Posted on 12/22/2005 2:58:23 PM PST by cll
Press Briefing by Ruben Barrales, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Kevin Marshall, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice on Puerto Rico's Status Via Telephone
3:12 P.M. EST
MR. BARRALES: Thank you all for being on the call. This is Ruben Barrales. And, again, Kevin Marshall is with us on another phone, as well. I'm just going to briefly go over the report, which happens to be very short, very simple and very straightforward, and then I and Kevin are available to answer any questions that you might have.
We were pleased to be able to take the report to members of Congress this afternoon, to the President for his review, to other elected officials around Puerto Rico and other interested individuals in Puerto Rico and throughout the mainland who have expressed interest in the issue.
I assume you all have a copy of the report. It is, again, as I said, fairly simple, going over the guiding principles, the executive orders pertaining to Puerto Rico, an historical overview that gives those of you who don't have any experience with Puerto Rico and this issue gives you a quick overview, and a legal analysis of the options for Puerto Rico's status. In there we identify what we consider to be the three options allowed for -- (inaudible).
Number one is the current status, which is called the commonwealth status, which is a territorial status. It is the one that Puerto Rico has now, allows for limited self-government. Then there is statehood, which, obviously, is a permanent status. And there is independence, which is another permanent status. I need to reiterate that commonwealth or territorial status is one that we see as can be indefinite, but really at the will of Congress.
The task force makes its recommendations, and in the recommendations we do ask that Congress take up the issue within a year and allow for the people of Puerto Rico to be able to vote and decide whether they wish to retain the current territorial status or move towards a permanent status. And it provides for another recommendation that if the people choose to elect and vote for permanent status, that they be given the option of one of the two, statehood or independence. And then if they initially vote to retain the current status, which they can do, and keep it as a territory indefinitely -- (inaudible) -- periodically, Congress may wish to provide for a vote to gauge the people's will as time moves one.
So it's pretty straightforward. It really is -- as you all know, I'm sure many of you know that the issue has been going on for over a hundred years. There have been attempts to resolve it. We have worked with all parties on the island. The task force has met with anyone who has requested a meeting. We've read volumes and volumes of material. We have been, and are willing to work with any of the parties on the island or here on the mainland to help move the process forward successfully. And we hope to work in cooperation with all of those involved. And at this point, we hope that Congress will take a look at the recommendations and hopefully move the question forward.
So with that, I'm going to see if -- or ask if Kevin has anything he might want to add.
MR. MARSHALL: I just want to comment on the legal question a little bit. The primary issue is whether the Constitution allows for some commonwealth status that couldn't be altered without the consent of Puerto Rico. And we conclude that it -- the Constitution does not. In reaching that conclusion, we're reaffirming the position that the Justice Department has taken for the last 14 years in both the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration and in the current administration.
But appreciate the importance of the question for Puerto Rico and for the United States. We have in the Office of Legal Counsel done a thorough reconsideration of issue, and concluded that that position is correct. And as part of that, I have met with several superb lawyers representing various interested parties and I've also received excellent written material from them, including from the former head of the office where I work and the former attorney general. And we've appreciated that input very much and I think it's made the report better.
Q My question, or at least one of them, is this is a report of, sir, a road map of the status issue? Or is it a plan of action?
MR. BARRALES: Well, it is, again, for those who are not very familiar with the issue, it does provide an historical overview very briefly -- so in that sense, maybe, a road map of what's happened to date. And then it provides what I hope is a level playing field for those who are interested in moving the process forward in terms of what we think the options are that are available and our recommendations for a way to move forward, in terms of our recommendations within the report.
There may be other ways to move forward, and we're interested in working with anyone who wants to help in that regard.
Q Now, should the content of this report be represented as an endorsement as to any of the alternatives?
MR. BARRALES: No, this is an inter-agency report. The executive order was very specific that it is an inter-agency report, review the information, met with individuals, read material and is now presenting its recommendations and report -- more of a progress report, you might describe it as -- to the President and to members of Congress. So it is not construed as a position of the administration.
MR. MARSHALL: Can I add something? This is Kevin. It was not part of our mission to state a preference or pick among the options. Our job was simply to identify what the options were under the Constitution and what a good way of getting them might be. So the report shouldn't be interpreted as endorsing any of the options that it lays out for the status of Puerto Rico.
Q I wanted to ask you -- I didn't hear the very beginning of the call that you said what is the next step? That you guys are going to be presenting this to Congress this afternoon?
MR. BARRALES: We did electronically and in hard copy deliver copies of the report to members of Congress, and also to the governor's office -- and mainly electronically to other folks who are interested in the issue.
Q Okay. So what happens next? I mean, are they required to -- you're saying that they hope that they take some action. Are they required to? Is there a time line for them to respond or to do something?
MR. BARRALES: It's an excellent question. There's absolutely no requirement, and so I think that's important for people to understand. We are trying to help move the process forward, and so we've provided what we hope are helpful recommendations and analysis of the issue.
Q Okay. And this vote, I mean -- so I guess there was no date or time frame for the vote to actually take place because -- unless Congress -- until Congress actually acts on these recommendations --
MR. BARRALES: As a matter of fact, in the recommendations, we do recommend that Congress set a date certain for an election, hopefully within a year, or at least start hearings within the year to begin moving the process forward.
Q Okay. And let's just say that they don't take any action, I mean, in the status. As you said, this is an attempt to try to get -- to move things forward. So if there was no action taken, it would still be the status quo, then, here?
MR. BARRALES: Well, yes, but I want to make it clear that, for example, the process could move forward as we recommend, and the people of Puerto Rice could decide to keep it (inaudible). They could decide to keep -- (inaudible) -- and, you know, if that's what they choose, I think my sense would be, you know, (inaudible) folks would support.
Q I would like to know if in any way this report is contrary to the representation that the United States made in 1953 before the United Nations?
MR. BARRALES: No, I do not believe so.
Q No?
MR. BARRALES: No.
Q Why? Why not? The commonwealth at that time was defined as a self-governing body and not a (inaudible) anymore.
MR. BARRALES: I understand. I'm very familiar with that. No, it doesn't -- the report, itself, doesn't change the status quo at all, and basically we think the people of Puerto Rico should be given an option to choose the particular status that (inaudible) that they think would work best for (inaudible). And, no, I don't think it conflicts at all with what happened in the --
Q The popular Democratic Party, or the executive branch, is saying already that it's a vague report, that, in some sense, you are forcing the issue because that will be -- you are trying Puerto Rico to go to statehood or independence, and probably the alternative to have the votes is the commonwealth or a new commonwealth.
MR. BARRALES: Yes, we really -- it would have been a much simpler process if it we already knew where we were going to conclude. No, we worked very diligently and fair in terms of reviewing all the options. And, again, it is not up to the task force; it's up to people of Puerto Rico and the Congress to decide what the future of Puerto Rico should be.
We just tried to very honestly look at the situation, speak with all the individuals involved, the representatives of the people of Puerto Rico -- from the governor's office, to the legislature, to others -- and we think that, again, the people and the Congress should decide. And we very much hope that this helps with that discussion and we look forward to working with anyone who, in a constructive manner, wants to help move this forward.
Q I have a question regarding the time between the second -- or between the first and the second recommendation. You said that Puerto Rico should hold a plebiscite next year. And depending on the result, so the next plebiscite would be on the current status or the independence or the conversion of Puerto Rico in another state of the U.S. So do you have a time for this second plebiscite in Puerto Rico?
MR. BARRALES: That's an excellent question, because as you acknowledged, we have a time line for the first where we're asking Congress to take a look at within a year.
But, no, we don't. We thought that was the right approach in terms of the process. And really, it's going to be up to the people of Puerto Rico and Congress to work out what might be the best time line in between. It might relate to when regularly scheduled elections are held, or it may be -- there may be other factors at that time that determine the timing of that election.
I'm not sure if Kevin might have something to add to that.
MR. MARSHALL: I don't think so. I think that we would be happy to see Congress move and get past the first step; and then the second one, I think, as soon as would be feasible after the first step is resolved.
MR. BARRALES: Thank you.
Q I have a couple of questions, if I could. The first one is, why did you -- why do you, in your proposal, why do you suggest that there be a plebiscite between -- for people to decide whether they want to remain as a commonwealth or go into either independence or say -- why don't you just have a plebiscite where all three choices were given at the same time?
MR. BARRALES: I think that's a good question. Kevin might have something to add to that. Let me just say that I think it's important for the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress to decide consciously whether or not they want to remain as a territory, or to move towards a configuration that is a permanent one -- either statehood or independence. And I think it's important to make a conscience decision along those lines.
Now, again, we, as a task force, are not -- we are not taking sides on which way. And if Puerto Rico chooses to remain as a territory or a commonwealth, then more power to them; or if they choose the -- one of the two permanent options. But we wanted it to be a conscience choice.
Q Okay. Now, one other thing --
MR. BARRALES: Kevin may want to --
Q Go ahead. All right.
MR. MARSHALL: I would just say that in the recommendations, we do make the point that in ascertaining the will of the people of Puerto Rico, which is, of course, paramount, we want to try to do it in a way that gives clear guidance to Congress or future actions. Some of the prior votes, I think we'd all agree, have not provided clear guidance. And it seemed to us that there was a clear distinction between on the one hand, the current status -- which can be indefinite, but wouldn't be described as permanent -- and on the other hand, statehood and independence. And even though those two are different from each other, they're both a change and what could be called a permanent status, so that choice seemed like a natural first step.
Q All right. And what about the free association? Is that, in any way -- has that come into the picture in your discussions? A possibility of Puerto Rico taking this other step that's not quite independence, but --
MR. BARRALES: Let me address -- Kevin, I'm sure, will have something to add. Actually, no, we think it is quite independence. We really think free association would be a configuration of the people and Congress choosing independence. In other words, we could see a scenario where if the people and Congress chose to move in the direction of independence, they might (inaudible), but we want to remain closely associated with the United States, that that would be moving towards independence. And then the details of which we don't get into in the report, but there are issues that relate to dual citizenship, that relate to other ties that would bind the two together.
Q Okay. Well, if they chose independence, but they really mean free association, how would that play out?
MR. MARSHALL: I can grab that, if you want.
MR. BARRALES: All right, Kevin, please.
MR. MARSHALL: I think in terms of the recommendations we laid out, I think that would fit in recommendation two. If they were to decide between statehood and independence and to choose for independence, that would be a kind of independence. I think you'll see a fuller explanation of that in the legal analysis. We could talk about Micronesia and the Marshall Islands in Palau. We make clear that free association is a form of independence, but still a variation.
So I think ultimately that would be for Congress, the kind of step two stage, to spell that out and determine how to go about determining the exact nature of the independence, because we do explain that.
Q So free association is a choice?
MR. BARRALES: I'm sorry?
Q Free association would be a choice for people to make, for voters in Puerto Rico to make?
MR. BARRALES: Potentially. We do not prohibit that, in terms of our recommendation.
Q Okay.
Q I just have one last issue I wanted to discuss with you guys. You very clearly say in the recommendation that it is the people of Puerto Rico -- and you reiterated that in this conference -- that it is the people of Puerto Rico that would have to make a choice as to status, right?
MR. BARRALES: Yes, the people.
Q Now, it makes me think -- and I want you to react to that conclusion -- that this report could be interpreted as more the White House passing the ball along to the Congress and the people, than actually intervening with a voice as to what should be done.
MR. BARRALES: Well, I think most people would agree that to resolve the issue, it's going to involve the will of the people of Puerto Rico and the authority of Congress. So those are really the two entities, if you will -- the people of Puerto Rico and the United States Congress -- that will really be able to help us reach a conclusion here.
Q But some people might have expected the White House to propose or put forward a position as to what will be the best option, or what will be the option the White House would endorse or agree upon. And the report doesn't do that -- in fact, the White House is actually passing the hot potato to other hands. You understand?
MR. BARRALES: I know what you're saying, but the task force -- our job was to recommend to the President, and to the Congress, some suggestions for moving the process forward. And the hot potato you refer to, no one is going to cook that potato, we need to put it in the kitchen. And the people who are going to actually make this happen are the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress of the United States.
END 3:33 P.M. EST
"spend some time in that entirely different culture"
Spend some time there? I live "there", or here. What's so different about "our" culture? It is "your" culture as well.
And I'm writing this as I'm finishing my night-cap of a Johnny Walker Black, on my Dell PC, while listening to Fox News on the TV, and to Luke Stricklin's cd on my iPod at the same time, while sitting in my jammies next to an open window feeling a wonderful 76 degree ocean breeze, ready to go to bed to then get on my Harley 1200 Sporty to go to work tomorrow. God Bless America!
Good Night!
I am in Melbourne, FL. ... send me a plane ticket LOL
I was up there just last week. In the vicinity of Hernando County. Brrrrr! Had to drive to the Broward area to thaw just a bit.
wow... negative commentary actually didn't start until post #3... I'm amazed, my screen usually starts twittering as soon as CLL posts a Puerto Rico note.
Must be Christmas time, or something...
felici-DAAAAAAAAAAA-DES BORINQUEN!!!!
This conversation has been going on for years. Regan made a lot of noise about PR becoming a state. What do the Puerto Ricans want?
Residents of Puerto Rico have never voted for Democrats or Republicans, and your assumption that they would vote Democrat seems to be based on the fact that (mostly low-income) children and grandchildren of Puerto Ricans in NYC and Chicago vote Democrat for President. But have you noticed that the Irish and Italians and Poles and just about every other ethnicity in NYC and Chicago votes Democrat for President? While Florida Puerto Ricans (who are for the most part recent transplants from the Island) voted for Gore in 2000, they voted for Jeb in 2002 and seem poised to make the GOP their permanent home, since they are for the most part very culturally conservative and understand the importance of the War on Terror.
BTW, if Puerto Rico were to become a state, it would rank 25th in population and would elect 2 Senators and 6 Representatives. I have no idea who would get elected at first---probably likeable politicians who had previously run under the local party labels---but within a few years I think you'd find that Puerto Rican voters are very similar to those in Louisiana: Very conservative on social issues, more liberal on economic issues, very pro-military and very protectionist of local industries. Pollster Frank Luntz found that voters in Puerto Rico ranked as very conservative on every social issue that he asked about except the death penalty (where the Catholic tradition leads most people to oppose it, although not as much as they used to). If I had to guess, I would say that 20 years after Puerto Rico is admitted as a state it will have 1 Republican and 1 Democrat Senator and 3 Republican and 3 Democrat Representatives.
"What do the Puerto Ricans want?"
Thank you, and a Merry Christmas to you as well, desde aquì en la falla de San Andreas, donde vivo yo… boricua de corazon si no de sangre…
All right, rub it in why don't you...
Don't believe it moonman, Puerto Rico can't survive without $10's of billions of dollars and 10's of thousands of hijacked U.S. Taxpayer's jobs every year.
Gifts from he U.S. Taxpayers account for more than half of Puerto Rico's economy and always will until we cut them loose.
Around 85% of the taxes collected by the government of Puerto Rico pay the salaries of their bloated government's workforce. That's around 40% of the total workforce in Puerto Rico.
Around 40% of the rest either work for the federal government or for companies that have federal contracts to supply or service federal government agencies.
Tourism is only 8% of Puerto Rico's economy.
Puerto Rico is just a big hole in the Atlantic ocean that our pandering politicians throw the U.S. Taxpayer's hard-earned dollars into.
"What do the Puerto Ricans want?"
An end to our political purgatory.
You're pulling our legs, again.
You know the answer is almost none.
On the other hand, statehood for Puerto Rico would mean they would receive an additional $3 billion dollars per year from the U.S. Taxpayers when all their Social Programs reach parity with those stateside.
Bottom line is statehood for Puerto Rico would put the U.S. Taxpayers BILLIONS OF DOLLARS further in the hole, immediately.
Then just wait until you Socialists get to vote in National elections for president, 2 Socialist senators and 5 or 6 Socialist representatives in the house.
Italy and France will look Conservative in comparison to the United States and be fiscally more healthy, too.
The Socialist voters in Puerto Rico will bankrupt the United States overnight just like they have their own damn island.
Its funny. The Puerto Rico I lived in and the Puerto Rico people describe don't really sound like the same place.
Of course, I didn't live in the big city, I lived on the south coast. No crime, mile from the beach, nice folks, doesn't get much better than that.
By the way, hows the weather, this fine Christmas season?
"Its funny. The Puerto Rico I lived in and the Puerto Rico people describe don't really sound like the same place."
I know. It seems they think of Puerto Rico as a tropical Bronx, or as it was found when the U.S. liberated us from the Spanish crown. When my mainland clients come here for the first time they seemed amazed at finding a 24-hour Walgreens across from their hotels.
The weather here? Well, you might remember what we called the "aires de Navidad", which I would translate as the Christmas-time breeze. Not too hot, not cold at all. Just a refreshing breeze. It did rain a lot this year, so it's still a little humid. It is the best time of the year. I haven't had to turn on my airconditioner since mid-November!
Merry Christmas, Prosperous New Year & Sweet Epiphany Day (Three King's Day, Jan. 6, which we still celebrate).
"to do what needs to be done."
I'm pretty sure that the status-quo/ELA/Commonwealth profiteers will be very busy in devicing ways to obstruct and scuttle the whole process, but we like the good fight.
All the Blessings to you and your family on this Christmas and the New Year to come.
From the pages of El Nuevo Federalista—(http://nuevofederalista.blogspot.com)
This report from the White House Task Force of Intergovernmental Affairs is the first report of its type issued this century by the Executive Branch. For a long time now supporters of the current and so-called "Commonwealth" status have said that Puerto Rico's political status was a new federal body politic conceived to place the Island outside of the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This Report effectively ends that kind of speculation, as far as the Executive Branch is concerned. In spite of the cries of "foul" from critics inside the beltway and across the pond in the Island that the document seeks to impose a "Washington-solution" whereas one originated by Puerto Rican themselves, the Report will guide Federal policymakers for the foreseeable future.
But the Report is not an end in itself. It is but a beginning, for it opens up an opportunity to solve the issue of Puerto Rico's political status once and for all. By deflating the myths propounded by status-quo defenders about "further developing" the present political status by granting more rights and sovereignty to Puerto Rican – Americans while still remaining "Americans," coupled with even less citizenship responsibilities, President George W. Bush has set up clear and precise boundaries as to what is, and what isn't possible within the American constitutional system.
Those of us who defend the admission of Puerto Rico to the United States as its 51st state still have a lot of work to do. Powerful interests in the Mainland and in Puerto Rico are organizing even now to maintain Puerto Rico under an unchecked position of political subservience by concocting "new directions" for the current Commonwealth status that would allow them to keep their political and economical hegemony, fully expecting that Congress will be unsympathetic to tackle any petition of statehood made by Puerto Rican – Americans, as they would fear the cultural debate that will ensue.
Granting statehood and full American citizenship rights to Puerto Rican – Americans living in the Island will be used by so-called conservatives who are intent in denying any such recognition to Puerto Rican – Americans on the basis of language, culture, and national origin, as a wedge issue. The underground of our national debate has been abuzz for quite sometime now with arguments justifying the discrimination against Puerto Rican – Americans precisely on that basis. The aim of this not-quite-so-vast conspiracy is to force Congress to grant Puerto Rico independence unilaterally, without consulting the wishes of the 4 million Americans living there, a power that, this Report shows anew, Congress may exercise unfettered.
On discussion boards across the 'Net one can read statements written in all seriousness calling Puerto Rico a "Third World" country which should be "tossed out." In another exchange, on calling the Island "a dump," a reader took offense when I called to his attention the racist character of his assertion, which called Puerto Ricans, albeit implicitly, dirty, uncouth and therefore undeserving of full citizenship equality with other Americans. The reader in question showed dismal disingenuousness if he thought that his "neutral" remark was empty of ethnocentric connotations or that it somehow excused him from espousing these detestable views.
Yet, this trashy rhetoric can still arouse the pseudo-patriotism of those who think that the blessings of American citizenship and democracy are to be bestowed only upon worthier candidates, "worthiness" being defined by them as whatever their fancy, bias, and prejudice may dictate.
As a social and fiscal conservative, as a believer in a culture of Life, Freedom and Individual Rights, as a defender of the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution, I decry any such sentiments levied against Puerto Rican – Americans as contrary to the spirit nurturing our most sacred values. As an American man in uniform, I simply cannot deny to my fellow citizens of Puerto Rico the freedoms I defend for my other fellow Americans; as a resident in the mainland, as a tax-payer, and as an involved citizen, I have the voice and power I need to fight in word and in deed in favor of full equality for Puerto Rican – Americans.
Some of you may dismiss this as grandstanding, but I assure you, I will not be intimidated nor deterred by what ethnocentric conservatives may say against our democratic project to enfranchise 4 million American citizens in Puerto Rico.
That is not to say that Congress should just admit Puerto Rico to the Union without an ensuing debate. But to me, the debate should be—once the sovereign will of the people of Puerto Rico is ascertained through the ballot box—not if Puerto Rico should be admitted as a state, as much as what will be the best way to make it happen.
Any argument, be it in the halls of Congress or in public opinion, seeking to deny Puerto Ricans of those political, civil, and economic rights the rest of Americans take for granted because of their race, ethnicity, language, and cultural background, may look politically expedient for some opportunist politicians in some rarefied back rooms seeking to exploit nationalist fears; the possibility of Puerto Rico's admission to the Union may even inspire the rabble to new heights of hateful rhetoric, but as we all know, not everything that is politically expedient or constitutionally protected speech is always moral or conducive to the best interest of our Nation.
In the final analysis, Puerto Ricans are American citizens and as long as they remain so, they are entitled to the full range of privileges enshrined by this citizenship. Visionary and morally courageous Puerto Rican – Americans feel that is their duty to embrace all of the responsibilities American citizenship entails, and are nor ashamed to say so, unafraid of the ghosts of Federal tax-paying and forced cultural assimilation that fear mongerers love to spawn in the Island every time the talk of statehood for Puerto Rico gets a bit more serious.
We are not foreigners; we are "you." If the American citizens of Puerto Rico can be denied their rights for reason of where they live or the language they speak, tyranny will not be far behind: tyrants and demagogues will feel empowered to come after anyone not fitting the bill of what an American ought to be. You will be next.
In the final analysis, those of us who pursue and defend the admission of Puerto Rico to the United States, are convinced we are acting in the best American tradition of liberty, democracy, and the rule of law; of civil rights, enfranchisement, and popular sovereignty; of free enterprise, private initiative, and the culture of freedom; of our Founding Ideals, of Natural Law and ultimately, with the sanction of Nature's God.
I invite you to reflect on all this, and to join us on this just cause. Our cause must triumph if America is to continue to serve as a beacon to the world. That much is at stake.
- Download the White House Intergovernmental Affairs Task Force Report from http://www.endi.com/multimedios/pdf/reporte_status.pdf
Yeah, it's amazing that there's enough of that $20 to $30 BILLION dollars the U.S. Taxpayers are forced to dump on that island of ingrates left over after everyone gets through stealing and cheating for their share to build a Walgreens.
Well, the drug addicts need some place to stand and pester people for money once the regular stores close at 9:00pm.
Hey, do you know if that Walgreens is cheating the U.S. Taxpayers out of 90% of its federal income taxes by filing as a CFC, Certified Foreign Corporation, too?
Maybe Santa will bring the island a new tax dodging scam for Christmas.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.