976, p. 493.
38 Juan M. Garcia Passalacqua, “The 1993 Plebiscite in Puerto Rico: A First Step to
Decolonization?,” Current History, vol. 93, Mar. 1994, p. 106.
39 Roberta Ann Johnson, Puerto Rico: Commonwealth or Colony? (New York: Praeger
Special Studies, 1980), p. 138.

CRS-11
Table 1. Puerto Rico Status Votes in Plebiscites and
Referendum, 1967 - 1998
Date/ballot options
Number of votesa
Results by percentb
Dec. 13, 1998c
None of the above [option
five]
787,900
50.3%
Statehood [option three]
127,157
46.5%
Sovereignty [option four]
39,838
2.5%
Free association [option
two]
4,536
0.1%
Limited self-government
[option one]
993
0.1%
[Total votes]
1,561,424
71.3% turnout
Nov. 14, 1993d
Commonwealth
826,326
48.6%
Statehood
788,296
46.3%
Independence
75,620
4.4%
[Total votes]
1,700,000
73.5% turnout
Dec. 8, 1991e
In favor of the reclamation
of democratic rights (Yes)
559,163
45.4%
Against the reclamation of
democratic rights (No)
660,267
53.61%
[Total votes]
1,231,522
60.0% turnout
July 23, 1967f
Commonwealth
425,079
60.5%
Statehood
273,315
38.9%
Independence
0.6%
[Total votes]
702,512
65.8% turnout
a. Table excludes blank or null and void ballots.
b. Total vote percent indicates the percent turnout among all registered voters, as follows: 1967 -
1,067,000; 1991 - 2,052,690.
c. Results taken from U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, The Results of the 1998 Puerto
Rico Plebiscite
, committee print, 106th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 10.
d. Results taken from Ivonne Garcia, “Final Status Plebiscite Results Released,” The San Juan Star,
Dec. 10, 1993, p. 12.

CRS-12
e. Results taken from Representative Robert J. Lagomarsino, “Certification of Puerto Rico
Referendum Results,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 138, Feb. 7, 1992, p. 2141.
A “yes” vote, generally urged by commonwealth and independence supporters, expressed support for
legislation that would have amended the Constitution to support the right of Puerto Ricans to
determine a political status not subordinated to Congress and respective of the unique culture and
identity of Puerto Rico. A “no” vote, generally urged by statehood supporters, rejected the proposed
constitutional amendment.
f. Arturo Morales Carrion, Puerto Rico: A Political and Cultural History, (New York: W.W. Norton
& Co., Inc., 1983), p. 306. [Total number of registered voters was 1,067,000, according to Surendra
Bhana, The United States and the Development of the Puerto Rican Status Question, 1936-1968,
(Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas, 1975), p. 185.
Issues of Debate on Political Status
The establishment of the commonwealth government in 1952 did not resolve all
questions on the political status of Puerto Rico. Some contend that Puerto Rico
under commonwealth status remains a territory of the United States, subject to
congressional authority under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Others
view the Commonwealth to be a part of the United States that enjoys a unique
relationship to the federal government, with some aspects or indications of separate
sovereignty.40 Commonwealth status, it is argued, is a temporary political status that
falls short of two permanent status options — statehood or independence as a
sovereign nation. Continuation or even enhancement of commonwealth status, for
some, means that Puerto Rico remains subject to the Territorial Clause. Others
disagree, noting that commonwealth can be a permanent status option that requires
adjustments (“enhancements”) over time.41
If Members of the 109th Congress elect to consider legislation on the political
status of Puerto Rico, a number of policy issues, including the following, might be
raised.
! What process will be used to consider the political status options?
! What are definitions of the status options?
40 Indications that Puerto Rico is envisioned to have sovereignty separate from the United
States include the presence of a Puerto Rican National Olympic Committee distinct from the
United States (see [http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/noc/index_uk.asp?id_assoc=9],
visited Apr. 1, 2005), and the tax treatment of corporations and individuals in Puerto Rico.
For information on the latter, see CRS Report RL32708, Federal Taxes and the U.S.
Territories: An Overview
, by David L. Brumbaugh. Also, some officials, including
Governor Anibal Acevedo Vilá, reportedly refer to Puerto Rico as a “country.” See, for
example, Rosario Fajardo, “AAV, Fortuño Agree on Need to Move Status Issue,” The San
Juan Star
, Feb. 15, 2005, p. 4. “`I believe the moment has come for the country to have the
opportunity of choosing between different alternatives,’ Acevedo Vilá said.”
41 The report by the President’s Task Force, expected in 2005, may be an important element
in the resolution of the debate over the definitions of the status options and assessments of
the extent to which the options are non-territorial, non-colonial, and constitutional.

CRS-13
! What impact would statehood have on the structure and operations
of the U.S. Congress?
! What associated policy matters might be raised if Congress debates
status?
These issues are discussed below.
Process Options. Past congressional debate and discussions on the political
status of Puerto Rico have focused not only on the end result (“Will the status
change, and if so, what will it be?”), but also on the process by which the debate
proceeds. The process used to identify, discuss, and vote on status options would
likely be established before debate begins on the “final” status options. As discussed
above, the veto of the legislation recently approved by the Puerto Rican legislature
and the history of popular votes on status proposals indicates that obstacles on
process have always been a part of the status debate.
The bills considered by the Puerto Rican legislature in 2005 focused on the first
steps of the process, a call from the people of Puerto Rico for a federal response to
the status issue. The parties in Puerto Rico could not reach consensus on that first
step; agreement arguably is necessary because the next steps (definition of terms, the
order in which the people and officials of Puerto Rico, Congress, and the White
House act on proposals) will be even more complex. Neither the U.S. Constitution
nor precedents establish firm boundaries for the resolution of controversies
concerning the political status of a territory of the United States. Throughout the
history of the United States, different processes have been used to determine whether
a territory affiliated with the United States changes its status to statehood,
independence with legal ties of free association, or a sovereign nation, or remains a
territory.
Broad outlines of expected actions may be discerned. The process of debate
involves assessments of the position of the affected population, development of a
means by which the preferences of the population are presented to Congress, and the
consideration of legislative mechanisms through which Congress and the President
act on the status options. Although the process for resolving the political status
question varies, one element remains common throughout the nation’s history —
Congress exercises an essential role in the process and resolves (or decides not to
resolve) the question.
Brief summaries of some of the processes used in the past to resolve political
status issues follow. These summaries do not begin to exhaust or explore the full
range of issues aired during the debate on political status, but are offered as
examples to provide basic information on historical precedents.

CRS-14
Paths to Statehood. History indicates that the transition of a territory to
statehood may involve several processes.42 The debate on some statehood proposals
took many years and involved great strife and loss of life. The process for other
states was more straightforward. One team of researchers specifically tasked to look
at the issue from the perspective of the status debate on Puerto Rico summarized the
history through an exploration of six “paths.”43 The report issued by this team
categorized the following paths taken by the former colonies, territories, or the
republic:
(1) the coalescence of the first 13 colonies that wrote their own constitutions;44
(2) unilateral action in territories to present an organized “state” to Congress
(including electing representatives to Congress) for consideration to be admitted to
the Union, also known as the “Tennessee plan;”45
(3) annexation of an independent republic;46
(4) creation of new states from existing states;47
(5) development of a state constitution without congressional support;48 and
(6) congressional enactment of enabling legislation.49
It might be argued that other “paths” to statehood could be identified, or other
configurations of the above might be developed. For example, options (2) and (5)
might be considered in concert since they both represent states admitted to the union
primarily through initiatives undertaken by residents of the future states with little or
42 The U.S. Constitution provides for the admission of new states “by the Congress into this
Union,” but does not specify a process to be followed; the pertinent constitutional provision
proscribes certain actions from being taken, i.e., no state formed within another, by the
conjoining of two or more or parts without consent of legislatures and Congress. See U.S.
Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 1.
43 Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, Breakthrough from Colonialism: An
Interdisciplinary Study of Statehood
(Editora Corripio, C. Por A., Dominican Republic:
1984), pp. 1207-1226.
44 Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia.
45 Tennessee, Michigan, Iowa, California (some contend that California entered as an
independent republic operating under military government rule), Oregon, Kansas, and
Alaska.
46 Texas.
47 Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia.
48 Arkansas, Florida, Wyoming, Idaho, and Hawaii.
49 Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Washington, Utah,
Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico.

CRS-15
no congressional action. Also, a report compiled by contractors for a commission on
Alaska’s statehood identified two basic paths, one stemming from congressional
initiatives and the other from territorial forces. The report summarizes these paths
as follows:
Initially, as provided in the Northwest Ordinance, Congress would authorize a
territory to initiate the steps toward statehood. Once the territory drafted a
constitution and set up a government, the Congress would pass a second statute
admitting the territory as a state. On the other hand, the respective territory
would present itself to the Congress as ready for statehood, thus leaving out the
step in which the Congress passed the enabling act or gave the territory the go-
ahead to start meeting the requirements of statehood.50
Development of a Sovereign Identity. Some territories affiliated with the
United States eventually became sovereign nations after considerable congressional
debate and years of action (or inaction). For example, the Philippine Islands gained
independence in 1946 after decades of negotiations between Filipino officials and
Congress, and years after Congress passed legislation in 1934 “To provide for the
complete independence of the Philippine Islands, to provide for the adoption of a
constitution and a form of government for the Philippine Islands, and for other
purposes.”51 In essence, for roughly 50 years, the federal government exercised
unilateral authority in developing and modifying the political status of the
Philippines, largely through legislation that established trade policies, provided
financial assistance, placed restrictions on immigration, established a commonwealth
government with limited powers, and established governance policies on the
islands.52 As summarized by one author:
Although the Independence Act had provided that the provisions of the act would
not take effect “until accepted by concurrent resolution of the Philippine
Legislature or by a convention called for the purpose of passing upon that
question,” which suggested a bilateral agreement, these changes were made
unilaterally.53
Freely Associated State Negotiations. The Strategic Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, associated with the United States, was established through the United
Nations in 1947 at the close of World War II. The federal government exercised
administrative control over the islands for decades through the Department of the
50 Birch, Horton, Bittner, and Monroe, PC, The Concept of Statehood within the American
Federal System
(Attorneys at Law, Anchorage: Prepared under contract for the Alaska
Statehood Commission, 1981), p. 70.
51 P.L. 73-127, 48 Stat. 456 et seq. See U.S. President (Roosevelt), Proclamation No. 2695,
11 F.R. 7517, 60 Stat. 1352.
52 The Independence Act of 1934 retained selected federal control over the Philippines. For
example, the statute directed the President to withdraw all right of possession and
sovereignty “(except such naval reservations and fueling stations as are reserved under
section 5)” and maintained the force of federal law “Except as in this Act otherwise
provided...until altered” by the commonwealth government of the islands or by Congress.
53 Arnold H. Leibowitz, Colonial Emancipation in the Pacific and the Caribbean: A Legal
and Political Analysis
(New York: Praeger, 1976), p. 25.

CRS-16
Navy, and subsequently through the Department of the Interior. The Future Political
Status Commission established by the Congress of Micronesia (established by the
U.S. Congress in 1964) considered political status options in the 1960s and
recommended that negotiations commence on compacts of free association. Such
compacts recognize that independent nations do not fall under the suzerainty of the
United States but are closely allied in terms specified in the compacts. In order to
negotiate such compacts, the residents of the islands organized into three separate
states — the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of Palau, and the
Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). Through constitutional conventions, the
elected officials developed and ratified separate constitutions and established
republican governments headed by elected officials. After assuming full
responsibility for the islands’ internal governance, U.S. and island officials spent
years negotiating the terms of the compacts of free association. Two of those
compacts, for FSM and the RMI, were recently renegotiated. The compact with
Palau is scheduled to be renegotiated in 2007.54
Current Debate over the Process in Puerto Rico. Much of the debate
among Puerto Rico’s officials currently centers around two alternative mechanisms
for discussing and resolving the status options. One, advocated by the governor and
the PDP, is a constituent assembly. The members of the assembly would be elected
by the people of Puerto Rico and would be charged with developing the status
options to be offered to the people of Puerto Rico and to Congress.55 Members of the
assembly, pursuant to the legislation that had been introduced by the Governor,
would “establish a dialogue” with the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status
and submit a report to the President and to Congress on the proposals for the political
relationship of Puerto Rico to the United States.56 The report of the assembly,
according to the proposal, “must represent alternatives to overcome all vestiges of
colonialism” and “establish clearly the non-territorial nature of the future status of
Puerto Rico.”57 Left unaddressed, to the extent known, is the matter of the
constitutionality of the alternatives that might be included in the report.
54 Background information obtained from FSM Representative Office, The Federated States
of Micronesia
(Washington: 1983), available from the author. For information on the
renegotiated Compacts of Free Association see CRS Report RL31737, The Marshall Islands
and Micronesia: Amendments to the Compact of Free Association with the United States
,
by Thomas Lum.
55 Governor Acevedo Vilá wrote to President Bush that the legislation he introduced would
provide for a referendum on July 10, 2005, that would present two options to the voters:
first, “a formal request to the United States Congress to authorize a federally mandated
plebiscite” that would enable voters to choose among the commonwealth, statehood, and
independence alternatives “as defined by Congress;” or second, to approve the convening
of a Constitutional Assembly on Status. Governor Acevedo Vilá, letter to President George
W. Bush, Feb. 11, 2005.
56 Art. 7.1 of legislation “To implement a Referendum to determine the procedural
mechanism through which to determine future changes regarding the political status of
Puerto Rico and the relationship between the people of Puerto Rico and the United States,”
available from the author.
57 Ibid.

CRS-17
The other option, reportedly supported by the majority of the legislature and the
current Resident Commissioner, called for a referendum to be held in 2005 in Puerto
Rico. If, under the proposal, a majority of the voters had approved the convening of
a referendum, the process of establishing federally defined status options would have
begun. Those options developed by federal officials would then have been presented
to the people of Puerto Rico for their consideration. A plebiscite would then have
been held before July 1, 2007, on those options.58
As noted above, the final legislation approved by the NPP-led Puerto Rican
legislature was reportedly based upon a PIP proposal and included a PDP-supported
amendment. According to the bill, if Congress had not reacted within 90 days of the
deadline (December 31, 2006), the Puerto Rican legislature would have been
“committed to legislate” to enable the people of Puerto Rico to choose the procedural
mechanism to be used to further the status discussions. The mechanisms mentioned
in the legislation included, but were not limited to, “a Constitutional Convention on
Status, or a petition for a plebiscite with federal approval.”59
The decision by the Governor to veto the legislation and, at least temporarily,
halt formal discussion of the process, means that many questions remain unanswered.
Some questions that might be raised on the process to be used in resolving the
political status issue should Congress take up the status debate, include the following:
! Would the legislation be self-executing? That is, would Congress
enact legislation that requires no further congressional action once
the people of Puerto Rico reach consensus on a status option?
! If the Puerto Rican legislature and Governor Acevedo Vilá remain
unable to reach agreement on legislation to initiate the process,
would Congress respond to a concurrent resolution adopted solely
by the legislature?60
! Would a plurality or majority of voters be required to indicate
support for a final status option? Would legislation considered by
the 109th Congress require that a specified threshold of support be
evident among voters?
! Would Puerto Ricans who reside on the mainland or in other parts
of the United States besides Puerto Rico be eligible to vote on the
status proposal?
58 Rosario Fajardo, “AAV, Fortuño Agree on Need to Move Status Issue,” The San Juan
Star
, Feb. 15, 2005, p. 4.
59 Ibid., Sec. 2.
60 On January 23, 1997, the legislature enacted Concurrent Resolution 2, “requesting
Congress to sponsor a vote based on definitions it would be willing to consider if approved
by voters.” See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Puerto
Rico Status
, workshop, Apr. 2, 1998, 105th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1998), p. 3.

CRS-18
! At what stage (or stages) in the decisionmaking process would the
people of Puerto Rico participate? In the election of officials
specifically tasked with resolving the issue? In establishing the
status definitions? In voting on the definitions established by others,
including federal officials? In a referendum on legislation approved
by the Puerto Rican legislature or by Congress?
Definitions of Status Options. Definitions, or more specifically, the lack
of definitions of the political status options for Puerto Rico compound the complexity
of the debate. Standard definitions of the terms do not exist. Some argue that
Congress should define the terms. Others, however, advocate direct involvement by
the people of Puerto Rico, or their elected leaders, in setting the definitions. The
history of debate, particularly the 1998 plebiscite, indicates that in the absence of
defined status options that are constitutionally valid, the debate over status yields few
or no conclusive results.61
Brief summaries of aspects of each status option follow in order to provide basic
information on the options. The information below does not represent official
descriptions of status options, but is provided only to give general background
information. The options are presented in alphabetic order.
Commonwealth. The commonwealth option represents a continuation of the
current status of Puerto Rico. The territorial clause of the United States Constitution
empowers Congress with the authority to regulate territories.62 Commonwealth status
for Puerto Rico is based on statutory provisions63 and the Constitution of Puerto Rico
that established a republican form of self-government. Under current federal law,
residents of Puerto Rico maintain U.S. citizenship that arguably reflects some degree
of autonomy (national identity) that enables the island to retain a cultural spirit
separate from the United States.64 Some support an enhanced or “new”
commonwealth option and seek changes in the current relationship to increase the
61 Constitutional implications of three status options (“new commonwealth,” statehood, and
independence) were reviewed by the Department of Justice in response to a congressional
request. See Robert Raben, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, letter to The
Honorable Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Jan. 18, 2001. Hereafter cited as Raben Letter.
62 U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 3.
63 Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, P.L. 81-600, 64 Stat. 319.
64 In 1992, President George H.W. Bush noted the unique nature of the relationship of the
commonwealth to the United States as follows: “Because Puerto Rico’s degree of
constitutional self-government, population, and size set it apart from other areas also subject
to federal jurisdiction under Article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution, I hereby
direct all federal departments, agencies, and officials, to the extent consistent with the
Constitution and the laws of the United States, hence-forward to treat Puerto Rico
administratively as if it were a state, except insofar as doing so with respect to an existing
federal program or activity would increase or decrease federal receipts or expenditures, or
would seriously disrupt the operation of such program or activity.” U.S. President (Bush),
“Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,” Federal Register,
vol. 57, Dec. 2, 1992, p. 57093.

CRS-19
autonomy of Puerto Rico. Aspects of enhanced commonwealth considered but
rejected by Congress in 1991 and 2001 included providing the government of Puerto
Rico authority to certify that certain federal laws would not be applicable to the
commonwealth, mandating that the President consult with the Governor on
appointments to federal offices in Puerto Rico that require Senate approval,
recognition of a permanent relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States
that cannot be unilaterally changed, and authority to establish economic relationships
with other nations.65 Concepts associated with enhanced or new commonwealth have
not been published in 2005.
Free Association. This option would establish Puerto Rico as a sovereign
nation separate from the United States.66 Free association would have to be preceded
by recognition that Puerto Rico is a self-governing sovereign nation not part of the
United States, because compacts of free association are legal documents between
sovereign nations. Free association could be accompanied by a transition period in
which the United States would continue to administer certain services and assistance
to the island for a period of time specified in the compact. Free association could be
annulled at any time by either nation, and the status would revert to the current
commonwealth relationship, subject to further congressional legislation.
Negotiations over free association would likely decide issues of trade, defense,
currency, and economic aid.
Independence. Some advocates of independence contend that the cultural
identity of Puerto Ricans, and other factors, justify independence. As residents of a
sovereign independent nation, Puerto Ricans could develop closer ties to Caribbean
nations, but would likely be forced to choose between citizenship in the United States
or in Puerto Rico.67 The current unrestricted travel between the United States and the
island might end, as would federal benefits (unless specified in the enabling
legislation). Puerto Rico would, as a sovereign nation, develop its own economy,
form of government, and complete national identity.
65 Title IV, S. 244, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Political Status of Puerto Rico, hearing on S. 244, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 30 and Feb.
7, 1991 (Washington: GPO, 1991), pp. 73-101. See also H.R. 4751, 106th Congress. The
Department of Justice (Raben Letter) found that certain aspects of a “New Commonwealth”
proposal described in PDP platform documents could be, or are: “constitutionally
unenforceable” or flawed (mutual consent provisions, p. 8-10 and delegation of powers, p.
14); of uncertain legality (statutory citizenship, p. 11 and international agreements, p. 13);
and possibly subject to constitutional limits (Resident Commissioner authority, p. 12).
66 For a discussion of the free association status of former territories of the United States
located in the Pacific Ocean, see CRS Report RL31737, The Marshall Islands and
Micronesia: Amendments to the Compact of Free Association with the United States
, by
Thomas Lum.
67 According to the Department of Justice case law is not determinative as to whether
citizenship would be retained if Puerto Rico gained independence. See Raben Letter, p. 4.

CRS-20
Statehood. Advocates of statehood contend that the full rights and
responsibilities of citizenship should be granted residents of Puerto Rico. Political
stability, particularly as an economic development tool, is seen by some to be one
significant advantage of statehood. As residents of a state, Puerto Ricans would be
entitled to full representation in Congress, would be subject to income taxes, and
would be eligible to receive federal assistance like that provided to all of the states.68
Opponents argue that statehood would result in a loss of national identity.
Effect on the U.S. Congress. If Puerto Rico were to be granted statehood,
one of the most significant issues would be the impact of the 51st state on the
organization and operation of Congress. Two new senators, and possibly six
representatives (based on the 2000 census), could be added to the chambers,
respectively. Based on past precedent, congressional leaders might select among
three options — (1) temporarily increasing the size of the House until the next
census, (2) permanently increasing the size of the House, or (3) subtracting
congressional seats from other states and assigning those seats to Puerto Rico.69
Other Issues. If political status legislation were debated in Congress, the
following issues, previously raised in discussions, might be subject to congressional
scrutiny again.
Language Requirement. The Federal Relations Act provision that
establishes the qualification requirements for the Resident Commissioner specifies
that eligible candidates must “read and write the English language.”70 During the
1998 House debate on H.R. 856 an amendment was adopted that would have
established an English language requirement if Puerto Rico were admitted as a
state.71 See Table B-4 on page 33 of this report for the reference to the 1998
amendment on the English language requirement. There is precedent for a language
requirement to be attached to a statehood proposal. The admission of three states —
Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona — was contingent upon such a requirement.72
68 The Department of Justice noted that, once granted statehood, Puerto Rico could not
maintain differential tax treatment, its representation in Congress would affect that of the
other states, and its laws and constitution might be preempted by federal statutes. See
Raben Letter, p. 2-3.
69 Information taken from CRS Report RS21151, Puerto Rican Statehood: Effects on House
Apportionment
, by David C. Huckabee.
70 48 U.S.C. 892.
71 Rep. Gerald Solomon, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
144, Mar. 4, 1998, pp. H802-H812. An amendment designating Spanish as the official
language of Puerto Rico was rejected during the same debate.
72 Joseph E. Fallon, “Federal Policy and U.S. Territories: The Political Restructuring of the
United States of America,” Pacific Affairs, vol. 64, spring 1991, p. 34.

CRS-21
Citizenship. In 1917 Congress extended citizenship to “citizens” of Puerto
Rico who were not citizens of foreign countries.73 Persons born in Puerto Rico after
1941 are citizens of the United States at birth, again through federal statute.74 Such
“statutory” citizenship differs from “constitutional” citizenship that automatically
confers upon persons born in the United States (as opposed to the areas subject to the
territories clause).75 If the political status of Puerto Rico changes to one of
independent sovereignty, Congress might elect to modify the citizenship status of
descendants of the people of Puerto Rico by changing the statute, but only if such
legislation meets a “rational basis” test consistent with the due process clause of the
U.S. Constitution.76 See Table B-4 on page 33 of this report for the reference to the
1998 amendment on citizenship. Some contend that dual citizenship is an option.
Former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh has spoken in opposition to this option
if Puerto Rico becomes a sovereign nation.77 Extensive debate on the citizenship
issue has been published.78
Transition Period. If the political status of Puerto Rico changes from its
current commonwealth status, Congress might elect to establish a transition period
during which certain elements are phased into place. Policy matters previously
included in such transition periods include, for statehood: gradual modification of
tax liability, language requirements, impact of representation on Congress, and
others. If Puerto Rico gains independence Congress might elect to consider a period
of time in which federal financial assistance is provided, strategic defense agreements
are reached, and others.
73 P.L. 64-368, 39 Stat. 953.
74 “All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941,
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico
or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not
citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United
States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941,
and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.”
8 U.S.C. 1402.
75 “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” U.S. Const.,
Amendment XIV, Sec. 1.
76 See Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980).
77 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Political Status of
Puerto Rico
, hearings on S. 244, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 7, 1991 (Washington: GPO,
1991), pp. 206-207. See also U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Separate Sovereignty or Independence for Puerto Rico, hearing, 105th Cong., 2nd
sess., June 23, 1998 (Washington: GPO, 1998), pp. 10-15, 21-30.
78 See, for example, John L.A. de Passalacqua, “The Involuntary Loss of United States
Citizenship of Puerto Ricans Upon Accession to Independence by Puerto Rico,” Denver
Journal of International Law and Policy
, vol. 19, fall 1990, pp. 139-161; Rep. Ron de
Lugo, “Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record,
vol. 136, Oct. 10, 1990, pp. 28331-8332, 28336; José Julián Alvarez González, “The
Empire Strikes Out: Congressional Ruminations on the Citizenship Status of Puerto Ricans,”
Harvard Journal on Legislation, vol. 27, summer 1990, pp. 309-365.

CRS-22
Conclusion
Enactment of political status legislation by the legislature of Puerto Rico
constitutes one of the more significant steps to be taken in recent years to resolve the
status dilemma. When the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status issues its
report, expected to be released in 2005, momentum may build for congressional
consideration of proposals to reconsider the existing commonwealth status.
Congressional action might also be initiated if the legislature and Governor of Puerto
Rico reached a consensus on the initiation of the status process. Agreement on the
process to be used in considering the status proposals has been as elusive as
agreement on the end result. Should the process be resolved, Congress would have
a determinative role in the decision. The four options that appear to be most
frequently discussed include continuation of the commonwealth, enhancement
(modification) of the current commonwealth agreement, statehood, or independence.
If independence were selected, Puerto Rican officials might elect to negotiate a
compact of free association with the United States.

CRS-23
Appendix A: Brief Chronology of Status Events
Table A-1. Significant Political Status Events for the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 1898-1998
Year
Brief summary of events
1898-1900
Spain cedes the islands of Puerto Rico to the United States at the
conclusion of the Spanish-American War; U.S. military commanders
govern Puerto Rico
1900
Enactment of the first Organic Act (the Foraker Act) established a civil
government headed by presidential appointees79
1917
Enactment of the Jones Act of 1917 that established a bill of rights for
citizens, provided for a popularly elected Senate, and extended U.S.
citizenship to residents of Puerto Rico80
1947
Enactment of the Elective Governor Act81
1950
Enabling and implementing legislation enacted for the establishment of
a constitutional government82
1952
The 82nd Congress and President Truman approve the constitution of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with amendments83
1953
United States delegate reports to the United Nations that the
relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States is based upon a
bilateral compact. The United Nations resolves that Puerto Rico is “an
autonomous political entity” and is to be no longer included on the list
of “Non-Self-Governing Territories.”84
1964-1966
United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico
convenes, issues reports, and recommends that a status plebiscite be
held.85
1967
Plebiscite on status held, majority vote in favor of commonwealth
79 P.L. 56-191, 31 Stat. 77.
80 P.L. 64-368, 39 Stat. 951.
81 P.L. 80-362, 61 Stat. 770.
82 P.L. 81-600, 64 Stat. 319.
83 P.L. 82-447, 66 Stat. 327.
84 United Nations Resolution 748 (VIII), Yearbook of the United Nations 1953 (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1954), p. 539.
85 P.L. 88-271, 78 Stat. 17.

CRS-24
Year
Brief summary of events
1975-1977
Commission report on Compact of Permanent Union between the
United States and Puerto Rico issued. Legislation introduced pursuant
to report recommendations, but not acted upon.86
1989-1990
101st Congress debates status legislation, House passes (H.R. 4072)
and Senate committees report (S. 712) different bills
1996
House committees in the 104th Congress report status legislation (H.R.
3025)
1998
House (105th Congress) passes status legislation (H.R. 856) referred to
as the Young bill; Senate does not act on comparable legislation
86 94th Cong., H.R. 11200, S.J. Res. 215. Instead, President Ford submitted statehood
legislation (H.R. 2201) that received no action.

CRS-25
Appendix B: Congressional Activity on Puerto
Rico’s Political Status, 1989 - 2000
During the four decades following approval of the commonwealth constitution
in 1952, Congress did not act upon most legislation introduced to alter Puerto Rico’s
political status. The only exception occurred in 1964, when the 88th Congress and
the legislature of Puerto Rico approved legislation that established a commission on
the status issue.87 From 1952 through 1988, various bills to reconsider or modify the
political status of Puerto Rico were introduced, but did not receive action.88 In 1975,
for example, the 94th Congress considered H.R. 11200 to establish a Compact of
Permanent Union, as recommended by the Ad Hoc Advisory Group for Puerto Rico,
but the bill was not reported out of either the House or Senate committees of
jurisdiction. In 1976, President Ford proposed statehood for Puerto Rico. For that
purpose, H.R. 2201 was introduced in the 95th Congress, but received no action.
In the 101st Congress the issue gained prominence and congressional attention,
to some degree due to unified pressure from Puerto Rican elected officials.89 This
began a 10-year period from 1989 through 1998 (101st through the 105th Congresses)
when 19 bills were introduced on the status issue. Four of the 19 bills were reported
out of committee; two of those were approved by the full House. During that 10-year
period, no political status bills were approved by the full Senate. No action was
taken by the 106th, 107th, or 108th Congresses on the status issue.
This appendix summarizes the provisions of the four bills that received
congressional action. It begins with five tables that facilitate comparisons of the bills.
Table B-1 provides basic information on the four bills that received action since
1989. Tables B-2 through B-4 provide summary information on the contents of the
bills. The information in these tables reflects the contents of the bills as finally acted
upon.
87 P.L. 88-271, 78 Stat. 18.
88 Also, both the House and the Senate considered concurrent resolutions limited to an
expression of the sense of either or both chambers on matters related to status. This report
does not consider such resolutions.
89 The delivery of petitions with more than 350,000 signatures in support of statehood to
Congress in the 100th Congress reportedly stimulated action.

CRS-26
Table B-1. Status Legislation, 1989-1998: Summary Information
101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S.712
H.R. 3024
H.R. 856
Last action date
October 10, 1990
September 30, 1990
September 18, 1996
March 4, 1998
Bill title
Puerto Rico Self-
Puerto Rico Status
United States-Puerto Rico
United States-Puerto Rico
Determination Act
Referendum Act
Political Status Act
Political Status Act
Final action taken
Passed House
Reported from Committees
Reported from Committees
Passed House
on Energy and Finance
on Rules and Resources
Final vote
Voice vote, not recorded
Energy Committee - 11 yeas,
Rules Committee - voice
209 yeas
8 nays;
vote;
208 nays
Finance Committee - voice
Resources Committee - 10
vote
yeas, 0 nays
Report number
H.Rept. 101-790,
S.Rept. 101-120;
H.Rept. 104-713,
H.Rept. 105-131,
Part I
S.Rept. 101-481
Parts 1&2
Part 1

CRS-27
Table B-2. Status Legislation, 1989-1998: Procedures
101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712
H.R. 3024
H.R. 856
Required congressional actions
Chairs of committees of
No provision
Similar to provisions in
Required that House and
jurisdiction must introduce
H.R. 4765, with recognition
Senate majority leaders
implementing legislation by
that provisions would be
introduce legislation and
March 6, 1992; expedited
considered part of House
that committees report bill
process for consideration of
and Senate rules, with
(or automatic discharge be
the legislation set out. §5
allowance for rule changes.
implemented), and
§6
established expedited
procedures. §6
Status options specified
Independence, statehood, “a
Statehood, Independence,
Continue present
Retain commonwealth,
new commonwealth
Commonwealth
commonwealth, separate
separate sovereignty
relationship,” and, none of
sovereignty or U.S.
through (a) independence or
the above. §2(a)
sovereignty through (a)
(b) free association, or
independence or free
statehood. §4(a)
association or (b) statehood.
§4(a)
Requirements for referendum
Initial referendum would be
Initial referendum would be
Referendum would be held
Same as H.R. 3024
held on September 16,
held on June 4, 1991, or later
no later than Dec. 31, 1998.
1991,or later date as agreed
date during summer of 1991
§4(a)
by specified committee.
as mutually agreed by the 3
Second referendum
political parties. §101(b)
(ratification vote) would be
held on implementing
legislation. §2(a), §6(a)

CRS-28
101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712
H.R. 3024
H.R. 856
Participation of mainland residents in vote
Government of Puerto Rico
No provision, but provided
No provision, but provided
Same as H.R. 3024. §4(a),
authorized to enable
that general election laws
that general election laws
5(a)
nonresident Puerto Ricans to
would apply. §101(d)
would apply, including
register and vote in the
voting eligibility. §4(a),
referendum. §2(b)
5(a)
Resolution of inconclusive vote by Puerto Rican residents
If a majority of voters did not
If a majority of voters did not
The President and others
Same as H.R. 3024. §5(c)
approve one of the 3 status
approve one of the 3 status
would have had to
options or the implementing
options, a runoff referendum
recommend action within
legislation not effectuated,
would be held on 2 options
180 days; existing
members of committees of
receiving the most votes,
commonwealth structure
jurisdiction would have to
including “none of the
would have remained, with
make recommendations. §7
above.” §101(c)
subsequent referenda held
every four years. §5(c)
Provision for transition period
No provision in legislation,
Under statehood, Medicare,
If a majority of voters
Similar to H.R. 3024, but
but “Independence”
food stamp, and tax policies
approved the “self-
transition plan would have
definition in report provided
continued as specified. §213.
government” option, the
had to include English
for a transition period of at
Under independence, a Joint
President would have had
language provisions, with
least 10 years for economic
Transition Committee would
to develop a transition plan
transition plan of no more
stability and demilitarization.
have been established. §305,
of at least 10 years to lead
than 10 years. §4(b)
Also, statehood option
§313-318
to full self-government, and
included transition provision.
local legislature would have
H.Rept. 101-790, Part 1, p.
been authorized to call a
21-2.
constitutional convention.
§4(b)

CRS-29
101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712
H.R. 3024
H.R. 856
Funding for referendum
Authorized $13.5 million for
No provision
Grants for the costs of the
Same as H.R. 3024. §7
the referendum. §2(b)
referenda and for voter
education provided from
excise tax collections on
imported rum. §7
Judicial review
No provision
Local laws and procedures
No provision
No provision
dictated adjudication, with
specified provisions for
challenging vote
irregularities. §101(e)
Required threshold for referendum vote
Majority for one of the 3
Majority for one of the 3
Majority of “valid votes
Same as H.R. 3024. §4(a)
options. §4
options. §101(c)
cast.” §4(a)
Requirement for presidential action
President would have had to
Under independence, the
See transition period and
Same as H.R. 3024. §4c
consult with members of
President must surrender
inconclusive vote
committees with jurisdiction
rights of possession and
comments, above. Also,
and others on implementing
control, provide notice to
President would have had
legislation.
foreign governments. §307,
to submit legislation for
§4, 7
310.
self-government transition.
§4c

CRS-30
Table B-3. Status Legislation, 1989-1998: Options
101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712
H.R. 3024
H.R. 856
Statehood
Admitted on footing
Admitted on footing equal to
Provision for: guaranteed
Similar provision to H.R.
equal to all states, with
all states: territorial
constitutional rights,
3024, with official English
citizenship and national
boundaries and land claims
permanent union, reserved
language requirement
voting rights guaranteed.
addressed; provision for
powers, responsibility for
specified. §4(a)
§2a
national representation;
payment of taxes, national
effectiveness of existing laws
representation and voting
provided for, as well as
rights, and application of
continuation of pending suits.
language requirement similar
See transition period, above.
to that applied in other states.
Title II
§4(a)
Commonwealth
No provision
No provision, see “Enhanced
Continuation of present
Continuation of present
commonwealth”
commonwealth structure,
commonwealth structure.
with relationship dissoluble
Congress would have
only by mutual consent,
retained authority to set
citizenship secured by U.S.
policy and decide ultimate
Constitution, federal benefits
status through process that
equal to states contingent on
would have required
tax payments. §4(a)
periodic referenda. §4(a)

CRS-31
101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712
H.R. 3024
H.R. 856
Enhanced Commonwealth
Permanent relationship
Authorized governor and
No provision
No provision
with U.S., but not
legislature to identify federal
incorporated. Federal
laws and regulations not
benefits equal to states
applicable to Puerto Rico and
contingent on
provided for congressional or
contributions, and
executive review. Revised
possible autonomy in
other areas of policy such as
international relations. §2a
trade, air transportation
agreements. Title IV
Free association
No provision
No provision
See “Independence,” below.
See “Independence,” below.
Independence
Establishment of
Establishment of constitution
Separate sovereignty through
Similar provision to H.R.
republican form of
for a republican form of
independence or free
3024. §4(a)
government through a
government. Effect of
association characterized by:
constitution. §2a
independence on existing laws
full authority for internal and
provided for, along with
external affairs, treaty or
defense, land holdings and
bilateral pact terminable by
other areas. See transition
either nation, adoption of a
period, above. Title III
constitution for a republican
form of government,
diplomatic recognition, trade
based on treaty, and other
provisions. §4(a)

CRS-32
101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712
H.R. 3024
H.R. 856
None of the above
Identified as a valid
No provision, but if a runoff
No provision
No provision
option on the referendum
referendum would have had
ballot. §2a
been required, this option
would have to have been on
the ballot. §101(c)
a. The bill did not include definitions for these terms. Instead, the report accompanying the legislation (H.Rept. 101-790, Part 1,
pages 21-22) set out definitions of each of the three options. Section 4(a) of the bill would have required that these definitions be
considered by committees charged with drafting the implementing legislation.

CRS-33
Table B-4. Status Legislation, 1989-1998: Substantive Issues
101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712
H.R. 3024
H.R. 856
Citizenship
No provision
Under statehood, would not
Under separate
Similar provision to H.R.
confer, terminate, or restore
sovereignty, U.S.
3024.
U.S. nationality. §212
nationality and citizenship
Under independence,
would have been
citizenship regulated by new
terminated, but those with
constitution, existing federal
citizenship before
statutes on citizenship
separation would have
repealed, and existing
retained it for life, as
citizens’ status protected,
specified. §4(a)
among other provisions.
Under statehood,
§311
citizenship would have
been guaranteed. §4(a)
Language requirements
No provision
No provision
Under statehood, would
Stated as policy that
have followed the language
students in schools should
requirements “as in the
achieve English proficiency
several states.” §4(a)
by age 10. §3(c)
Under statehood, official
English language
requirements would have
applied in Puerto Rico as in
all states. §4(a)
Transition plan to statehood
would have had to include
promotion of English. §4(b)

CRS-34
101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712
H.R. 3024
H.R. 856
Referendum funding
Authorized $13.5 million to
No provision
Collections from rum
Similar provision to H.R.
be appropriated — $7.5
import tax to be
3024. §7
million for the referendum,
transferred, in amounts
$6 million for voter
specified by the President,
education. §2(a,b)
half for referenda costs and
half for voter education. §7
Land use and transfer
No provision
Under statehood, would have
No provision
No provision
retained U.S. title over held
lands and required review of
such holdings. §204, 205,
211
Under independence,
property rights would have
been safeguarded (§302(c))
and land use by the military
would have been negotiated.
§312
Under commonwealth, would
have required review of 8
specific parcels and
commission oversight of San
Juan National Historic Site.
§412-413

CRS-35
101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712
H.R. 3024
H.R. 856
Congressional representation
No provision
Under statehood, would have
Under statehood, would
Similar provision to H.R.
required election of 2
have assured representation
3024. §4a
senators as well as the
by 2 Senators and
number of representatives to
Representatives
be allocated to the new state
“proportionate to the
under the 1990 Census, with
population.” §4(a)
an increase in the size of the
House. §206, 207
Under commonwealth, would
have established the Office
of Senate Liaison. §409
Litigation and judicial review
No provision
Legal challenges associated
Under independence or
Would have maintained
with the referendum would
free association,
previously vested rights to
have been adjudicated by a
employment and property
benefits. §4(a)
3-judge court as specified.
rights would have
§101(e)
continued to be honored,
Under statehood, pending
§4(a)
litigation would have
continued, as would appeal
rights. §209, 210
Under independence,
pending proceedings would
have been transferred, except
for those on appeal. §309

CRS-36
101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712
H.R. 3024
H.R. 856
Trade
No provision
Under independence, the
No provision
No provision
transition commission would
have had to establish a task
force to develop policy. §316
Under commonwealth, would
have authorized Puerto Rico
to impose tariff duties on
imports, among other
provisions. §406

CRS-37
Summary of Legislative Debates and Actions
101st Congress. During the 101st Congress, the House and the Senate
considered status bills but could not reconcile the differences. The House passed
legislation (H.R. 4765) that would have mandated that a referendum be held in 1991.
Upon selection of a status option by the voters, Congress would have been required
to consider implementing legislation in accordance with a specified timetable. By
comparison, the Senate Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and on
Finance reported out a bill (S. 712) that would have been self-executing; i.e., the
status of Puerto Rico would have been resolved after a referendum, with no further
congressional action required. The full Senate did not vote on S. 712.90
Several reasons have been cited for the lack of support for S. 712 in the Senate
and the inability of the 101st Congress to reconcile the differences between the two
bills. The chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
questioned the utility of the definitions in the report that accompanied H.R. 4765 and
noted that the debate could not be concluded with the short time that remained in the
101st Congress.91 S. 712 was perceived by some to be biased toward statehood in that
it would have provided for an immediate transition to statehood and would have
applied federal benefits immediately to Puerto Rico, but would have delayed tax
payment responsibilities. Also, the bill included few of the enhancements to
commonwealth sought by the Popular Democratic Party (PDP). Perhaps most
significantly, sponsors of the bills could not reconcile the gap between the self-
executing provisions of S. 712 and the provision for congressional consideration of
implementing legislation in H.R. 4765.92
S. 712. Several catalysts stimulated congressional action on the status issue in
the 101st Congress. The submission of petitions with over 350,000 signatures to
Congress from 1985 through 1987 brought greater prominence to the issue. Also, in
his 1989 inaugural address, Puerto Rico’s Governor Rafael Hernández Colón
proposed that a referendum be held on status options, including enhanced
commonwealth. Shortly thereafter, the presidents of the other two political parties
agreed to the referendum proposal. As noted in a House committee report, “The
agreement was viewed as historic because the three parties had long disagreed on the
proper approach to resolving the status issue.”93 The leaders of the three principal
90 Many of the documents considered during debate on S. 712 and H.R. 4765 have been
collected in Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, Political Status Referendum, 1989-
1991
(Washington: 1992). For a chronology of events associated with the debate, see vol.
1, pp. xxiv-xxxii.
91 Sen. Bennett Johnston, “Puerto Rican Statehood,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional
Record
, vol. 136, Oct. 10, 1990, p. 28173.
92 Rep. Robert Ron de Lugo, “Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act,” remarks in the House,
Congressional Record, vol. 136, Oct. 10, 1990, p. 28313. See also: “Puerto Rico’s Status
Remains Unresolved,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 101st Cong., 2nd sess.,
(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1990), pp. 424-427.
93 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Puerto Rico Self-
(continued...)

CRS-38
political parties in Puerto Rico wrote to the chairman of the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee requesting congressional action on status. An excerpt
from the letter follows:
the People of Puerto Rico wish to be consulted as to their preference with regards
to their ultimate political status and the consultation should have the guarantee
that the will of the People once expressed shall be implemented through an act
of Congress which would establish the appropriate mechanisms and procedures
to that effect.94
One month later, President George H.W. Bush raised the topic before Congress
in his first State of the Union message :
There’s another issue that I’ve decided to mention here tonight. I’ve long
believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine their
own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the
Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a
referendum.95
On April 5, 1989, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee (Senator J. Bennett Johnston) and the ranking member (Senator Frank
McClure) introduced three bills, each of which provided for a referendum on the
political status issue. S. 712, the more detailed of the three bills, was reported from
two of the three committees to which it was referred.96 No action was taken on the
other two bills.97
As reported, S. 712 contained the text for each option that was to be placed on
the referendum ballot, along with details on the potential effect of each option on
matters such as intergovernmental relationships, disposition of federal property,
federal financial assistance, economics and trade, citizenship, and immigration. The
bill provided for a runoff referendum if no single option received a majority of votes.
93 (...continued)
Determination Act, report to accompany H.R. 4765, H.Rept. 101-790, Part 1, 101st Cong.,
2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1990), p. 13.
94 Sen. J. Bennett Johnston, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
135, Mar. 16, 1989, p. 4526.
95 U.S. President (Bush), “Address on Administration Goals before a Joint Session of
Congress,” Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Book I, (Washington:
GPO, 1989), p. 78.
96 The Senate Agriculture Committee did not report out the bill.
97 S. 710 and S. 711 were each considerably shorter than S. 712, which totaled 58 pages. S.
710, three pages total, described the three status options in very brief terminology (e.g.,
“Independence with full economic guarantees”) and called for negotiations among the
political parties of Puerto Rico to develop implementing legislation. S. 711, 24 pages total,
contained more detailed “Initial Definitions” of the status options, a self-executing clause
for the statehood option (if selected by voters), descriptions of the relationship of the U.S.
to Puerto Rico under the commonwealth and independence options, and future
enhancements to the commonwealth status (if selected by voters).

CRS-39
The statehood provision of S. 712 (Title II) included: a self-executing
provision, recognized the constitution adopted in 1952 as the constitution (future) of
the state, retained existing federal land holdings (with future conveyances allowed),
recognized both Spanish and English as official languages (with government
proceedings conducted in English), and provided for the election of presidential
electors and congressional representatives, as well as the establishment of a
commission to identify U.S. laws not applicable to Puerto Rico, among other
provisions.
The independence option described in Title III called for a constitutional
convention and set out basic requirements for such a constitution. The bill would
have provided for the transition of authority from the United States to the Republic
of Puerto Rico through a Joint Transition Commission and would have required the
President, once specified steps had been taken, to recognize the independence of
Puerto Rico. The bill would not have affected the citizenship of any person born prior
to certification of the referendum results, but would have prohibited the extension of
citizenship to those born to parents who were U.S. citizens solely because they were
born in Puerto Rico. In addition, the bill called for the negotiation of national
security matters, continuation of federal financial assistance (in amended form) for
nine years, the permanent continuation of pension and civil service, and negotiations
on continuation of Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Title IV, which set forth the commonwealth option, recognized Puerto Rico as
a “self-governing body politic joined in political relationship with the United States
and under the sovereignty of the United States.” The bill also provided for enhanced
commonwealth status to stimulate economic development. This provision would
have allowed elected officials in Puerto Rico, through joint resolutions, to exempt the
commonwealth from the applicability of certain federal laws, pursuant to specified
procedures. International agreements consistent with the laws and obligations of the
United States could have been entered into by the Governor of Puerto Rico. Also,
the Governor could have been authorized to notify federal agencies of the
inconsistency of proposed rules with commonwealth policy, with resultant actions
specified. The bill also would have authorized the commonwealth to impose tariff
duties on foreign imports, encouraged consultation with the Governor of the
commonwealth concerning tariff changes, and required consultation with local
officials in filling specified federal offices in Puerto Rico. In addition, the bill would
have established a liaison office in the Senate and established a passport office in
Puerto Rico, exempted certain television broadcast agreements from federal antitrust
laws, and facilitated the review of federal property exchange.
Issues of Debate on S. 712. The debate on S. 712 resulted in the discussion
of many facets of the status debate. Hearings were held by three committees to
obtain public comments, the viewpoints of administration officials, and statements
from political leaders in Puerto Rico.

CRS-40
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the primary
committee of jurisdiction, held eight days of hearings on S. 712.98 During these
hearings, senators and witnesses discussed a range of issues raised by the status
debate, including: the referendum process (including campaign financing, voting
rights of mainland Puerto Ricans, and ballot components), continuation of citizenship
rights, language requirements, constitutional provisions, international relations, trade,
transition requirements (including modifying standing tax benefits and continued
federal aid), transfer of historic and other property, financial and economic
development matters, judiciary concerns (including official language for court
proceedings, appointment of judges, and jurisdiction), fisheries and mineral rights,
national defense and security, and other matters.
In addition, the Senate Committee on Agriculture held a hearing on nutrition
and food purchase assistance.99 Discussion ensued in the hearing on the Nutrition
Assistance Program (NAP), instituted in 1982. The NAP replaced the food stamp
benefits previously provided to Puerto Rico with a block grant administered by the
government of Puerto Rico. The legislation authorized Puerto Rico to exercise
greater flexibility in designing a program to provide assistance to low-income
families. Witnesses at the hearing spoke to how a change in status would affect
recipients of such assistance.
The Senate Committee on Finance held three days of hearings on S. 712 to
discuss perceptions of the status alternatives and projected cost implications of a
status change.100 Federal benefits, economic indicators, and interpretations of the bill
received attention in the hearings. In particular, discussion occurred on the future of
the Section 936 tax benefit, notably whether it would be constitutional, under the
Uniformity Clause of the U.S. Constitution,101 for a new State of Puerto Rico to enjoy
a tax benefit not extended to other states. In addition to information presented in the
hearing documents, the Senate Committee on Finance prepared a committee print
that summarized tax provisions related to Puerto Rico and the relevant provisions of
S. 712. The report also set out tax implications of the legislation for each of the three
status options.102
98 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Political Status of
Puerto Rico
, hearings on S. 710, S. 711, and S. 712, 101st Cong., 1st sess., June 1 and 2 (Part
1), June 16-18 (Part 2), July 11, 13-14 (Part 3), 1989 (Washington: GPO, 1989).
99 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Puerto Rico
Status Referendum Act — S. 712
, hearing on S. 712, 101st Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 9, 1989
(Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 272.
100 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Puerto Rico’s Political Status, hearing on
S. 712, 101st Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 14-15, 1989 (Part 1), Apr. 26, 1990 (Part 2) (Washington:
GPO, 1990).
101 Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1 reads: “the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises ... but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;”
102 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, prepared by staff of the Joint Committee
on Taxation, Tax Rules Relating to Puerto Rico Under Present Law and Under Statehood,
(continued...)

CRS-41
According to one summary of the debate in Congress, tax treatment of Puerto
Rico and the cost implications of independence and statehood complicated Senate
consideration of S. 712.103 Some Senators questioned the quality of Treasury
Department statistics that projected net revenue gains to the U.S. from statehood or
independence. In addition, the issue of representation in Congress arose. Debate
centered on whether to increase the size of the House or to reapportion the 435 seats,
in addition to the bill’s provision for a “shadow,” or non-voting Senator.
Commonwealth supporters reportedly perceived the bill to be biased toward
statehood, particularly the provision that would have provided financial benefits from
statehood in the early years, with increased tax burdens reserved for later years.
Finally, the impact of the legislation on proposals to grant statehood to the District
of Columbia, including the appointment of a shadow Senator, affected debate.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported S. 712 on August 2,
1989, by a vote of 11 yeas to 8 nays, with a recommendation that the bill be
approved. The Finance Committee also reported S. 712, but did not include a
recommendation on whether the bill should be approved.104 No further action
occurred.
H.R. 4765. Dissatisfaction with the Senate’s approach led to preparation of
alternative legislation in the House.105 H.R. 4765, introduced by Representative de
Lugo on May 9, 1990, resembled S. 711, one of the Senate bills not acted upon by
the Senate committees.
As passed by the House on October 10, 1990, H.R. 4765 would have authorized
$13.5 million for a referendum to be held on September 16, 1991. The bill included
four voting options to be presented in the referendum — “independence,”
“statehood,” “a new commonwealth relationship,” and “none of the above.” If a
majority of voters in the referendum had selected one of the three status options, the
committees of jurisdiction, in consultation with principal parties of Puerto Rico and
others, would have been required to draft implementing legislation within time
102 (...continued)
Independence, and Enhanced Commonwealth Status (S. 712, Puerto Rico Status Referendum
Act)
, joint committee print (Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 51.
103 For a summary see “Puerto Rico Statehood Considered in Senate,” in Congressional
Quarterly Almanac, 101st Congress, 1st Session, Vol. XLV
(Washington: Congressional
Quarterly, Inc., 1989), pp. 356-361.
104 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Puerto Rico Status
Referendum Act
, report to accompany S. 712, 101st Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 101-120
(Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 70. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Puerto
Rico Status Referendum Act
, report to accompany S. 712, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 101-
481 (Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 55.
105 See comments of the sponsor of the H.R. 2765, Rep. Ron de Lugo, remarks in the House,
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 136, Oct. 10, 1990, p. 28314. See also U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Puerto Rico Self-Determination
Act
, report to accompany H.R. 4765, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 101-790, Part I
(Washington: GPO, 1990), pp. 13-14.

CRS-42
frames specified in the legislation.106 Once drafted, both chambers would have been
required to meet a series of deadlines for expedited action to debate the legislation
in each chamber.
While the bill did not include definitions and characteristics of the three status
options, the report accompanying the legislation did.107 The basic elements of the
options, as presented in the House report, are summarized below.
(1) The report accompanying the legislation required that, if independence received
the majority of votes, a constitution establishing a republican form of government be
drafted, with a transition period of at least 10 years to provide for financial assistance
and commerce incentives. Citizens of the United States born before the date of
independence would have retained their citizenship; demilitarization would have
been considered, and the President would have been authorized to negotiate
agreements with the new republic.
(2) The statehood option would have provided for the admission of Puerto Rico as
a state, with all rights and obligations of the other states extended to Puerto Rico.
The citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico would have been “constitutionally
guaranteed,” and voting rights in presidential elections, representation in Congress,
and benefits and obligations would have been extended to residents of the new state.
Also, Congress would have provided for a “reasonable and fair” transition of the
economy under statehood.
(3) The new commonwealth relationship would have been permanent and only
alterable through mutual consent. The new commonwealth would have been “an
autonomous body politic with its own character and culture” exercising sovereignty
over matters governed by the Puerto Rican constitution, consistent with the U.S.
Constitution. U.S. citizenship of those born in Puerto Rico would have been
guaranteed in accordance with the Fifth Amendment and would have been equal to
that granted to citizens born in the states. All “rights, privileges, and immunities” set
forth in the U.S. Constitution would have applied. Federal benefits equal to those
provided in other states would have been assured, contingent upon equitable
contributions being made. Proposals for international agreements would have been
presented to Congress and the President, with both branches determining the outcome
of the proposals.
Issues of Debate on H.R. 4765. Compared to the official record of debate
on S. 712, that for H.R. 4765 is scant. The nearly unanimous approval of H.R. 4765
by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (37 ayes to 1 nay) reportedly
“represented a hard-won compromise between committee members who favored
106 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Puerto Rico Self-
Determination Act
, report to accompany H.R. 4765, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 101-790,
Part I (Washington: GPO, 1990), p. 39.
107 The Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, in an additional viewpoint appended to the
report, considered the definitions in the report “morally and politically binding.”

CRS-43
widely different options.”108 Differences among Members, administration officials,
and Puerto Rico’s leaders were resolved prior to the committee vote. As noted by the
floor manager for the legislation during the debate on the House floor, “The
substitute before the House was worked out in months of negotiations with the White
House and Puerto Rico’s parties.”109
No statements in opposition to the legislation were made on the floor of the
House, and the bill passed under suspension of the rules.110 However, certain issues
mentioned by some Members of Congress during the floor debate provided an
indication of the issues under discussion. These included the expedited
implementation procedures (which overrode normal rules of the House), the scope
of the status options in the House report, the absence of a provision protecting the
language and culture of Puerto Ricans, participation of nonresidents in the plebiscite,
the option of including self-executing provisions, and judicial consideration of cases
relating to the referendum.
102nd Congress. Relatively little action occurred on the status issue during
the 102nd Congress. Senator Johnston introduced legislation (S. 244) that, unlike the
self-executing text in S. 712 as reported in the 101st Congress, provided that Congress
would consider implementing legislation subsequent to a referendum. Following
adoption of that legislation by Congress, a second vote would have been held in
Puerto Rico to ratify the implementing legislation. S. 244 was not reported out of
committee for a variety of reasons, including projected costs, disagreement over the
role of Congress in the status debate, and concern over language and cultural
differences.111 Status legislation in the House (H.R. 316) that was similar to H.R.
4765 in the previous Congress also received no action.
103rd Congress. Three concurrent resolutions (H.Con.Res. 94, H.Con.Res.
300, S.Con.Res. 75) were introduced in the 103rd Congress on the status issue. The
House Resources Committee held a hearing on H.Con.Res. 94, a resolution
expressing congressional endorsement that Puerto Ricans had the right of self-
determination.112 No other actions were taken on any of the three resolutions.
Despite the lack of progress on the issue in Congress, Governor Pedro Rosselló
and the legislature of Puerto Rico agreed to authorize a plebiscite on status. The
108 “Puerto Rico’s Status Remains Unresolved,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 101st
Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1990), p. 426.
109 Rep. Ron de Lugo, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 136,
Oct. 10, 1990, p. 28309.
110 The debate is found in ibid., pp. 28307-28337.
111 “No Progress Made on Puerto Rico Plebiscite,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 102nd
Congress, 1st Session, Vol. XLVII
(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1991), pp.
184-185.
112 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Insular and
International Affairs, Puerto Rico Self-Determination Part I and II, hearings, 103rd Cong.,
1st sess., July 13, 1993 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 194, 232.

CRS-44
second plebiscite on Puerto Rico’s political status was held on November 14, 1993,
as discussed on page 9 this report.
104th Congress. On December 14, 1994, the legislature of Puerto Rico
approved a concurrent resolution that called on the 104th Congress to act on the 1993
plebiscite. Subsequently, during the 104th Congress (1995-1996), action was taken
on one political status bill. The House Committees on Resources and Rules reported
legislation (H.R. 3024) that would have authorized a referendum, a transition period,
and implementation mechanisms on the status issue. Opposition to the legislation
focused on the definition of “commonwealth” in the bill, the proposed referendum
process, and the transition mechanism.113 The House did not act on the reported bill.
In response to the concurrent resolution approved by the Puerto Rican
legislature in December 1994, two House subcommittees with jurisdiction held a
hearing.114 The subcommittees received statements from the major political leaders
in Puerto Rico and others. Subsequently, three House chairmen and one
subcommittee chairman with jurisdiction over Puerto Rico sent a letter to the leaders
of the Puerto Rican legislature on February 29, 1996. The letter noted the Members’
disagreement with the terms and definitions of “commonwealth” that were included
on the 1993 ballot and affirmed that Congress must define the “real options for
change and the true legal and political nature of the status quo, so that the people can
know what the actual choices will be in the future.” The letter ended with the
notation that “The question of Puerto Rico’s political status remains open and
unresolved.”115
H.R. 3024. On March 6, 1996, the chair of the House Resources Committee
introduced H.R. 3024 to provide for a referendum to be held no later than December
31, 1998. The bill would have required that the ballot present two “paths” before the
voters — (1) self-government through independence or free association or (2) United
States sovereignty leading to statehood. Under independence or free association,
treaties or bilateral pacts would have governed in areas of shared interest between the
two nations, Congress would have established citizenship criteria for retention of
citizenship, and aid would have been provided as determined by the Congress and the
President.
The bill set out three stages to be followed in the status determination process.
(The three transition stages would have required actions to be taken over a span of
roughly 14 years.) First would have been an initial decision stage for the two
questions to be placed before Puerto Rican voters. Second would have been a
transition stage that would have required the President, within six months of
113 “Puerto Rico Status,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 104th Congress, 2nd Session,
Vol. LII
(Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996), pp. 3-8.
114 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Native American and
Insular Affairs, and House Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on the
Western Hemisphere, Puerto Rico Status Plebiscite, hearing, 104th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 17,
1995 (Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 377.
115 Statement of Rep. Don Young, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 142, Mar. 6, 1996, p. E299.

CRS-45
certification of ballot results, to submit legislation to establish a 10-year transition
plan, allow for expedited congressional consideration of the plan, and a second
referendum before the people of Puerto Rico on the transition plan approved by the
President and the Congress. Third would have been an implementation stage that,
no less than two years before the end of the 10-year transition plan to require
expedited congressional approval of a presidential proposal for self-government
under the preferred status option. Following approval of this plan by Congress and
the President, a third referendum would have been held, with majority approval
required for the results to be considered valid. Should any of the referenda have
proven inconclusive, the existing commonwealth form of government would have
continued. The bill would have authorized grants to be provided by the President for
the referenda and for voter education.
Following a hearing on the bill that was held in Puerto Rico,116 sponsors sought
to revise H.R. 3024 to include a third path on the ballot — enhanced commonwealth.
If approved by voters, the revision would have specified a guarantee of irrevocable
citizenship, fiscal autonomy for Puerto Rico, and other benefits.117 This amendment
was rejected in subcommittee on June 12, 1996.
On July 26, 1996, the Committee on Resources reported out the legislation. As
reported, the bill would have modified the initial decision stage in the original bill by
placing the following options before voters: continuation of “the present
Commonwealth structure,” self-government through either independence or free
association, or, sovereignty leading to statehood. The second, or transition, stage
was amended to authorize the legislature of Puerto Rico to call for a constitutional
convention if a vote for separate sovereignty prevailed in the referendum.
Issues of Debate on H.R. 3024. During the March 1996 hearing in San Juan,
Puerto Rico, leaders of the statehood, commonwealth, and independence factions
spoke to the interpretation of the referendum held on November 14, 1993 and the
legislation before the subcommittee. Discussion during the hearing centered on the
definition of “commonwealth,” the differences in culture and language between
Puerto Rico and the states, and standards established by the United Nations on
decolonization.118
In June 1996, during subcommittee and committee debate on the legislation,
some Members of Congress considered amendments that would have altered
components of the bill. Most were rejected, including an amendment that would
116 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, U.S.-Puerto Rico Political Status Act,
hearing on H.R. 3024, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 23, 1996 (Washington: GPO, 1996), p.
249.
117 Refer to statement of Rep. Elton Gallegly, remarks in the House, Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol 142, June 4, 1996, p. E988-989.
118 See House Committee on Resources, U.S.-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Because the
hearing was held in San Juan, a number of witnesses replied in Spanish to Members’
questions. As a result, while all prepared statements included in the hearing record are in
English, a considerable amount of information on witnesses’ viewpoints is presented solely
in Spanish.

CRS-46
have placed the option of enhanced commonwealth, as approved by a plurality of
those voting in the referendum, in the legislation.119 Another rejected amendment
would have revised the process set forth in the legislation by separating statehood and
independence, instead of combining them in one option to be subsequently
differentiated in another question. Still another amendment would have replaced the
transition period of a decade with immediate effectuation after the results of the
referendum were tabulated. Amendments that were adopted included a continuation
of commonwealth status on the ballot (a definition opposed by the PDP) and
continued referenda every four years “until Puerto Rico’s unincorporated territory
status is terminated in favor of a recognized form of full self-government in
accordance with this Act.”
The House Committee on Rules reported out the bill in September 1996, in the
closing days of the 104th Congress, and amended Section 6 of the bill concerning
expedited congressional consideration of the legislation specified in H.R. 3024. No
further action was taken on H.R. 3024 during the 104th Congress.
105th Congress. As in the 104th Congress, the primary action on the status
issue took place only in the House. The chairman of the House Resources
Committee introduced H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act,
on February 27, 1997. The bill, in amended form, was reported out of committee in
a near unanimous vote (44 ayes to 1 nay) on June 12, 1997. On March 4, 1998, the
bill was debated on the floor of the House and was approved by a one vote margin.
No action occurred in the Senate on the bill, but a resolution (S.Res. 279) was
adopted that acknowledged Senate support for a plebiscite in Puerto Rico.
H.R. 856. The text of H.R. 856 was roughly similar to H.R. 3024 considered
during the previous Congress. H.R. 856, like its predecessor legislation, included
definitions of the status options and provided for a three-stage process — initial
decision, transition, and implementation, with the transition period for separate
sovereignty or statehood lasting no more than 10 years.
Some provisions differed between the two bills. H.R. 856, as reported, included
an English language provision, along with the expectation (“it is anticipated”) that
English would be the “official language of the federal government in Puerto Rico”
to the extent required by law throughout the United States. Also, like H.R. 3024, the
bill called for additional referenda to be held in the event the initial referendum
proved inconclusive. The difference, however, was that the referenda would be held
at least once every 10 years (unlike the quadrennial schedule in H.R. 3024) if neither
statehood nor separate sovereignty received a majority of the votes. Also, the
descriptions of the status options were altered in H.R. 856 to reflect suggestions from
political leaders in Puerto Rico.
Issues of Debate on H.R. 856. As in previous debates, disagreement over
the definitions of the status options dominated. Advocates of H.R. 856 perceived the
bill would establish a fair process to enable Puerto Ricans to select a status option.
119 Information summarized from H.Rept. 104-713, Part 1, and “Puerto Rico Status,”
Congressional Quarterly Almanac (Washington: 1996), vol. LII, pp. 3-8.

CRS-47
Others disagreed, however, with some arguing that the legislation biased the
referendum process toward statehood. Members of the PDP disagreed with the
commonwealth description in the bill. Critics argued that, under the legislation, a
vote in favor of statehood would be the catalyst for congressional action, whereas a
majority vote for continuing commonwealth status would require additional future
referenda “until you get it right.”120 It was also argued that the definition of
“commonwealth” in the legislation was anathema to commonwealth supporters,
leaving them only one option — to boycott the referendum. One Member of
Congress contended that the bill:
[would] deny U.S. citizenship to the children of Puerto Ricans if commonwealth
is chosen ... threatens the Puerto Rican people with the loss of federal benefits
if they reject statehood ... denies Puerto Ricans on the mainland in the United
States the right to participate in this vital process ... neglects our distinct Puerto
Rican history as a people and a nation ... abandons the idea of democracy and
embraces the imposition of the will of the few on the hopes and dreams of the
many.121
During the 10-hour debate on the floor of the House on March 4, 1998, some
of the same issues discussed in previous years were raised again. Some argued that
this bill, like H.R. 3024 from the 105th Congress, was biased toward the statehood
position. Opponents also argued that it included unconstitutional provisions,
established an expedited process that did not allow for sufficient consideration, and
did not adequately address the citizenship issue. Some of the reasons stated for
Senate inaction included the lack of time, the dearth of backing from commonwealth
supporters, and concern on the part of the Republican leadership that statehood
would result in Democratic gains in Congress. The 106th Congress, like those before
it, ended without resolution of the matter
120 Rep. Roger Wicker, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 144,
Mar. 4, 1998, p. H768.
121 Rep. Luis Gutierrez, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143,
Sept. 24, 1997, p. H7738.