Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for
Congress
R. Sam Garrett
Specialist in American National Government
June 7, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32933
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Summary
The United States acquired the islands of Puerto Rico in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. In
1950, Congress enacted legislation (P.L. 81-600) authorizing Puerto Rico to hold a constitutional
convention and in 1952, the people of Puerto Rico ratified a constitution establishing a republican
form of government for the island. After being approved by Congress and the President in July
1952 and thus given force under federal law (P.L. 82-447), the new constitution went into effect
on July 25, 1952.
Puerto Rico is subject to congressional jurisdiction under the Territorial Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Over the past century, Congress passed legislation governing Puerto Rico’s
relationship with the United States. For example, residents of Puerto Rico hold U.S. citizenship,
serve in the military, are subject to federal laws, and are represented in the House of
Representatives by a Resident Commissioner elected to a four-year term. Although residents
participate in the presidential nominating process, they do not vote in the general election. Puerto
Ricans pay federal tax on income derived from sources in the mainland United States, but they
pay no federal tax on income earned in Puerto Rico. The Resident Commissioner may vote in
committees but is not permitted to vote in, or preside over, either the Committee of the Whole or
the House in the 112th Congress.
Elements of the U.S.-Puerto Rico relationship have been and continue to be matters of debate.
Some contend that the current political status of Puerto Rico, perhaps with enhancements,
remains a viable option. Others argue that commonwealth status is or should be only a temporary
fix to be resolved in favor of other solutions considered permanent, non-colonial, and non-
territorial. Some contend that if independence is achieved, the close relationship with the United
States could be continued through compact negotiations with the federal government. One
element apparently shared by all involved is that the people of Puerto Rico seek to attain full,
democratic representation, notably through voting rights on national legislation to which they are
subject.
In March 2011, the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico Status issued its latest report. The Task
Force, whose members include various officials in the Obama Administration, agreed with its
predecessors that the status quo, statehood, independence, or free association with the United
States remain constitutionally viable options if Congress and the people of Puerto Rico wish to
revisit the island’s political status. The task force report might spur a legislative response in
Washington or San Juan. As of this writing, however, the most recent major congressional activity
on status occurred during the 111th Congress.
On April 29, 2010, for the first time since 1998, the House approved (223-169) status-related
legislation for Puerto Rico. H.R. 2499 (Pierluisi) would have authorized a two-stage plebiscite in
Puerto Rico to reconsider the status issue. On May 19, 2010, the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee held a hearing on H.R. 2499. No additional action occurred on the bill.
Although a change in Puerto Rico’s status would require legislative action in Congress, holding
plebiscites or otherwise revisiting the issue could be initiated in San Juan or Washington.
This report will be updated periodically as events warrant.

Congressional Research Service

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Contents
Recent Developments.................................................................................................................. 1
112th Congress ...................................................................................................................... 1
111th Congress....................................................................................................................... 1
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Action on H.R. 2499 ...................... 1
House Passage ................................................................................................................ 1
House Committee on Natural Resources Action on H.R. 2499......................................... 2
Issue Discussion in Brief ................................................................................................. 3
110th Congress ...................................................................................................................... 4
The Two House Bills Prior to Committee Markup ........................................................... 4
The October 2007 House Natural Resources Committee Markup..................................... 5
The Senate Bill ............................................................................................................... 6
Comparing the Reported H.R. 900 and S. 1936 ............................................................... 6
109th Congress ...................................................................................................................... 7
Non-Congressional Developments ........................................................................................ 8
Background ................................................................................................................................ 9
Early Governance of Puerto Rico .......................................................................................... 9
Development of the Constitution of Puerto Rico.................................................................... 9
Federal Relations Act .......................................................................................................... 11
International Attention ........................................................................................................ 11
Supreme Court Decisions .................................................................................................... 12
Status Debates and Votes, 1952-1998 ........................................................................................ 13
1967 Plebiscite.................................................................................................................... 13
1991 Referendum................................................................................................................ 13
1993 Plebiscite.................................................................................................................... 14
1998 Action in the 105th Congress ....................................................................................... 14
1998 Plebiscite.................................................................................................................... 15
Federal Activity After 1998 ....................................................................................................... 15
106th Congress .................................................................................................................... 15
Executive Branch Action in 2000 ........................................................................................ 16
President’s Task Force Report, December 2005 ................................................................... 17
President’s 2007 Task Force Report..................................................................................... 18
President Obama’s Executive Order .................................................................................... 18
President’s 2011 Task Force Report ..................................................................................... 19
Issues of Debate on Political Status ........................................................................................... 20
Process Options .................................................................................................................. 20
Paths to Statehood......................................................................................................... 21
Independence: Development of a Sovereign Identity ..................................................... 22
Free Association............................................................................................................ 23
Recent Debate over the Process in Puerto Rico.............................................................. 24
Definitions of Status Options............................................................................................... 26
Commonwealth............................................................................................................. 26
Free Association............................................................................................................ 27
Independence ................................................................................................................ 27
Statehood ...................................................................................................................... 27
Other Issues ........................................................................................................................ 28
Effect on the U.S. Congress........................................................................................... 28
Congressional Research Service

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Language Requirement ................................................................................................. 28
Citizenship.................................................................................................................... 28
Transition Period........................................................................................................... 29
Concluding Observations .......................................................................................................... 29

Tables
Table A-1. Summary of Status Events Since 1898...................................................................... 30
Table B-1. Puerto Rico Status Votes in Plebiscites and Referenda, 1967-1998............................ 32
Table C-1. Status Legislation, 1989-1998: Summary Information .............................................. 35
Table C-2. Status Legislation, 1989-1998: Procedures ............................................................... 35
Table C-3. Status Legislation, 1989-1998: Options .................................................................... 38
Table C-4. Status Legislation, 1989-1998: Substantive Issues .................................................... 40

Appendixes
Appendix A. Brief Chronology of Status Events Since 1898 ...................................................... 30
Appendix B. Puerto Rico Status Votes in Plebiscites and Referenda, 1967-1998 ........................ 32
Appendix C. Congressional Activity on Puerto Rico’s Political Status, 1989-1998..................... 34
Appendix D. Summary of Legislative Debates and Actions ....................................................... 43

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 52
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 52

Congressional Research Service

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

evelopments in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as well as in Congress, have signaled renewed
interest in the relationship of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the United States.
D Legislation before Congress would, if enacted, establish a process intended to provide
Members with information on the status preference of the voters in Puerto Rico and on the
mainland. Legislative action would be required to modify the existing political status of Puerto
Rico.
Recent Developments
112th Congress
As of this writing, no major legislative activity regarding Puerto Rico’s political status has
occurred in the 112th Congress.
111th Congress
H.R. 2499 (Pierluisi) proposed that two plebiscites be held in Puerto Rico to enable eligible
voters to consider the current political status of the commonwealth. The government of Puerto
Rico would have been responsible for the costs associated with the plebiscites. Voting would have
taken place pursuant to the rules of the local elections commission; the results would have had to
be certified to the President and both chambers of Congress. The bill did not mandate that the
plebiscites be held and did not include requirements for further congressional action.
Consideration of the bill followed decades of intermittent debate in Congress on the topic, the
release of White House reports on status in recent years, and current support from the current
Resident Commissioner, the governor of Puerto Rico, and the Puerto Rico legislature.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Action on H.R. 2499
On May 19, 2010, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on
H.R. 2499 as approved by the House in the previous month. Leaders of the three major political
parties testified, representing the interests of statehood, Commonwealth, and independence
advocates. Much of the discussion centered on whether and how the status options might be
presented to the people of Puerto Rico before the plebiscite would be scheduled, as well as on the
perceived role of Congress in furthering resolution of the status issue. Governor Fortuño of
Puerto Rico, a supporter of H.R. 2499, indicated that, as amended by the House, the two-step
plebiscite process in H.R. 2499 could be reduced to one that presents the four status options to the
voters.
House Passage
On April 29, 2010, the House approved an amended version of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico
Democracy Act of 2010, by a final vote of 223-169. As passed, the bill authorized the government
of Puerto Rico to conduct two plebiscites.1 In the first plebiscite, eligible voters would have been

1 A plebiscite is a popular vote held to determine the degree to which eligible voters support or oppose a proposed
change in a form of government. An amendment that would have replaced the process as reported from committee with
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

asked to choose between two options: (1) Puerto Rico continuing “its present form of political
status” or (2) “a different political status.”2 If a majority of voters chose to maintain the status
quo, the government of Puerto Rico would have been authorized to conduct additional plebiscites,
using the same ballot options, every eight years to reassess the voters’ preferences on status. If,
however, a majority supported the second option, another plebiscite would have been authorized.
Voters would have then been asked to select their preference for one of four options: (1)
independence, (2) “sovereignty in association with the United States,” (3) statehood, and (4) the
existing form of political status, “Commonwealth.”3 In addition to any regulations and procedures
established by the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission that provide for the printing of ballots
in Spanish and English (the two official languages of Puerto Rico), the amended bill required that
the plebiscite ballots be printed in English.4 The Puerto Rico State Elections Commission would
have also, according to an amendment adopted on the floor of the House, notified voters that
under continuation of the current status or statehood, federal “official language requirements”
would apply to Puerto Rico and throughout the United States. The Commission also would be
required to notify voters that it is the sense of Congress that the teaching of English be promoted
in public schools in Puerto Rico.5
House Committee on Natural Resources Action on H.R. 2499
Preceding the House vote, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on H.R.
2499 on June 24, 2009, and held a markup on July 22, 2009. At the markup, an amended version
of the bill was ordered to be reported favorably (by a vote of 30-8). The amended version of the
bill retained the provisions of the original bill and added two components—one requiring Puerto
Rico to cover all expenses associated with the plebiscites, and another requiring that plebiscite
ballots be made available in English. The committee reported the legislation on October 8, 2009
(H.Rept. 111-294), and it was placed on the Union Calendar the same day.

(...continued)
a sense of Congress provision on whether the voters wished to conduct a plebiscite was defeated. See Rep. Nydia
Velazquez, “Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010,” House Debate, Congressional Record, vol. 156 (April 29, 2010), p.
H3050. Another amendment that would have recognized the right of the government of Puerto Rico to hold a plebiscite
was withdrawn by the sponsor. See Rep. Doc Hastings, “Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010,” House Debate,
Congressional Record, vol. 156 (April 29, 2010), p. H3051.
2 The bill defines eligible voters as those covered by the electoral laws of Puerto Rico and all U.S. citizens born in
Puerto Rico who meet the requirements set forth by the Puerto Rico Elections Commission. Eligible voters may request
an absentee ballot. Under this definition, Puerto Ricans on the island and on the mainland would be eligible to
participate in the plebiscites. An amendment that would have added additional criteria to allow persons living outside
Puerto Rico to vote in the plebiscites was defeated. See Rep. Nydia Velazquez, “Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010,”
House Debate, Congressional Record, vol. 156 (April 29, 2010), p. H3047.
3 The House agreed to add the fourth option of “Commonwealth” in an amendment considered during the floor debate.
See Rep. Virginia Foxx, “Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010,” House Debate, Congressional Record, vol. 156 (April
29, 2010), p. H3041. Related amendments that would have added other options to and modified the proposed plebiscite
process were defeated. See Rep. Luis Gutierrez, “Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010,” House Debate, Congressional
Record, vol. 156 (April 29, 2010), p. H3043; and Rep. Nydia Velazquez, “Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010,” House
Debate, Congressional Record, vol. 156 (April 29, 2010), p. H3048.
4 A related amendment that would have required that the ballots be printed in Spanish was defeated. See Rep. Luis
Gutierrez, “Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010,” House Debate, Congressional Record, vol. 156 (April 29, 2010), p.
H3044.
5 See Rep. Dan Burton, “Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010,” House Debate, Congressional Record, vol. 156 (April
29, 2010), p. H3045.
Congressional Research Service
2

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Issue Discussion in Brief
Several issues were debated during the 111th Congress’s consideration of H.R. 2499. Previous
versions of this report, issued when the bill was actively under consideration, contained additional
discussion. This section briefly recaps major components of the debate.
As introduced, reported out of committee, and approved by the House, H.R. 2499 would not
have, in and of itself, resolved the political status debate. Congress would have had to consider
other legislation, or significantly amend H.R. 2499, in order to change Puerto Rico’s status.
Congress could have chosen to authorize a plebiscite or some other process to reconsider Puerto
Rico’s political status, if it chose to do so. Whether in the 111th Congress or now, as it has done in
the past, the Puerto Rican government could have taken the initiative to reconsider its political
status through a plebiscite or referendum on local legislation without congressional action. Also,
because the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress broad authority over
territories, Congress could have initiated a change in the status through enactment of H.R. 2499
or by undertaking other steps.
The Process of Determining the Status Preference
One of the key issues under debate concerned how the status question should have been brought
before the people of Puerto Rico for reconsideration. H.R. 2499 proposed to take the question
directly to voters in plebiscites. Supporters of the legislation contended that this approach was the
best method for addressing the status issue because it sets forth the options likely to be
constitutionally valid and acceptable to Congress. Plebiscites necessarily include pre-determined
questions and answers (i.e., only the options listed on the ballot). Others advocated an alternative
approach; most recently, H.R. 1230 (Velázquez) in the 110th Congress would have authorized
establishment of a constitutional convention without preconditions on the issues to be considered
or the options to be proposed. The plebiscite approach arguably is a more efficient way to
ascertain the electorate’s views on specific questions, but plebiscites do not allow for
modification of the questions presented. By contrast, conventions have the potential advantage of
allowing for wide-ranging debate and consideration of alternatives. Convention delegates are
elected to represent popular will and might or might not be able to reach a politically viable or
constitutionally valid status choice.6
Plebiscite Participation
Under H.R. 2499, “all United States citizens born in Puerto Rico” who meet eligibility
requirements, but not necessarily living there at the time of the plebiscites, would be eligible to
participate.7 This approach was substantially similar to the one proposed in H.R. 900 (Serrano) in
the 110th Congress. Allowing non-residents to vote outside their current jurisdiction of residence
is not typical in U.S. elections, but this aspect of the proposal would have provided an

6 The full House considered a third option during the debate on H.R. 2499. Amendment No. 7 to H.R. 2499, rejected on
the floor of the House on April 29, 2010, would have established as a sense of Congress that the plebiscite would allow
the voters to decide whether a plebiscite on the status issue would be conducted. This, according to the sponsor, would
have allowed the voters “to submit their own proposal for moving forward.” See Rep. Nydia Velazquez, “Puerto Rico
Democracy Act of 2010,” House Debate, Congressional Record, vol. 156 (April 29, 2010), p. H3050.
7 H.R. 2499, Sec. 3.
Congressional Research Service
3

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

opportunity for the substantial Puerto Rican population living elsewhere (assuming they were
born in Puerto Rico and remain U.S. citizens) to participate in the vote.
The “Sovereignty in Association” Status Option
The first and third status options in the second plebiscite—independence and statehood,
respectively—were straightforward. The fourth option, continuation of the current status of
commonwealth, was subject to debate (and could be in the future), as discussed below. The
second option uses terminology that is not necessarily widely recognized in discussions of
political status. The proposed ballot language read:
Sovereignty in Association with the United States: Puerto Rico and the United States should
form a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the
Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution.
“Sovereignty in association with the United States” is not a term of art typically used in status
discussions and might not be widely recognized. During consideration of the bill in the House,
proponents explained their view of the language, described immediately below. Others might
have contended, however, that the meaning of the second option is less than clear, and could be
interpreted by some as a reference to an option described as “enhanced Commonwealth,” an
option that task force reports have consistently rejected as viable options.
110th Congress
In the 110th Congress, two House bills and one Senate bill addressing Puerto Rico’s political
status were introduced. As with bills introduced in the 109th Congress, the House legislation (H.R.
900 and H.R. 1230) originally offered two alternatives for addressing Puerto Rico’s political
status: plebiscites (popular votes) or a constitutional convention. During March and April 2007,
the House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs held hearings on the two bills; the House Natural
Resources Committee marked up H.R. 900 in October 2007. It was reported favorably. The
Senate bill (S. 1936) proposed a third option, a plebiscite, but in a different format and with
different options, than proposed by H.R. 900. No action beyond introduction occurred on the
Senate bill. This section summarizes the legislation considered in the 110th Congress.
The Two House Bills Prior to Committee Markup
On February 7, 2007, Representative Serrano introduced H.R. 900, which, as originally
introduced, would have authorized two plebiscites in Puerto Rico. The first plebiscite, to have
been conducted “not later than December 31, 2009,” would have asked voters to choose between
two options: (1) continuing “the existing form of territorial status as defined by the Constitution,
basic laws, and policies of the United States,” or (2) pursuit of “a path toward a constitutionally
viable permanent nonterritorial status.”8 If the majority of voters approved a change, the second
plebiscite would have determined whether independence (including free association, discussed
later in this report) or statehood was preferred. As introduced, H.R. 900 would have allowed U.S.
citizens born in Puerto Rico, but not necessarily living there today, to participate in the
plebiscites. Voter eligibility would be determined by the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission.

8 H.R. 900, sec. 3.
Congressional Research Service
4

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Representative Velázquez introduced H.R. 1230 on February 28, 2007. H.R. 1230 proposed a
constitutional convention and referendum to consider status. First, the bill proposed a
constitutional convention, to be held in Puerto Rico, to consider three options: (1) “a new or
modified Commonwealth status,” (2) statehood, or (3) independence. The convention, charged
with formulating a “self-determination option” (proposal), would have had to be “based on the
sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico and not subject to the plenary powers of the territory
clause of the Constitution of the United States.”9 The convention’s proposal would have then been
presented to “the People of Puerto Rico” (who would also have elected the convention delegates)
in a referendum. If a majority of voters had approved the proposal, the legislation directed that
Congress “shall” enact a joint resolution approving the proposal. Any congressional changes to
the proposal would have been submitted to Puerto Rican voters for another referendum before the
provisions took effect. The legislation specified that voters participating in the referenda could
have included resident Puerto Ricans and non-residents “who are not legal residents of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and who are either born in Puerto Rico or have one parent born in
Puerto Rico.”10
The October 2007 House Natural Resources Committee Markup
On October 23, 2007, the House Natural Resources Committee marked up H.R. 900. During that
session, portions of the original versions of H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230 were combined in the
reported version of H.R. 900, which was sent favorably to the full House by voice vote. (The
written report, H.Rept. 110-597, was not issued until April 2008.) Unlike the original version of
H.R. 900, which called for two plebiscites (but only if voters in the first plebiscite chose a change
in status), an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 900 reported by the full committee
proposed only one plebiscite, in which voters would have considered whether Puerto Rico should
have pursued the status quo or another political relationship with the United States. Also, the
reported version of H.R. 900 modified the threshold question. In the original version of the bill,
the status quo was described as “the existing form of territorial status as defined by the
Constitution, basic laws, and policies of the United States.”11 By contrast, the reported version
framed the status quo as Puerto Rico “continu[ing] to have its present form of territorial status
and relationship with the United States.”12 As with the original version of the bill, the reported
version of H.R. 900 would have framed the second political status option in the first plebiscite as
pursuing “constitutionally viable permanent nonterritorial status.”13
The original and reported versions of H.R. 900 also proposed different steps following the initial
plebiscite. Chairman Rahall’s amendment in the nature of a substitute would have required the
President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico Status (discussed below) to “submit recommendations for
appropriate action” to Congress if voters in the initial plebiscite had chosen a political
relationship different from commonwealth (the non-status quo option).14 However, the committee
adopted an amendment, sponsored by Representative Christensen, to the Rahall language. The

9 H.R. 1230, sec. 2.
10 H.R. 1230, sec. 2.
11 H.R. 900 as originally introduced, Sec. 3. Emphasis added.
12 H.R. 900 amendment in the nature of a substitute (Rahall), reported October 23, 2007, Sec. 2. Emphasis added.
13 H.R. 900 as originally introduced, Sec. 3 and ibid, respectively. There are nonetheless slight wording and
punctuation differences in the text surrounding the cited passage in each version of the bill.
14 H.R. 900 amendment in the nature of a substitute (Rahall), reported October 23, 2007, Sec. 2.
Congressional Research Service
5

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Christensen amendment would have incorporated into H.R. 900 language taken from H.R. 1230.
Under the Christensen amendment, if a majority of voters chose a change in political status in the
first plebiscite, Congress would have recognized “the inherent authority of the People of Puerto
Rico” to either call a constitutional convention or conduct another plebiscite. Other elements of
the original and reported versions of H.R. 900 (e.g., those addressing voter eligibility) were
similar or identical.
To summarize, the House Natural Resources Committee reported favorably H.R. 900, as
amended, by voice vote. The reported version of the bill contained elements from the original
versions of H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230. Most notably, the reported version of the bill would have
required the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission to hold a plebiscite on Puerto Rico status by
December 31, 2009. In that plebiscite, voters would have chosen between the status quo and a
“constitutionally viable permanent non-territorial status.” If voters chose the latter option (per the
Christensen amendment), the “People of Puerto Rico” could either have called a constitutional
convention or held a second plebiscite to consider how to proceed. In either case, Congress would
have had final say over the island’s status. Although the reported version of H.R. 900 represented
a compromise (generally supported at the markup) between the approaches originally proposed in
H.R. 900 and H.R. 1230, some Members continued to have reservations. For example,
Representative Velázquez, sponsor of H.R. 1230, called the reported bill insufficiently democratic
and transparent.15 On the other hand, Representative Fortuño, a co-sponsor of H.R. 900, generally
characterized the reported version of the bill as less than ideal, but ultimately a positive step in the
status debate.
The Senate Bill
Senator Salazar introduced S. 1936 on August 2, 2007. The bill (which shared the “Puerto Rico
Democracy Act of 2007” title with H.R. 900, but differed substantially from that bill), proposed a
single plebiscite in which voters would have chosen from four status options on one ballot. S.
1936 proposed that by September 30, 2008, the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission conduct
a plebiscite in which voters would choose between the status quo, independence, free association,
or statehood. As with the House bills, ballot language and the placement of various options on the
ballot could have affected the results. The status quo, described as a continuation of Puerto Rico’s
“present status and relationship with the United States,” would have been listed first.
Independence would have been listed second; no definition of “independence” was provided.
Free association would have been listed third and described as “seek[ing] nationhood in free
association with the United States.” Finally, statehood (without additional definition), would have
been listed fourth.16 No committee activity occurred on S. 1936.
Comparing the Reported H.R. 900 and S. 1936
Both the reported version of H.R. 900 and S. 1936 as introduced proposed a reconsideration of
the Puerto Rico status issue through a popular vote. Whereas S. 1936 presented four status
options as distinct choices, the reported version of H.R. 900 simply asked voters to choose
between the status quo and a change in political status. Although the House bill did not specify

15 Honorable Nydia M. Velázquez, “Velázquez Criticizes Committee Approval of Puerto Rico Bill,” press release,
October 23, 2007.
16 S. 1936, sec. 3.
Congressional Research Service
6

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

status options if voters chose a change, reports by a presidential task force (discussed below)
determined that constitutional status options were limited to the status quo, independence
(including free association), or statehood. As is noted below, the conclusions reached by the task
force have been controversial. The two bills also differed regarding voter-eligibility requirements,
funding, and other administrative provisions.
109th Congress
Bills introduced in the 109th Congress were largely similar to the bills introduced in the 110th
Congress. Four bills addressing Puerto Rico’s political status were introduced during the 109th
Congress. These bills also offered two different approaches to the political status issue. On
February 16, 2006, Senator Burr introduced legislation (S. 2304) that recognized the right of the
government of Puerto Rico to call a constitutional convention and authorized such action.
According to the legislation, delegates would have considered three proposals that could have
been submitted to Congress: (1) development of a new “compact of association” with the United
States; (2) admission of Puerto Rico as the 51st state, or (3) establishment of an independent
nation. The convention’s proposal would then have been presented to Congress. If approved,
Puerto Ricans would have voted on the proposal in a referendum. Representative Duncan
introduced an identical bill (H.R. 4963) in the House on March 15, 2006. S. 2304 and H.R. 4963
were similar to H.R. 1230, introduced in the 110th Congress, although there are some differences
between the 110th and 109th Congress bills. For example, H.R. 1230 places the popular
referendum before congressional approval of the convention proposal, whereas S. 2304 and H.R.
4963 called for the referendum to be held after congressional approval of the convention’s
proposal.
On March 2, 2006, Representative Fortuño, Resident Commissioner for Puerto Rico, introduced
legislation (H.R. 4867) to authorize two status plebiscites in Puerto Rico. This legislation is
essentially the same as H.R. 900, introduced by Representative Serrano during the 110th
Congress. Representatives Fortuño and Serrano were co-sponsors of H.R. 4867.
On April 26, 2006, Senator Martinez introduced S. 2661, which also proposed a plebiscite, but
differed significantly from H.R. 4867. S. 2661 proposed only one plebiscite, in which voters
would have been presented with two choices: continued status “as a territory of the United
States,” or pursuit of “a path toward permanent nonterritorial status.” The bill did not specify
what would have constituted “permanent nonterritorial status.”
On November 15, 2006, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on
the 2005 report from the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status. Witnesses at the hearing
noted continued disagreement in Washington and Puerto Rico about Puerto Rico’s current and
future political status. Various Senators and witnesses also debated whether Puerto Rico’s
political status should be revisited, and if so, which of the legislative options, if any, proposed
during the 109th Congress should be followed. The 109th Congress took no additional action on
Puerto Rican political status.
Congressional Research Service
7

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Non-Congressional Developments
A catalyst for the legislative activity described above was the release in December 2005 of a
presidential task force report.17 In the report, the task force asserted unambiguously that Puerto
Rico, although styled a “commonwealth,” is a territory of the United States and is subject to
Congress under the Territorial Clause of the U. S. Constitution.18 It also asserted that the
Constitution recognizes only two non-territorial options for Puerto Rico: either incorporation as a
state into the Union or independence. The task force recommended that the people of Puerto Rico
be given the opportunity through a plebiscite to say whether they want to continue their territorial
status. Were Puerto Ricans to reject territorial status, the task force recommended a second
plebiscite through which Puerto Ricans would choose between the two constitutionally viable
options of statehood and independence. The task force recommendations were rejected by the
governor of Puerto Rico at the time, who condemned the report and rejected “any efforts to turn
the task force’s recommendations into Congressional legislation.”19 The governor, among others,
argued that the “Commonwealth” or, in some cases, “Enhanced Commonwealth” constructs were
legitimate non-territorial options under U. S. constitutional and statutory law. The current
governor, former Resident Commissioner Fortuño, supports the conclusions of the report.
In San Juan, during March and April 2005, the Puerto Rican Legislative Assembly debated and
approved a bill “demanding” that the President and Congress “express their commitment to
respond” to calls to resolve the issues of the political status of Puerto Rico.20 The governor vetoed
the bill, which vitiated the bill’s authorization for a referendum to be held on July 10, 2005.
Subsequently, the Legislative Assembly approved a concurrent resolution that petitioned
Congress and the President to establish a method by which the citizens of Puerto Rico could
select a relationship with the United States “from among fully democratic, non-territorial and
non-colonial alternatives.”21 On August 2006, delegates to Puerto Rico’s New Progressive Party
(NPP) convention adopted a resolution (dubbed the “Tennessee Plan” for the method by which
Tennessee and six other states joined the Union; discussed briefly later in this report), reportedly
calling for Puerto Ricans to initiate a statehood application rather than waiting for an invitation

17 U.S. President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, Report by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status
(Washington: December 2005). The task force was created by President Clinton (E.O. 13183, dated December 23,
2000) and reconfigured by President Bush (E.O. 13209, dated April 30, 2001, and E.O. 13319, dated December 3,
2003). The task force was to “ensure official attention to and facilitate action on” status proposals and advise the
President and Congress on such matters. In 2007 the Task Force issued a new version of the report which reiterated the
conclusions reached in 2005. See U.S. President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, Report by the President’s Task
Force on Puerto Rico’s Status (Washington: December 2007), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/2007-
report-by-the-president-task-force-on-puerto-rico-status.pdf.
18 “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.
19 Letter from Governor Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, January 24, 2006, no longer available on the Internet, previously at
http://www.prfaa.com/files/Governor_Letter_on%20Status_January24_2006.pdf.
20 Puerto Rico, Legislative Assembly, Substitute House Bill 1014, 1054, and 1058, Sec. 2: “We, the People of Puerto
Rico, in the exercise of our right to self-determination, demand [exijimos] from the President and the Congress of the
United States of America, before December 31, 2006, an expression of 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.”
21 Puerto Rico, Legislative Assembly, H. Conc. R. 25.
Congressional Research Service
8

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

from Congress.22 Since 2006, as noted above, legislation to move the status issue has been
considered by the 110th and the 111th Congresses.
In addition to discussing the more recent developments that have shaped the Puerto Rico status
debate in recent years, this CRS report reviews how the relationship between Puerto Rico and the
United States has evolved since Puerto Rico became a United States possession following the
Spanish-American War.
Background
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. The total land area of the islands of Puerto Rico is roughly 3,500
square miles. The United States has exercised sovereignty over Puerto Rico since 1898, when
Spain ceded the islands to the United States following the Spanish-American War. Refer to
Appendix A of this report for summary information on important events in the governance of
Puerto Rico by the United States.
Early Governance of Puerto Rico
Between 1898 and 1900, U.S. military commanders governed Puerto Rico. In 1900, Congress
passed the Foraker Act, the territory’s first organic act, which established a civil government
headed by a presidential appointee.23 Seven years later, Congress passed the Jones Act of 1917,
which extended U.S. citizenship to residents of Puerto Rico, established a bill of rights for the
territory, provided for a popularly elected Senate, and authorized the election of a Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico to the United States Congress.24 In 1947, Congress provided for
the popular election of the islands’ governor.25 In 1950, Congress, the President, and the people of
Puerto Rico began a process that led to the Puerto Rican constitution, which is in effect today.26
Development of the Constitution of Puerto Rico
Development of the Puerto Rican constitution proceeded in a series of steps. First, in 1950, the
81st Congress enacted and President Truman approved legislation that authorized a constitutional
convention to develop the first constitution for the governance of Puerto Rico.27 Second, voters

22 See Maria Miranda, “Insults overwhelm calls for unity at NPP convention,” San Juan Star, August 21, 2006, p. 9;
and Eva Llorens Velez, “NPP to vote on new plan to win statehood,” San Juan Star, August 19, 2006, p. 6.
23 P.L. 56-191, 31 Stat. 77.
24 P.L. 64-368, 39 Stat. 951. An earlier Jones Act, that of 1916 and entitled the “Philippine Autonomy Act,” dealt with
the political status of the Philippines, which the United States had also acquired after the Spanish-American War. In
1934, Congress amended the act in preparation for full Philippine independence; and in 1946 the Philippines became an
independent nation.
25 P.L. 80-362, 61 Stat. 770.
26 For a chronology of the entities and authorities that have governed Puerto Rico since 1898, see Appendix A of this
report.
27 P.L. 81-600, 64 Stat. 319, 48 U.S.C. 731b. “Fully recognizing the principle of government by consent, sections 731b
to 731e of this title are 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.”
Congressional Research Service
9

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

approved the initiation of the process through a referendum. Third, voters elected delegates to the
constitutional convention in 1951, and the delegates worked throughout the year to draft that
document. Fourth, the product of the convention—a constitution that established the structure and
operation of government in the islands—was approved by the voters of Puerto Rico28 and
submitted to Congress and President Truman early in 1952. Fifth, the 82nd Congress modified the
constitution and approved the amended version in July 1952.29 The Puerto Rican constitutional
convention approved the modified document shortly thereafter,30 and Governor Luis Muñoz
Marin declared the constitution in effect on July 25, 1952.
The constitution of 1952 establishes a republican form of government and a bill of rights, sets out
provisions related to municipal government (including finance and revenue mechanisms), and
outlines the following framework for governance of the islands:
• 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),31 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), 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.32
The constitution of 1952 modified aspects of civil government for the islands; but neither it nor
the related public laws approved by Congress in 1950 and 1952 changed the fundamental
relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States.33 That relationship is determined by the

28 By a vote of approximately 387,000 yeas (76%) to 119,000 nays (24%), Puerto Ricans strongly supported the
process through which the constitution was developed. Support for the resulting constitution was even stronger—
375,000 yeas (82%) to 83,000 nays (18%).
29 P.L. 82-447, 66 Stat. 327, 48 U.S.C. 731d.
30 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.
31 The appointment of Secretary of State requires the advice and consent of the House of Representatives as well as the
Senate.
32 A United States district court has operated in Puerto Rico since 1900, when it was established by the Foraker Act.
P.L. 56-191, section 34, 56 Stat. 84.
33 P.L. 81-600 and P.L. 82-447, respectively. For example, the Senate committee report accompanying S. 3336, the bill
that became P.L. 81-600, was unambiguous on this point: “This measure is designed to complete the full measure of
local self-government in the islands by enabling the 2¼ million American citizens there to express their will and to
create their own territorial government. [Emphasis added]. S.Rept. 81-1779, p. 2. “This measure would not change
Puerto Rico’s fundamental political, social, and economic relationship to the United States.” Ibid., p. 3. “S. 3336 is not
a statehood bill. Nor is it an independence bill. It does not commit the Congress, either expressly or by implication to
take any action whatever in respect to either. It in no way precludes future determination by future Congresses of the
political status of Puerto Rico.” Ibid., p. 4. In this regard, former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh said in an
interview, “Although Congress made approval of the local constitution by referendum a condition of its approval of the
constitution, the local vote was given legal effect only by federal law, and the constitution entered into force only as
allowed by federal law. Consequently, the local constitution does not create or define a separate constitutional
sovereignty or vested right to the current status for the residents of the territory or the local government.” Puerto Rico
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution.34 Nonetheless, the relationship—often called the status
issue—continues to be the subject of recurring debate in Puerto Rico. The status debate is shaped
by varying understandings of the Federal Relations Act, international concerns, and rulings by the
Supreme Court.
Federal Relations Act
P.L. 81-600, which authorized the process that led to the constitution of 1952, also continued the
provisions of the Jones Act of 1917 that govern the relationship between Puerto Rico and the
United States. That set of provisions is commonly referred to as the Federal Relations Act
(FRA).35 The FRA deals with matters that are subject to congressional authority and established
pursuant to federal legislation, such as the citizenship status of residents, civil rights, trade and
commerce, taxation and 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.
Although the constitution of 1952 provides for self-government by Puerto Ricans, Congress
ceded none of its own plenary authority over the islands. From time to time Congress has
reasserted that authority by enacting legislation pertinent to local matters. For example, Congress
amended FRA provisions dealing with local urban development and slum clearance authority.36
International Attention
International attention to the political status of Puerto Rico introduced another element into
consideration of the island’s relationship with the United States. From 1946 through 1953, the
United States submitted annual reports to the United Nations about progress made toward self-
governance the U.S. 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.37 Some of the key findings in the General Assembly
resolution include the following:

(...continued)
Herald, October 4, 2002.
34 U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2
35 48 U.S.C. 731. The FRA includes provisions originally contained in the Organic Act of 1917 (39 Stat. 951) that established a
civil government in Puerto Rico. The act of 1917 is referred to as the Jones Act. The Jones Act of 1917 was the second organic
act Congress approved for Puerto Rico; the first was the Foraker Act approved by Congress in 1900 (31 Stat. 77).
36 The FRA authorizes the government of Puerto Rico to establish authorities for slum clearance and urban
redevelopment but prohibits such entities from imposing taxes, and it authorizes the legislature of Puerto Rico to
empower such authorities to undertake urban renewal projects. Congress amended this provision in 1955, subsequent to
implementation of the constitution of 1952. See 48 U.S.C. 910, 910a. The FRA also 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.
37 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.
Congressional Research Service
11

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

• “the agreement reached by the United States of America and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, in forming a political association which respects the individuality
and the cultural characteristics of Puerto Rico, maintains the spiritual bonds
between Puerto Rico and Latin America and constitutes a link in continental
solidarity”;
• the constitution and the associated documentation “provided that the Association
of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with the United States of America has been
established as a mutually agreed association”;
• as a result of the Puerto Rico constitution and the compact, “the people of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have been invested with attributes of political
sovereignty which clearly identify the status of self-government attained by the
Puerto Rican people as that of an autonomous political entity.”38
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 may have convinced itself that it removed Puerto Rico from
the international agenda in 1953, few others are convinced.39
Supreme Court Decisions
Federal court decisions also influenced 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.40 In them, the Court declared that territories are not integral parts of the United States, but
are possessions, and that certain fundamental rights, but not all constitutional rights, extend to
residents of the territories.41 In general, analysts and legal practitioners agree with this
contention.42 Others, however, notably those who advocate for the continuation of the
commonwealth, argue that other Supreme Court rulings indicate that Puerto Rico holds a unique
status in relation to the United States.43 They argue that in these cases, the justices concluded that

38 Office of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Documents on the Constitutional History of Puerto Rico (Washington,
DC 1964), p. 199-200.
39 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.
40 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).
41 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).
42 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). See also Richard Thornburgh, “A Constitutional Path to Self-determination for Puerto Rico,” remarks to the
Symposium on the Politics and Economics of Puerto Rico, sponsored by the Harvard Institute for International
Development, Cambridge, MA, April 28, 1998, available at http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol2n10/
thornburgh-path.html.
43 Rep. Jamie Fuster, “Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 136,
October 10, 1990, pp. 28335-28336.
Congressional Research Service
12

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Puerto Rico may exercise certain authority in a fashion comparable to that of the states.44 Such
decisions, however, do not alter the basic relationship of Puerto Rico to the United States as
defined under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Status Debates and Votes, 1952-1998
Despite the 1952 constitution, the status issue has proven to be perennial and has repeatedly been
the subject of partisan debate and popular vote in Puerto Rico since 1952. Moreover, each of
Puerto Rico’s three political parties is closely associated with a status preference. Popular
Democratic Party—Partido Democrático Popular (PDP)—favors “Commonwealth” status,
whether in the original form approved by Congress in 1950 or, as expressed in the 1998 plebiscite
and party platform documents in 2004, an expanded version with additional authority for the
government of Puerto Rico. The New Progressive Party—Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP)—
favors statehood. And the Puerto Rican Independence Party—Partido Independentista
Puertorriqueño (PIP)—favors independence.
1967 Plebiscite
Following the recommendation of the Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico (established
pursuant to P.L. 88-271, 78 Stat. 17), 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 parties reportedly boycotted the plebiscite.45 One
political analyst contended that the 1967 plebiscite “was tainted by blatant interference by United
States intelligence agencies.”46 Another author commented, as follows, that all parties claimed
victory:
Each status group celebrated the results of the plebiscite: the independentistas because their
boycott had been so effective; commonwealth, because of their clear majority; and statehood
because of their gains.47
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.

44 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).
45 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, August 1976, p. 493.
46 Juan M. Garcia Passalacqua, “The 1993 Plebiscite in Puerto Rico: A First Step to Decolonization?,” Current History,
vol. 93, March 1994, p. 106.
47 Roberta Ann Johnson, Puerto Rico: Commonwealth or Colony? (New York: Praeger Special Studies, 1980), p. 138.
Congressional Research Service
13

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

The specific proposals included in the referendum were the right 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.
Despite PDP and PIP support, a majority (53%) voted against the proposal. Some contended that
the decision to schedule the referendum represented an indirect step to block statehood. Others
perceived the rejection to reflect dissatisfaction with the governor. Another explanation offered
for the vote was 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.48
1993 Plebiscite
In the 1992 election campaign, the PNP 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.49
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. The disconnect between the ballot option and
constitutional requirements was summarized in the House report accompanying legislation
introduced three years after the plebiscite, as follows:
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.50
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
PNP and the plebiscite itself was a major campaign promise for the governor.51 Others may argue
that PDP advocates did not achieve a final victory in the 1993 vote because Congress rejected the
commonwealth option presented on ballots.
1998 Action in the 105th Congress
On March 4, 1998, the House approved H.R. 856, which would have authorized referenda at least
once every ten years, through which the people of Puerto Rico could indicate their preference
among three status options: (1) “Puerto Rico should retain Commonwealth”; (2) ”The people of
Puerto Rico should become fully self-governing through separate sovereignty in the form of

48 Robert Friedman, “Voters Say No in Stunning Defeat for RHC,” San Juan Star, December 9, 1991, p. 3.
49 Statement taken from: 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. 104-713 Part 1, (Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 18.
50 Ibid., p. 19.
51 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, March 1994, pp. 103-
107; José O. Díaz, “Puerto Rico, the United States, and the 1993 Referendum on Political Status,” Latin American
Research Review, vol. 30, 1995, pp. 203-211.
Congressional Research Service
14

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

independence or free association”; or (3) “Puerto Rico should become fully self-governing
through Statehood.”52 The Senate, however, did not take formal action on the measure.
After Congress declined to take additional action, elected officials in Puerto Rico called for a
referendum on this issue. On September 17, 1998, the Senate approved a resolution expressing
the sense of the Senate that “(1) the Senate supports and recognizes the right of United States
citizens residing in Puerto Rico to express democratically their views regarding their future
political status through a referendum or other public forum, and to communicate those views to
the President and Congress; and (2) the Federal Government should review any such
communication.”53
1998 Plebiscite
Having heard both the House and the Senate assert support for Puerto Ricans to express their
status preference, the islanders conducted a plebiscite on December 13, 1998. Five alternatives
were listed on the ballot: “limited self-government”; “free association”; “statehood”;
“sovereignty”; and “none of the above.” Disputes arose as to the definition of each of the ballot
alternatives; and commonwealth advocates, among others, reportedly urged a vote for “none of
the above.” They asserted that 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.” In the end, a
slim majority of voters in that plebiscite selected “none of the above” (50.3%).54
There have been no further plebiscites or referenda on the status issue since the inconclusive 1998
vote.
Appendix B of this CRS report summarizes the voting results from Puerto Rican referenda and
plebiscites on the status issue since 1967.
Federal Activity After 1998
106th Congress
Following an examination of the 1998 plebiscite, a 1999 congressional committee report
concluded that 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.”55 The absence of consensus in the 1998 plebiscite led some in
Congress to call for further consideration of the status issue.56 In response to the inconclusive

52 H.R. 856, 105th Cong., Sec. 4.
53 S.Res. 279, 105th Cong.
54 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.
55 Ibid., p. 7.
56 “House Narrowly Supports Puerto Rico Plebiscite; Senate Takes No Action,” Congressional Quarterly 1998
Almanac (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1998), pp. 13-6 and 13-7. See also “Puerto Rico Political Status,”
Congressional Digest, vol. 77, May 1998 (Washington: Congressional Digest Corp., 1998), pp. 142-160.
Congressional Research Service
15

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

results of the plebiscite, four Members of Congress who chaired committees and a subcommittee
with jurisdiction over Puerto Rico summarized the impact of the vote as follows:
[A]fter 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.57
The 106th Congress continued to give attention to the matter; and on October 4, 2000, the House
Committee on Resources held a hearing on H.R. 4751. The bill, which would have recognized
Puerto Rico “as a nation legally and constitutionally,” received no further action.
In a further effort to move toward consensus on the status issue, the 106th Congress appropriated
$2.5 million for FY2001 for “objective, non-partisan citizens’ education and a choice by voters on
the islands’ future status.”58 The appropriation could not be allocated, however, until the Elections
Commission of Puerto Rico submitted an expenditure plan developed by the three major political
parties in Puerto Rico to the U.S. House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The statute also
required views not in agreement with the plan to be communicated to Congress. The commission
plan was never submitted. As a result, appropriated funds were never expended; they reverted to
the Treasury.59
Executive Branch Action in 2000
President Clinton issued an executive order in 2000 that established the President’s Task Force on
Puerto Rico’s Status.60 The task force membership included the director of the Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs in the White House and officials from each executive department.61
Originally, the task force was to report on its actions by May 1, 2001, but the deadline provision
of the executive order was amended twice. The first amendment extended the deadline to August
1, 2001.62 The second amendment established a more flexible time frame, as follows:

57 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, April
5, 2000.
58 P.L. 106-346, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2001, 114 Stat. 1356A-47.
59 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.
60 U.S. President (Clinton), “Establishment of the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status,” Executive Order
13183, Federal Register, vol. 65, December 29, 2000, p. 82889.
61 The original list of members is available on the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2003/12/20031205-6.html, visited March 2, 2007.
62 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, April 30, 2001, p. 22105.
Congressional Research Service
16

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

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.63
President’s Task Force Report, December 2005
The President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status issued a document in December 2005
discussing the status issue and presented the following three recommendations:
• Within a year, Congress should provide for a plebiscite to be held to enable the
people of Puerto Rico to choose between remaining a U.S. territory or attaining
“a permanent non-territorial status with the United States.”
• If the results from the plebiscite indicate that the people want to establish a non-
territorial status, Congress should provide for a second plebiscite that will enable
voters to choose between statehood and independence. On the basis of that
selection, Congress “is encouraged to begin a process of transition toward that
option.”
• If, in the original plebiscite, the people of Puerto Rico elect to remain a U.S.
territory, plebiscites should take place “periodically, as long as that status
continues, to keep Congress informed of the people’s wishes.”64
The task force included representatives from each Cabinet department. It is important to note,
however, that the task force recommendations do not necessarily represent the public policy of
any particular presidential administration. Deputy Assistant Attorney General and task force co-
chair Kevin Marshall addressed this point during the November 15, 2006, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources committee hearing on Puerto Rico’s status. In response to a question from
Senator Bingaman, Marshall stated that “The [George W. Bush] administration has not taken any
public position on the task force report. But the executive orders creating the task force didn’t
contemplate that the president would publicly approve or disapprove of the report.”65 In a
subsequent hearing, however, Mr. Marshall announced that the George W. Bush Administration
supported the task force report. In his prepared statement (for a House Subcommittee on Insular
Affairs hearing) delivered on April 25, 2007, Marshall noted that he was authorized to affirm that
the “Administration supports the Task Force report.”66 During the hearing, Marshall also
emphasized that H.R. 900 was consistent with the task force’s conclusions regarding
constitutionally viable status options for Puerto Rico.

63 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, December 3, 2003, p. 68233.
64 U.S. President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, Report by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status,
p. 10.
65 GPO records indicate that the official transcript has not yet been published. Marshall’s quotation appears in “Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Holds Hearing on Puerto Rico Status,” CQ Transcript, November 15, 2006.
66 Statement of Kevin Marshall, U.S. Department of Justice, no longer available on the Internet, previously found at
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Media/File/Hearings/20070425/Testimony_Marshall.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
17

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

President’s 2007 Task Force Report
As noted above, a 2003 executive order required that a status task force report be produced at
least every two years. The task force issued a report in December 2007 that reiterated the
conclusions reached in 2005 (discussed above). The 2007 task force noted that although it was
not predisposed to any particular status option, only three constitutionally viable options were
available to Puerto Rico: (1) continuing the status quo as a U.S. territory subject to the Territorial
Clause; (2) statehood; or (3) independence.67 In addition to reaching the same fundamental
conclusions as in 2005, the 2007 report commented on reactions to the previous version of the
report. In particular, the task force in 2007 noted that use of the term “commonwealth” with
respect to Puerto Rico “describe[s] the substantial political autonomy enjoyed by Puerto Rico”
and “appropriately captures Puerto Rico’s special relationship with the United States.” However,
the task force said, the island remains a U.S. territory subject to the congressional plenary powers
under the Territorial Clause.68 This language suggested that although the task force perhaps more
explicitly recognized a degree of Puerto Rican autonomy than it did in the 2005 report, the 2007
report nonetheless reiterated that the Territorial Clause grants Congress wide jurisdiction over the
island as long as Puerto Rico remains a U.S. territory. As in 2005, the task force also concluded
that so-called “enhanced commonwealth” was constitutionally impermissible.69
The 2007 task force report also reiterated the 2005 recommendations concerning
• a “federally sanctioned plebiscite” to determine whether Puerto Ricans wish to
maintain the status quo or pursue a “constitutionally viable” status option;
• the need for a second plebiscite that would present choices between either
statehood or independence if Puerto Ricans choose to pursue non-territorial status
in the first plebiscite; and
• the view that plebiscites should occur “periodically” to revisit the status question
if Puerto Ricans choose to maintain the status quo.70
President Obama’s Executive Order
On October 30, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order that further amended the
Clinton order issued in 2000 (E.O. 13183), as well as one that President Obama issued in the first
weeks of his Administration, on government contracting (E.O. 13494).71 The Obama directive
mandated that the task force, as created in this Administration, issue a report on actions taken
with regard to the status issue by the end of October 2010. It also amended the predecessor
documents by stating that it is the policy of the Administration to promote job creation, economic
development, and other objectives in Puerto Rico, and to ensure that labor management costs
would be treated as allowable in federal contracts.

67 U.S. President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, Report by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status
(Washington: December 2007), p. 1; pp. 5-10; available at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/2007-report-by-the-
president-task-force-on-puerto-rico-status.pdf.
68 Ibid., p. 5.
69 Ibid., pp. 6-7.
70 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
71 U.S. President (Obama), “Amendments to Executive Orders 13183 and 13494,” Executive Order 13517, Federal
Register, vol. 74, Nov. 5, 2009, pp. 57239-40.
Congressional Research Service
18

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

President’s 2011 Task Force Report
In March 2011, the Obama Administration task force issued its first report.72 Perhaps given the
2009 executive order’s statements regarding economic issues, the 2011 task force report
addressed topics beyond status per se. Unlike previous task force reports, the 2011 document
made a range of economic recommendations. The report also addressed other issues such as
healthcare access, public safety, and tourism as components of Puerto Rico’s overall economic
development—matters which are beyond the scope of this report.
On status specifically, the task force recommended the following.73
• The President, Congress, political leaders in Puerto Rico, and interested citizens
have an opportunity to express their status preferences and have them “acted
upon by the end of 2012 or soon thereafter.”
• Permissible status options include those long identified as constitutionally viable
by previous task force reports: the status quo (commonwealth), free association,
independence, or statehood.
• The task force expressed a “marginal preference” for reconsidering status—if the
people of Puerto Rico choose to do so—through a two-stage plebiscite first
considering independence or maintaining a relationship with the U.S, and then
considering various options based on the outcome of the first vote. This approach
would be generally consistent with the two-stage plebiscites considered in recent
Congresses and discussed throughout this report.
• If status is reevaluated through a plebiscite, the task force recommended that only
those living in Puerto Rico should be permitted to participate. As noted elsewhere
in this report, some recent congressional proposals have advocated for
participation by Puerto Ricans living in the mainland U.S., although the topic has
been subject to debate. H.R. 2499, which passed the House in the 111th Congress,
would have extended plebiscite voting to all U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico
(but not necessarily living there at the time of the plebiscite) who otherwise
satisfied local eligibility criteria.
• If Puerto Ricans chose independence, the task force recommended that U.S.
citizenship should be preserved for those who are already U.S. citizens.
• If Puerto Rico were admitted as a state, the task force found that English would
need to play “a central role in the daily life of the Island.”
• If a clear status preference is not expressed on the island “in the short term,” the
task force recommended self-executing federal legislation that specifies
acceptable status options.

72 U.S. President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status, Report by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status
(Washington: March 2011); available at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/2007-report-by-the-president-task-force-
on-puerto-rico-status.pdf.
73 See, for example, ibid., pp. 3-4.
Congressional Research Service
19

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Issues of Debate on Political Status
The establishment of the commonwealth in 1952 did not resolve all questions on the political
status of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico remains a territory of the United States, subject to
congressional authority under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Some Puerto Ricans,
however, believe the commonwealth enjoys a unique relationship to the United States and the
federal government, and that it has some attributes of separate sovereignty.74 Others argue that
commonwealth status 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
this status leaves the governance of Puerto Rico subject to the Territorial Clause, and therefore
subject to congressional action. Others disagree, arguing that the current status can be a
permanent status option that requires adjustments (“enhancements”) over time.
If Congress chooses to reexamine the political status of Puerto Rico, a number of policy issues
might arise, among which are the following:
• What process will be used to consider the political status options?
• How is each option to be defined?
• What impact would Puerto Rican statehood have on the U.S. Congress?
• What associated policy matters might be raised if Congress debates status?
Each of these issues is 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 and vote might proceed. The process used to identify, discuss, and
vote on status options would likely be established before debate begins on the “final” status
options. Bills considered by the Puerto Rican legislature in 2005 dealt with one step of the
process—a call from the people of Puerto Rico for a federal response to the status issue. But the
parties in Puerto Rico could not reach consensus on a procedural matter, and the governor vetoed
the measure. The gubernatorial veto of the measure approved by the Puerto Rican legislature and
the history of controversy and popular votes on status proposals suggest that procedural questions
will require careful planning and decisions. Arguably, an agreement on procedure is necessary for
the resolution of subsequent complex questions (e.g., the definition of status options).
Neither the U.S. Constitution nor precedents establish immutable procedures for the resolution of
controversies concerning the political status of a territory of the United States. Throughout U.S.

74 They argue that Puerto Rico has a culture and identity separate from the United States by pointing to the presence of
a Puerto Rican National Olympic Committee (see http://www.olympic.org/en/content/National-Olympic-Committees/
puerto-rico/), and, in past years, to the tax treatment of corporations and individuals in Puerto Rico. For information on
tax policies, see CRS Report RL32708, Federal Taxes and the U.S. Possessions: An Overview, by Steven Maguire.
Also, some officials reportedly refer to Puerto Rico as a “country.” See, for example, Rosario Fajardo, “AAV, Fortuño
Agree on Need to Move Status Issue,” San Juan Star, February 15, 2005, p. 4: “ ‘I believe the moment has come for the
country to have the opportunity of choosing between different alternatives,’ [Governor Anibal] Acevedo Vilá said.”
Congressional Research Service
20

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

history, various means 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.
History, however, presents some broad outlines and variations. The process of debate involves the
following:
• assessment of how a change of status for the territory might affect national
interests of the United States;
• assessment of the viewpoints of the affected population;
• development of a means by which the preferences of the population are presented
to Congress; and
• consideration of legislative mechanisms through which Congress and the
President act on the status options.
Although the process for resolving the political status question of the territories 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
debates on changes in the political status of territories; they are offered as examples to provide
basic information on historical precedents.
Paths to Statehood
Historically, the transition of a territory to statehood has taken a variety of procedural paths.75 The
path for some territories was long and even torturous, taking many years and involving strife and
loss of life. The path for other territories was relatively straightforward. One team of researchers
specifically tasked to look at the issue from the perspective of the status debate on Puerto Rico
identified six paths.76 The report issued by the team categorized those paths as follows:77
1. the union of the first 13 colonies, each of which wrote its own constitution;78
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”;79

75 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 states or parts of states without consent of legislatures
and Congress. See U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 1.
76 Grupo de Investigadores Puertoriqueños, Breakthrough from Colonialism: An Interdisciplinary Study of Statehood
(Río Piedras, Puerto Rico: Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico,1984), pp. 1207-1226. Hereafter cited as
Breakthrough.
77 It might be argued that other “paths” to statehood could be identified, or other configurations of the above might be
developed. For example, options 1 and 5 might be considered in concert since they both include states admitted to the
union primarily through initiatives undertaken by residents of the future states, with little or no congressional action.
78 Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia.
Congressional Research Service
21

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

3. annexation of an independent republic;80
4. creation of new states from existing states;81
5. development of a state constitution without congressional support;82 and
6. congressional enactment of enabling legislation.83
Another perspective is presented in a report prepared by contractors for a commission on Alaska’s
statehood. The commission report identified two basic paths—one stemming from congressional
initiatives; the other, from territorial forces:
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.84
Independence: Development of a Sovereign Identity
Some territories affiliated with the United States eventually became independent 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.”85 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.86 As summarized by one author:

(...continued)
79 Tennessee, Michigan, Iowa, California (some contend that California entered as an independent republic operating
under military government rule), Oregon, Kansas, and Alaska. For a description of the Tennessee Plan process, see
Breakthrough, pp. 1209, 1210; see also William Tansill, Elections of Congressional Delegation Prior to the According
of Statehood, Legislative Reference Service, 1955.
80 Texas.
81 Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia.
82 Arkansas, Florida, Wyoming, Idaho, and Hawaii.
83 Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, Nebraska,
Colorado, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Washington, Utah, Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico.
84 The Concept of Statehood within the American Federal System; prepared under contract for the Alaska Statehood
Commission by Birch, Horton, Bittner, and Monroe, PC (Fairbanks, AK: The Commission, 1981), p. 70.
85 P.L. 73-127, 48 Stat. 456 et seq. See U.S. President (Roosevelt), Proclamation No. 2695, 11 F.R. 7517, 60 Stat. 1352.
86 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.
Congressional Research Service
22

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

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.87
Free Association
While never formally included in the penumbra of United States territories, the Pacific island
nations with which the United States has entered into compacts of free association (the Republic
of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands) illustrate
another possible outcome if a territory such as Puerto Rico becomes an independent, sovereign
nation. Compacts of free association establish mutual agreements that legally connect the
political, economic development, military, or other interests of the United States with those of the
sovereign nations. 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 1947, after the close of World War II, the United Nations established the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands and formalized a Trusteeship Agreement with the United States for the
administration of the islands.88 The federal government exercised administrative control over the
islands of Micronesia previously controlled by the Japanese (the Northern Mariana, Caroline, and
Marshall Islands) first through the Department of the Navy, and, in 1951, through the Department
of the Interior (except for the majority of the Northern Mariana Islands, which reverted to
administration by the Navy, from 1952 through 1962). The islands were not U.S. territories
pursuant to the Territorial Clause of the Constitution. As summarized by one historian, the islands
were governed as occupied foreign territories so the due process Constitutional questions
which arose in the territories acquired after the Spanish-American War did not arise here.
These territories were outside the U.S. Constitution.... The federal courts held that the Trust
Territory was not an agency or territory of the United States although “like” a territory in
some respects.89
Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior in the 1960s, established the Congress of Micronesia in
1964 as the legislative body for the geographically widespread and culturally diverse collection of
islands.90 In 1967 the Congress of Micronesia created the Future Political Status Commission to
consider political status options for the trust territory; debate on the political relationship of
various island groups to the United States stretched over decades.91 In order to negotiate such
compacts, the residents of the islands organized into three separate entities—the Federated States

87 Arnold H. Leibowitz, Colonial Emancipation in the Pacific and the Caribbean: A Legal and Political Analysis (New
York: Praeger, 1976), p. 25.
88 Congress authorized President Truman to approve a trusteeship agreement between the United States and the
Security Council of the United Nations (P.L. 80-204, 61 Stat. 397). One author described the evolution of the
agreement as follows: “After World War II the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, invented the concept of “strategic
trusteeship,” designated Micronesia as the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and granted total hegemony to the
United States.” John A. Worthley, “Legislatures and Political Development: The Congress of Micronesia,” The
Western Political Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 4, December 1973, pp. 676-677.
89 Arnold H. Leibowitz, Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations (Boston:
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989), p. 33.
90 For background on the establishment of the Congress of Micronesia, and the text of the Secretarial order, see
Norman Meller, The Congress of Micronesia (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1969).
91 Roger W. Gale, “A New Political Status for Micronesia,” Pacific Affairs, vol. 51, no. 3 (Autumn 1978), pp. 427-447.
Congressional Research Service
23

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

of Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI).
(Representatives of a different group of islands in the district, the Northern Mariana Islands,
opted to retain closer affiliation with the United States, eventually agreeing in 1975 to a covenant
that established the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.) Through constitutional
conventions, the elected officials developed and ratified separate constitutions and established
republican governments headed by elected officials. After the three independent republics
assumed 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 previously renegotiated.92 Portions of the compact with Palau were
renegotiated in 2010.93
Recent Debate over the Process in Puerto Rico
Much of the debate among Puerto Rico’s officials currently centers around alternative
mechanisms for discussing and resolving the status options. One option, advocated by the former
governor and the PDP during the 110th Congress, was to establish a constituent assembly or local
constitutional conventions. 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.94 Delegates to the assembly, pursuant to the legislation that had
been introduced by the governor, would “establish a dialogue” with executive branch officials and
submit a report to the President and to Congress on the proposals for the political relationship of
Puerto Rico to the United States.95 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.”96 Negotiations between representatives of
Puerto Rico and Congress arguably would have addressed issues of the constitutionality of the
status options developed by the assembly.
A second option, reportedly supported by the majority of the legislature at the time and the former
Resident Commissioner and now Governor, Luis Fortuño, 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.
Options developed by federal officials would then have been presented to the people of Puerto

92 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. The compacts texts are found in 48 U.S.C. 1901.
93 Palau entered into a Compact of Free Association with the United States in 1995. The economic assistance
provisions of Palau’s Compact came up for renewal in 2009. In January 2010, the United States and Palau finalized
negotiations on a 15-year, $250 million assistance package. CRS specialist Thomas Lum provided consultation on this
point.
94 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, February 11, 2005.
95 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.
96 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
24

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Rico for their consideration. A plebiscite would then have been held before July 1, 2007, on those
options.97
A third option, described previously in this report, was based upon a PIP proposal. The PNP-led
Puerto Rican legislature approved the measure with a PDP-supported amendment, but the
governor vetoed it. According to the bill, if Congress had not reacted within 90 days of the
deadline, 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.”98
Years after these proposals were debated among Puerto Rican officials, many questions remain
unanswered. Were Congress to take up the status debate, some procedural questions that might be
raised 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? Would congressional approval of self-
executing legislation be consistent with the responsibility of Congress under the
Territorial Clause?
• If the Puerto Rican legislature and the governor are unable to reach agreement on
legislation to initiate the process, would Congress respond to a concurrent
resolution adopted solely by the legislature?99
• Would a plurality or a majority of registered voter participation be required to
indicate support for a final status option? Are there circumstances under which a
plurality vote for a status option would be acceptable to Congress and the people
of Puerto Rico? None of the 110th Congress bills would have established
minimum thresholds for support among voters (e.g., minimum percentages for a
result to be considered valid); neither would the legislation before the 111th
Congress. A plurality rather than a majority vote could have been likely in the S.
1936 plebiscite because the bill would have presented four options to voters
simultaneously.
• 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? The two
House bills introduced in the 110th Congress, like the 111th Congress legislation,
contained language suggesting that Puerto Ricans living outside the islands
would be allowed to participate.
• At what stage (or stages) in the decision-making 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

97 Rosario Fajardo, “AAV, Fortuño Agree on Need to Move Status Issue,” San Juan Star, February 15, 2005, p. 4.
98 “Act to Petition and for the Self-Determination of the People of Puerto Rico,” Sec. 2.
99 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, April 2, 1998, 105th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1998),
p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
25

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

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. Agreement on standard definitions of the terms
may be elusive, even if the terms are initially accepted as defined. In particular, the lack of a clear
and stable legal definition for the term “commonwealth” complicates the debate. 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 constitutionally valid status options and
definitions acceptable to Congress, the debate over status yields few or no conclusive results.100
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
alphabetical 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.101 Commonwealth status for Puerto Rico is based on statutory provisions102
and the Constitution of Puerto Rico that established a republican form of self-government. Under
current federal law, residents of Puerto Rico enjoy U.S. citizenship, but many contend that the
Puerto Rican identity reflects a degree of autonomy that enables the island to remain somewhat
separate from, but part of, the United States.103 Some support an enhanced or “new”
commonwealth status and seek changes in the current relationship to increase the 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,
recognizing a permanent relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States that cannot be

100 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, January 18, 2001. Hereafter cited as Raben Letter.
101 U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 3.
102 Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act, P.L. 81-600, 64 Stat. 319.
103 In 1992, President George H.W. Bush described the relationship of the Commonwealth to the United States with
regard to the administration of federal programs, 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,
December 2, 1992, p. 57093.
Congressional Research Service
26

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

unilaterally changed, and establishing economic relationships with other nations.104 Concepts
associated with enhanced or new commonwealth have not been published in 2005, but the former
governor reportedly sought additional sovereign authority that would enable Puerto Rico’s
government officials to negotiate international agreements and establish new intergovernmental
fiscal relations with the federal government.
Free Association
This option would establish Puerto Rico as a sovereign nation separate from, but legally bound
(on a terminable basis) to, the United States. As a general practice, free association would 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 provide assistance to the island for a period of
time specified in the compact. Free association could be annulled at any time by either nation.
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.105 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.
Statehood
Advocates of statehood contend that the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship should be
granted to 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.106 Opponents
argue that statehood would result in a loss of national identity.

104 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., January 30 and February 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, pp. 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).
105 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.
106 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, pp. 2-3.
Congressional Research Service
27

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Other Issues
If political status legislation were debated in Congress, the following issues, previously raised in
discussions, might be subject to congressional scrutiny again.
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 would
increase the size of the Senate to 102. A state of Puerto Rico would send approximately six
Representatives to the House. Based on past precedent, congressional leaders might select among
three options—(1) temporarily increasing the size of the House until the next decennial census,
(2) permanently increasing the size of the House, or (3) subtracting congressional seats from
other states and assigning those seats to Puerto Rico.107 Depending on which option were chosen,
the 50 states currently in the union would lose some degree of absolute or relative voting strength,
or both. Moreover, admission of Puerto Rico might also affect the party split in each chamber of
Congress.
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.”108 During the 1998 House debate on H.R. 856, an amendment was adopted that would
have established an English language education requirement if Puerto Rico were admitted as a
state.109 See Table C-4 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.110
Citizenship
In 1917 Congress extended citizenship to “citizens” of Puerto Rico who were not citizens of
foreign countries.111 Persons born in Puerto Rico after 1941 are citizens of the United States at
birth, again through federal statute.112 Such “statutory” citizenship differs from “constitutional”

107 The figure of six Representatives is based on the 2000 census. That number appears unlikely to change based on
estimates for 2010. For a full discussion of the potential effect of Puerto Rican statehood on apportionment of House
seats, see CRS Report R41113, Puerto Rican Statehood: Effects on House Apportionment, by Royce Crocker.
108 48 U.S.C. 892.
109 Remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 144, March 4, 1998, pp. H802-H812. An
amendment designating Spanish as the official language of Puerto Rico was rejected during the same debate.
110 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.
111 P.L. 64-368, 39 Stat. 953.
112 “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.
Congressional Research Service
28

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

citizenship that automatically confers upon persons born in the United States (as opposed to the
areas subject to the territories clause).113 If the political status of Puerto Rico changes to one of
independent sovereignty, some have argued that the people of Puerto Rico should be provided the
opportunity to elect between citizenship in the new nation or retention of U.S. citizenship.
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.114 See Table C-4 of this report for the reference
to the 1998 legislative provisions pertinent to citizenship. Some contend that dual citizenship is
an option. Former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, among others, has spoken in opposition
to this option if Puerto Rico becomes a sovereign nation.115 Extensive debate on the citizenship
issue has been published.116
Transition Period
If the political status of Puerto Rico changes, 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, and strategic defense agreements are reached, among other matters.
Concluding Observations
Recent activity regarding Puerto Rico’s political status—in Congress and on the island—suggests
that action may be taken in the 111th Congress. The reports issued in 2007 and 2005 by the
President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status may be the bases for reconsideration of the
existing commonwealth status, as legislative developments during the 109th and 110th Congresses
suggested. Agreement on the process to be used in considering the status proposals has been as
elusive as agreement on the end result. Congress would have a determinative role in any
resolution of the issue. The four options that appear to be most frequently discussed include
continuation of the commonwealth, modification of the current commonwealth agreement,
statehood, or independence. If independence, or separate national sovereignty, were selected,
Puerto Rican officials might seek to negotiate a compact of free association with the United
States.

113 “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.
114 See Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980).
115 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Political Status of Puerto Rico, hearings on S.
244, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., February 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.
116 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, October 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.
Congressional Research Service
29

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Appendix A. Brief Chronology of Status Events
Since 1898
Table A-1. Summary of Status Events Since 1898
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 appointees.
1917
Enactment of the Jones Act of 1917 that established a bill of rights for citizens, provided for a
popularly elected Senate, authorized election of Resident Commissioner, and extended U.S.
citizenship to residents of Puerto Rico.a
1947
Enactment of the Elective Governor Act.b
1950
Enabling and implementing legislation enacted for the establishment of a constitutional government.c
1952 The
82nd Congress and President Truman approve the constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, with amendments.d
1953
The U.S. 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 considered a “Non-Self-Governing” territory.”e
1964-1966
United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico convenes, issues reports, and
recommends that a status plebiscite be held.f
1967
Plebiscite on status held, majority vote in favor of commonwealth proposal.
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.g
1989-1990 101st Congress debates status legislation; House passes (H.R. 4765) and Senate committees report
(S. 712) different bills.
1996
House committees in the 104th Congress report status legislation (H.R. 3024).
1998 House
(105th Congress) passes status legislation (H.R. 856) referred to as the Young bill; Senate does
not act on comparable legislation, but approves resolution (S.Res. 279) in support of referendum.
2000
Appropriation of $2.5 million included in Department of Transportation Appropriations Act (P.L.
106-346) for a status education campaign and a status vote.
President Clinton issues E.O. 13183; established the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status.
2005
The President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status issues report that sets forth recommendations
for congressional action.
2006
Legislation introduced in the 109th Congress (S. 2304, S. 2661, H.R. 4867, H.R. 4963) to initiate
processes for constitutional conventions or plebiscites on status options.
2007
Legislation introduced in the 110th Congress to initiate plebiscites (H.R. 900, S. 1936) or a
constitutional convention and referendum (H.R. 1230) on status options. House Natural Resources
Committee reports amended version of H.R. 900, which contains some H.R. 1230 provisions. The
President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s status issues a second report, which reiterates the 2005
recommendations and conclusions.
2009-2010
The House Committee on Natural Resources reported out the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009
(H.R. 2499) on October 8, 2009. On October 30, 2009, President Obama amended E.O. 13183 to
require a report on Puerto Rico’s status within one year. On April 29, 2010, the House passed H.R.
2499.
Congressional Research Service
30

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

a. P.L. 56-191, 31 Stat. 77.
b. P.L. 80-362, 61 Stat. 770.
c. P.L. 81-600, 64 Stat. 319.
d. P.L. 82-447, 66 Stat. 327.
e. United Nations Resolution 748 (VIII), Yearbook of the United Nations 1953 (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1954), p. 539.
f.
P.L. 88-271, 78 Stat. 17.
g. 94th Congress, H.R. 11200, S.J. Res. 215. Instead, President Ford submitted statehood legislation (H.R. 2201)
that received no action.
Congressional Research Service
31

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Appendix B. Puerto Rico Status Votes in Plebiscites
and Referenda, 1967-1998
Table B-1. Puerto Rico Status Votes in Plebiscites and Referenda, 1967-1998
Votes
Ballot Options
Numbera Percentb
July 23, 1967c
Commonwealthd 425,079
60.5%
Statehood 273,315
38.9%
Independence 4,118
0.6%
Registered voters
1,067,000
Total votes
702,512
Percent turnout
66%

December 8, 1991e
Against the reclamation of democratic rights (No)
660,267
53.6%
In favor of the reclamation of democratic rights (Yes)
559,163
45.4%
Registered voters
2,052,537

Total votes
1,219,430

Percent turnout
59%

November 14, 1993f
Commonwealthg 826,326
48.6%
Statehood 788,296
46.4%
Independence 75,620
4.4%
Registered voters
2,100,000

Total votes
1,700,000

Percent turnout
81%

December 13, 1998h
None of the above [option five]
787,900
50.3%
Statehood [option three]
728,157
46.6%
Sovereignty [option four, independence]
39,838
2.6%
Free association [option two]
4,536
0.3%
Limited self-government [option one]i 993
0.1%
Registered voters
2,197,824

Total votes
1,561,424

Percent turnout
71%

a. Table excludes blank or null and void bal ots.
Congressional Research Service
32

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

b. Number of registered voters, total votes, and percent turnout derived from sources of results (noted
below), except for registered voters in 1991 calculated by CRS.
c. Number of votes for independence calculated by CRS based on data presented in: 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.] See also Roberta A. Johnson, “The 1967 Puerto Rican Plebiscite: The People Decide,”
Revista/Review InterAmericana, vol. 5, spring 1975, pp. 27-46.
d. The votes in favor of the 1967 Commonwealth option arguably demonstrated support for an expanded
form of self-government for Puerto Rico, in that the ballot proposition included text referring to the
“inviolability” and “indissoluble link” of Puerto Rican citizenship and would have required approval of
changes in the political status in a referendum.
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, general y
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.
Results taken from Ivonne Garcia, “Final Status Plebiscite Results Released,” San Juan Star, Dec. 10, 1993, p.
12.
g. The text of the bal ot for the “Commonwealth” option in 1993 included provisions that arguably exceeded
the relationship established in 1950, included “irrevocable U.S. citizenship,” “fiscal autonomy for Puerto
Rico,” and a legislative agenda to be considered by Congress.
h. Results taken from U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, The Results of the 1998 Puerto Rico
Plebiscite, committee print, 106th Congress, 1st session (Washington: GPO, 1999), p. 10.
i.
The text of the bal ot arguably presented the commonwealth option in that it referred to the political status
set forth in P.L. 600, the plenary authority of the Congress in the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution,
and other characteristics generally associated with the political status of Puerto Rico.
Congressional Research Service
33

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Appendix C. Congressional Activity on Puerto
Rico’s Political Status, 1989-1998
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.117 The primary
exception occurred in 1964, when the 88th Congress and the legislature of Puerto Rico approved
legislation that established a commission on the status issue.118 From 1952 through 1988, various
bills to reconsider or modify the political status of Puerto Rico were introduced, but did not
receive action.119 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.120 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, but a resolution (as S.Res. 279) supporting the status referendum in 1998 did gain
approval in the Senate. During the 106th Congress funds were appropriated to facilitate a popular
vote (P.L. 106-346). No action was taken by the 107th or 108th Congresses on the status issue.
This appendix summarizes the provisions of the four bills that received congressional action from
1989 to 1998. It begins with four tables that facilitate comparisons of the bills. Table C-1
provides basic information on the four bills that received action since 1989. Tables C-2 through
C-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.

117 The information in this appendix is limited to the time period of 1989-1998 because the most significant recent
congressional action occurred during those years. This appendix will be updated to reflect congressional legislative
action that involves, at a minimum, a committee’s decision to report legislation.
118 P.L. 88-271, 78 Stat. 18. In addition, in 1979 (96th Congress), both chambers approved a resolution (S.Con.Res. 35)
affirming the commitment of Congress to the right of the people of Puerto Rico to determine their own political future.
119 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.
120 The delivery of petitions with more than 350,000 signatures in support of statehood to Congress in the 100th
Congress reportedly stimulated action.
Congressional Research Service
34

Table C-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
Puerto Rico Status Referendum Act
United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act
United States-Puerto Rico Political Status
Self-Determination Act
Act
Final action taken
Passed House
Reported from Committees on Energy and
Reported from Committees on Rules and
Passed
House
Finance
Resources
Final vote
Voice vote, not
Energy Committee - 11 yeas, 8 nays;
Rules Committee - voice vote;
209 ayes
recorded
Finance Committee - voice vote
Resources Committee - 10 yeas, 0 nays
208 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

Table C-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 jurisdiction
No provision
Similar to provisions in H.R. 4765, with
Required that House and Senate
must introduce implementing legislation
recognition that provisions would be
majority leaders introduce legislation
CRS-35

101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712

H.R. 3024

H.R. 856
by March 6, 1992; expedited process
considered part of House and Senate
and that committees report bill (or
for consideration of the legislation set
rules, with allowance for rule changes.
automatic discharge be implemented),
out. §5
§6
and established expedited procedures.
§6
Status options specified
Independence, statehood, “a new
Statehood, Independence,
Continue
present
commonwealth,
Retain
commonwealth,
separate
commonwealth relationship,” and, none
Commonwealth
separate sovereignty or U.S. sovereignty
sovereignty through (a) independence
of the above. §2(a)
through (a) independence or free
or (b) free association, or statehood.
association or (b) statehood. §4(a)
§4(a)
Requirements for referendum
Initial referendum would be held on
Initial referendum would be held on Referendum would be held no later
Same as H.R. 3024
September 16, 1991, or later date as
June 4, 1991, or later date during
than Dec. 31, 1998. §4(a)
agreed by specified committee. Second
summer of 1991 as mutual y agreed
referendum (ratification vote) would be
by the 3 political parties. §101(b)
held on implementing legislation. §2(a),
§6(a)
Participation of mainland residents in vote
Government of Puerto Rico authorized
No provision, but provided that
No provision, but provided that general Same as H.R. 3024. §4(a), 5(a)
to enable nonresident Puerto Ricans to
general election laws would apply.
election laws would apply, including
register and vote in the referendum.
§101(d)
voting eligibility. §4(a), 5(a)
§2(b)
Resolution of inconclusive vote by Puerto Rican residents
If a majority of voters did not approve
If a majority of voters did not
The President and others would have
Same as H.R. 3024. §5(c)
one of the 3 status options or the
approve one of the 3 status
had to recommend action within 180
implementing legislation not effectuated,
options, a runoff referendum would
days; existing commonwealth structure
members of committees of jurisdiction
be held on 2 options receiving the
would have remained, with subsequent
would have to make recommendations.
most votes, including “none of the
referenda held every four years. §5(c)
§7
above.” §101(c)
CRS-36

101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712

H.R. 3024

H.R. 856
Provision for transition period
No provision in legislation, but
Under statehood, Medicare, food
If a majority of voters approved the
Similar to H.R. 3024, but transition plan
“Independence” definition in report
stamp, and tax policies continued as
“self-government” option, the President
would have had to include English
provided for a transition period of at
specified. §213 Under
would have had to develop a transition
language provisions, with transition plan
least 10 years for economic stability and
independence, a Joint Transition
plan of at least 10 years to lead to full
of no more than 10 years. §4(b)
demilitarization. Also, statehood option
Committee would have been
self-government, and local legislature
included transition provision. H.Rept.
established. §305, §313-318
would have been authorized to call a
101-790, Part 1, pp. 21-22.
constitutional convention. §4(b)
Funding for referendum
Authorized $13.5 million for the
No provision
Grants for the costs of the referenda
Same as H.R. 3024. §7
referendum. §2(b)
and for voter education provided from
excise tax collections on imported rum.
§7
Judicial review
No provision
Local laws and procedures dictated
No provision
No provision
adjudication, with specified
provisions for challenging vote
irregularities. §101(e)
Required threshold for referendum vote
Majority for one of the 3 options. §4
Majority for one of the 3 options.
Majority of “valid votes cast.” §4(a)
Same as H.R. 3024. §4(a)
§101(c)
Requirement for presidential action
President would have had to consult
Under independence, the President
See transition period and inconclusive
Same as H.R. 3024. §4c
with members of committees with
must surrender rights of possession
vote comments, above. Also, President
jurisdiction and others on implementing
and control, provide notice to
would have had to submit legislation for
legislation.
foreign governments. §307, 310
self-government transition. §4c
§4, 7
CRS-37

Table C-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 equal to all states, with Admitted on footing equal to all
Provision for: guaranteed constitutional

Similar provision to H.R. 3024, with
citizenship and national voting rights
states: territorial boundaries and
rights, permanent union, reserved
official English language requirement
guaranteed. §2a
land claims addressed; provision
powers, responsibility for payment of
specified. §4(a)
for national representation;
taxes, national representation and voting
effectiveness of existing laws
rights, and application of language
provided for, as well as
requirement similar to that applied in
continuation of pending suits. See
other states. §4(a)
transition period, above. Title II
Commonwealth
No provision
No provision; see “Enhanced
Continuation of present commonwealth

Continuation of present commonwealth
commonwealth”
structure, with relationship dissoluble
structure. Congress would have retained
only by mutual consent, citizenship
authority to set policy and decide
secured by U.S. Constitution, federal
ultimate status through process that
benefits equal to states contingent on
would have required periodic referenda.
tax payments. §4(a)
§4(a)
Enhanced Commonwealth
Permanent relationship with U.S., but not
Authorized governor and
No provision

No provision
incorporated. Federal benefits equal to
legislature to identify federal laws
states contingent on contributions, and
and regulations not applicable to
possible autonomy in international relations. Puerto Rico and provided for
§2a
congressional or executive review.
Revised other areas of policy such
as trade and air transportation
agreements. Title IV
Free association
No provision
No provision
See “Independence,” below.

See “Independence,” below.
CRS-38

101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712

H.R. 3024

H.R. 856
Independence
Establishment of republican form of
Establishment of constitution for a
Separate
sovereignty
through

Similar provision to H.R. 3024. §4(a)
government through a constitution. §2a
republican form of government.
independence or free association
Effect of independence on existing
characterized by: full authority for
laws provided for, along with
internal and external affairs, treaty or
defense, land holdings, and other
bilateral pact terminable by either
areas. See transition period, above.
nation, adoption of a constitution for a
Title III
republican form of government,
diplomatic recognition, trade based on
treaty, and other provisions. §4(a)
None of the above
Identified as a valid option on the
No provision, but if a runoff
No provision

No provision
referendum bal ot. §2a
referendum had been required, this
option would have to have been on
the bal ot. §101(c)
a. The bill did not include definitions for these terms. Instead, the report accompanying the legislation (H.Rept. 101-790, Part 1, pp. 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-39

Table C-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 confer,
Under separate sovereignty, U.S.

Similar provision to H.R. 3024.
terminate, or restore U.S. nationality.
nationality and citizenship would have
§212
been terminated, but those with
citizenship before separation would
Under independence, citizenship
have retained it for life, as specified.
regulated by new constitution, existing
§4(a)
federal statutes on citizenship repealed,
and existing citizens’ status protected,
Under statehood, citizenship would
among other provisions. §311
have been guaranteed. §4(a)
Language requirements
No provision
No provision
Under statehood, would have followed

Stated as policy that students in
the language requirements “as in the
schools should achieve English
several states.” §4(a)
proficiency 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)
Referendum funding
Authorized $13.5 million to be
No provision
Collections from rum import tax to be

Similar provision to H.R. 3024. §7
appropriated—$7.5 million for the
transferred, in amounts specified by the
referendum, $6 million for voter
President, half for referenda costs and
education. §2(a,b)
half for voter education. §7
CRS-40

101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712

H.R. 3024

H.R. 856
Land use and transfer
No provision
Under statehood, would have retained
No provision

No provision
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
Congressional representation
No provision
Under statehood, would have required
Under statehood, would have assured

Similar provision to H.R. 3024. §4a
election of two Senators as wel as the
representation by 2 Senators and
number of representatives to be
Representatives “proportionate to the
allocated to the new state under the
population.” §4(a)
1990 census, with 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 with the
Under independence or free

Would have maintained previously
referendum would have been
association, employment and property
vested rights to benefits. §4(a)
adjudicated by a 3-judge court, as
rights would have continued to be
specified. §101(e)
honored, §4(a)
Under statehood, pending 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-41

101st Congress
104th Congress
105th Congress
H.R. 4765
S. 712

H.R. 3024

H.R. 856
Trade
No provision
Under independence, the transition
No provision

No provision
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-42

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

Appendix D. 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. 712.121
Several reasons have been cited for the decision by the Senate not to approve S. 712 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.122 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. Some Senators did not want to take action in the absence of a petition
from Puerto Ricans on statehood. Also, the bill included few of the enhancements 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. 4765.123
S. 712
Several catalysts stimulated congressional action on the status issue in the 101st Congress. Some
members sought to continue discussions initiated over legislation introduced, but not acted upon,
during the previous Congress (H.R. 2849, S. 1182). 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

121 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.
122 Sen. Bennett Johnston, “Puerto Rican Statehood,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 136, October
10, 1990, p. 28173.
123 Rep. Ron de Lugo, “Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act,” remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 136,
October 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.
Congressional Research Service
43

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

parties had long disagreed on the proper approach to resolving the status issue.”124 The leaders of
the three principal 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.125
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.126
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.127 No
action was taken on the other two bills.128
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.
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.

124 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act, report to
accompany H.R. 4765, H.Rept. 101-790, Part 1, 101st Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 1990), p. 13.
125 Sen. J. Bennett Johnston, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 135, March 16, 1989, p.
4526.
126 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.
127 The Senate Agriculture Committee did not report out the bill.
128 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).
Congressional Research Service
44

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

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 benefits, and negotiations on the 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.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the primary committee of jurisdiction,
held eight days of hearings on S. 712.129 During these hearings, Senators and witnesses discussed
a range of issues raised by the status debate, including the following: 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.130 Discussion ensued in the hearing on the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP),

129 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).
130 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., November 9, 1989 (Washington: GPO, 1991), p. 272.
Congressional Research Service
45

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

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 on 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.131 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,132 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.133
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. 712.134 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 6, 1989, by a vote of 11
ayes to 8 nays, with a recommendation that the bill be approved. The Finance Committee
reported S. 712 on August 30, 1989, but did not include a recommendation on whether the bill
should be approved.135 No further action occurred.

131 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Puerto Rico’s Political Status, hearing on S. 712, 101st Cong., 1st
sess., November 14-15, 1989 (Part 1), April 26, 1990 (Part 2) (Washington: GPO, 1990).
132 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;”
133 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, Independence, and Enhanced Commonwealth Status
(S. 712, Puerto Rico Status Referendum Act), joint committee print (Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 51.
134 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.
135 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.
Congressional Research Service
46

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

H.R. 4765
Dissatisfaction with the Senate’s approach led to preparation of alternative legislation in the
House.136 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 the principal parties of Puerto
Rico and others, would have been required to draft implementing legislation within time frames
specified in the legislation.137 Once it was 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.138 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 United States. All “rights,

136 See comments of the sponsor of the H.R. 4765, Rep. Ron de Lugo, remarks in the House, Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 136, October 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.
137 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.
138 The Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, in an additional viewpoint appended to the report, considered the
definitions in the report “morally and politically binding.”
Congressional Research Service
47

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

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 widely different options.”139 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.”140
No statements in opposition to the legislation were made on the floor of the House, and the bill
passed under suspension of the rules.141 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.142 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, and S.Con.Res. 75) were
introduced in the 103rd Congress on the status issue. The House Resources Committee held a

139 “Puerto Rico’s Status Remains Unresolved,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 101st Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1990), p. 426.
140 Rep. Ron de Lugo, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 136, October 10, 1990, p.
28309.
141 The debate is found in ibid., pp. 28307-28337.
142 “No Progress Made on Puerto Rico Plebiscite,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 102nd Congress, 1st Session, Vol.
XLVII (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1991), pp. 184-185.
Congressional Research Service
48

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

hearing on H.Con.Res. 94, a resolution expressing congressional endorsement that Puerto Ricans
had the right of self-determination.143 No other actions were taken on any of the three resolutions.
In light of 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 second plebiscite on
Puerto Rico’s political status was held on November 14, 1993, as discussed previously in 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.144 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.145 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.”146
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) continuation of the existing status
arrangement or (2) a selection between independence or free association or U.S. 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

143 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), pp.
194, 232.
144 “Puerto Rico Status,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 104th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. LII (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996), pp. 3-8.
145 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., October 17, 1995 (Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 377.
146 Statement of Rep. Don Young, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 142, March 6, 1996,
p. E299.
Congressional Research Service
49

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

established citizenship criteria for retention of citizenship; and aid would have been provided as
determined by 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 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, would have required 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,147 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.148 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 United States, and standards established by the United
Nations on decolonization.149
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 have placed the option of enhanced commonwealth,

147 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, U.S.-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, hearing on H.R. 3024, 104th
Cong., 2nd sess., March 23, 1996 (Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 249.
148 Refer to statement of Rep. Elton Gallegly, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 142,
June 4, 1996, pp. E988-E989.
149 See U.S. Congress, 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.
Congressional Research Service
50

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

as approved by a plurality of those voting in the referendum, in the legislation.150 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 comparable 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. Debate among
Members of the House and the Administration resulted in considerable changes intended to meet
the objections of supporters of the commonwealth arrangement.
Some provisions differed between the two bills. H.R. 856, as approved by the House, 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.

150 Information summarized from H.Rept. 104-713, Part 1, and “Puerto Rico Status,” Congressional Quarterly
Almanac (Washington: 1996), vol. LII, pp. 3-8.
Congressional Research Service
51

Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress

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. 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.”151 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.152
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
104th 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 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 105th Congress, like those before it, ended without resolution of the matter.

Author Contact Information

R. Sam Garrett

Specialist in American National Government
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov, 7-6443

Acknowledgments
Now-retired CRS specialist Keith Bea served as the original author of this report. The current author
contributed to recent updates.

151 Rep. Roger Wicker, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 144, March 4, 1998, p. H768.
152 Rep. Luis Gutierrez, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, September 24, 1997, p. H
7738.
Congressional Research Service
52