US Virgin Islands Constitutional Convention Replies to US Concerns

REPLY OF US VIRGIN ISLANDS CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO THE MEMORANDUM OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGARDING THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION FOR THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

March 29, 2010

This memorandum is written in response to the Department of Justice (“Justice”) memorandum to the Office of Management and Budget's on the proposed constitution submitted by the Fifth Constitutional Convention of the U.S. Virgin Islands (“Fifth Convention”) to the President and Congress of the United States. Additionally, this memorandum serves as a response to all other memorandums and opinions that have been submitted in review of the proposed constitution. 1 This memorandum shall address the pertinent issues raised in the Justice memorandum, since the issues and opinions contained in the memorandum of the Department of Justice fairly reflects the same issues raised in the other reviews.

At the outset, it is important to note that Justice admits that its opinions are nothing more than conjecture. 2  The Justice Department did not review nor request to review any of the record or evidence gathered by the Fifth Constitutional Convention when rendering its opinions. Justice’s opinions fail to cite any evidence to support conclusions rendered in its memorandum. In fact, in addressing the provision for senate district, after it had opined on several other alleged issues, Justice states ,“since districts would be fact-specific, we [Justice] do not recommend specific … changes to the proposed constitution to address these concerns, ” (citation- on page 15 of its memorandum)The same statement should have concluded each and every issue raised by Justice since every issue raised by Justice is a fact determined issue and Justice did not review any of the facts that ere considered by the Fifth Constitutional Convention before it adopted the provisions of the proposed constitution. Throughout their memorandum, Justice renders opinions on other issues that are fact specific, but nonetheless, chose not to do so on the issue of districts.

Constitutional challenges to a specific provision of law cannot be resolved by any “litmus-paper test.” see Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S.780, 789 (1983); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 1279, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974). In deciding questions regarding constitutional validity, the analysis must first consider the character and magnitude of the injury to any alleged right protected by the Constitution. Id. Then, it must identify and evaluate the precise interest put forward as justification for the burden imposed by a rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those interests, it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional.  3 The results of a constitutional review is not to be automatic. Anderson, supra at 789,

Since Justice’s opinions do not consider any evidence that lead to the provisions contained in the proposed constitution, the opinions should not be given any weight as to whether the proposed constitution contains any constitutional violations. In order to properly evaluate the basis of why certain provisions were included in the proposed constitution, the record and evidence gathered by the Fifth Convention must be examined, including the empirical and antidotal evidence considered in drafting the proposed constitution.

The Fifth Constitutional Convention’s fact gathering process included more than fifty public meetings throughout the Virgin Islands. A minimum of seventy-five to one hundred people testified at each meeting. Over fifty formal papers and documents were received and reviewed by the Fifth Convention. Additionally, the Fifth Constitutional Convention made numerous radio and television appearances during which caller comments were maintained for follow-up and consideration. Some broadcast programs were dedicated to the consideration of the proposed constitution such as the "Constitution Corner." Over one hundred internet blogs provided information to delegates of the Fifth Constitutional Convention.

Moreover, the Fifth Convention reviewed and discussed the record contained on the Fourth Constitutional Convention. Attached to this memorandum is an annex of information that lead to the provisions contained in the proposed constitution to remedy the numerous atrocities faced by the people of the US Virgin Islands. 4

Response 1-The Proposed Constitution Recognizes the Sovereignty and the Supremacy of the United States and is therefore Compliant with the Enabling Act

The Justice memorandum raises a question on whether the proposed constitution recognizes the sovereignty and the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. Justice spent a lot of time in its analysis discussing this issue and concluded that, throughout its many provisions, the overall proposed Constitution recognizes in expressed language the sovereignty and supremacy of the United States. 5  Therefore, this memorandum accepts the ultimate conclusion reached by Justice on this issue.

Response 2- The Provisions For Ancestral & Native Virgin Islanders Are Rationally Based and have Legitimate Government Purposes and Therefore Are Constitutional

Justice believes the special designation of opportunities afforded Ancestral and Native Virgin Islanders is not rationally based, therefore, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In its memorandum, Justice states, “Because we find it difficult to discern a legitimate governmental purpose that would be rationally advanced by the provisions conferring legal advantages on certain groups defined by place and timing of birth, timing of residency, or ancestry, we recommend that those provisions be removed from the proposed constitution.” 6

Justice believes that provisions of the proposed constitution give special advantages to "Native Virgin Islanders" and "Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders." They further believe that these provisions raise serious concerns under the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution. 7

The Justice memorandum brings suspicion to the definitions of Ancestral and Native Virgin Islanders; In Article III, section 2, the proposed constitution defines "Native Virgin Islander" to mean (1) "a person born in the Virgin Islands after June 28, 1932," the enactment date of a statute generally extending United States citizenship to USVI natives residing in United States territory as of that date who were not citizens or subjects of any foreign country, see Act of June 28, 1932, ch. 283, 47 Stat. 336 (now codified at 8 U.S.C. 1406(a)(4) (2006)); and (2) a "descendant[] of a person born in the Virgin Islands after June 28, 1932." "Ancestral Native Virgin Islander" would be defined as: (1) "a person born or domiciled in the Virgin Islands prior to and including June 28, 1932 and not a citizen of a foreign country pursuant to 8 U.S.C. [§] 1406," the statute governing United States citizenship of USVI residents and natives; (2) "descendants" of such individuals; and (3) "descendants of an Ancestral Native Virgin Islander residing outside of the U.S., its territories and possessions between January 17, 1917 and June 28, 1932, not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and who are not a citizens [sic] or a subjects [sic] of any foreign country." Proposed Const. art. III, § 1.

The definitions contained in the proposed constitution should not bring any suspicion or be challenged as the improper classification of the people of the Virgin Islands since the definitions are derived directly from the Government of the United States. It was an act of Congress that differentiated the people of the Virgin Islands and conferred different legal status upon them. 8 U.S.C. §1406 provides in its pertinent parts as follows:

Section 1406. Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands

(a) The following persons and their children born subsequent to January 17, 1917, and prior to February 25,1927, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of February 25, 1927:

“…(2) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on January 17, 1917, resided in those islands, and were residing in those islands or in the United States or Puerto Rico on February 25, 1927, and who were not on February 25, 1927, citizens or subjects of any foreign country;

(3) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on January 17, 1917, resided in the United States, and were residing in those islands on February 25, 1927, and who were not on February 25, 1927, citizens or subjects of any foreign country; and

(4) All natives of the Virgin Islands of the United States who, on June 28, 1932, were residing in continental United States, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, or any other insular possession or territory of the United States, and who, on June 28, 1932, were not citizens or subjects of any foreign country, regardless of their place of residence on January 17, 1917.


(b) All persons born in the Virgin Islands of the United States on or after January 17, 1917, and prior to February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are declared to be citizens of the United States as of February 25, 1927; and all persons born in those islands on or after February 25, 1927, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States at birth."

A comparison between the provisions of the proposed constitution and the provisions of 8 U.S.C. §1406 shows the same classification of people. Moreover, it was the Congress of the United States that designated some of the people of the Virgin Islands as “Natives.”

The provisions in the proposed constitution that afford certain benefits to “Natives” is consistent with and in accordance with policies, agreements and treaties executed by the Government of the United States that provides for full self-governing and the preservation of culture and the land of native people. In the Treaty of Cession between Denmark and the United States, the United States declared its responsibility to inhabitants of the Virgin Islands. 8  More directly, the United States executed a treaty with the United Nations in which the United States agreed to hold the interests of native peoples (including the Virgin Islands natives whom they clearly had singled out and defined in the 1927 and 1940 citizenship and nationality acts), as a sacred trust, to protect the culture and aspirations of Virgin Islands natives and to protect them from abuse. 9

The United States has consistently supported laws that protect and provide for the self-governing of native people. The government of the United States acquires a heightened duty of trust to native and indigenous people. Further, the United States has a duty to furnish protection to native people and the authority to fulfill its obligations. Board of County Comm'rs v. Seber, 318 U.S. 705, 716 (1943); United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 45-46.

In this regard, Congress has continued to accept responsibility for the welfare of natives. Congress has established special programs in areas of healthcare, education, employment and loans. Rice at 496. It has enacted laws providing for special and different treatment of Native Hawaiians, Native Alaskans, Aleutians and Native Indians. The special treatment laws have allowed for special voting privileges, special taxation, segregated property ownership and other benefits as the United States has sought to fulfill its obligations to Native people. 10

In its review of the proposed constitution, Congress can provide the U.S. Virgin Island its right to self-governing and fulfill its obligations to provide for the natives of the Virgin Islands. Congress has the authority to protect the language, culture, religion, race, community structure and politics of native people. 11

The United States is on record accepting the responsibility for the welfare of native people. In its brief in the case of Rice v Cayento, 528 U.S. 495, the Government of the United States declared that a special right to vote should be bestowed on “native” people to the exclusion of non-natives. 12

The Department of Justice has repeatedly stated that it could not discern any rational basis that would allow the provisions for Ancestral and Native Virgin Islanders to have certain special and different advantages over others of the Virgin Islands. As if it was an open and shut policy of constitutional law Justice states “we find it difficult to discern a legitimate government purpose that would rationally advance” the special provisions of the proposed constitution. 13  Contrary to the insertions of Justice the constitutionality of the special provisions is not open and shut.

Analogous to the issues raised by Justice, a Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found and held that a voting provision of the Hawaiian Constitution to allow only “Native” Hawaiians the right to vote for trustees of Hawaiian land did not violate the Constitution of the United States. 14  However, in a 7-2 decision the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the two lower courts holding, that limiting the vote to only Native Hawaiian for the nine trustees in a statewide election to be in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendment. 15

After the review of facts and after an examination of the reasons why Hawaii sought to limit the right to vote to “Native” Hawaiians only, the Supreme Court held that the particular provision that defined “Ancestral and Native” was drawn on racial lines. The Hawaiian constitution was designed for the benefit of two subclasses of Hawaiian citizenry, “Hawaiians” and “native Hawaiians.” State law defined “native Hawaiians” as descendants of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Islands before 1778 and “Hawaiians”–a larger class that includes “native Hawaiians”–as descendants of the peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands in 1778. The Court stated that the provision makes it clear: “[T]he descendants ... of [the] aboriginal peoples” means “the descendants ... of the races.” 16

The proposed constitution’s provisions for Ancestral and Native Virgin Islanders are not drawn upon race. The definitions used for these classes of people are the definitions given to the people of the Virgin Islands by the Congress of the United States. Of greater importance, is the fact that the provisions contained in the proposed constitution apply equally to the different races of people that inhabit the Virgin Islands. An examination of the record discussed by the Fifth Constitutional Convention would show that at the time the United States established the “Native” designation on the people of the Virgin Islands, the population of the Virgin Islands consisted of people from Europe, Puerto Rico, Africa and other ethnically diverse populations. The record shows that the Virgin Islands still maintains this ethnically diverse population.

In Rice, Justice Stevens with whom Justice Ginsburg joined in dissent, stated that the standard of review of evaluating a question of equal protection on the question of special voting permissions is whether the special treatment is rationally tied to fulfill a unique obligation toward native people. 17 Justice Stevens stated that [Natives] Indians and other natives must show that the goal is reasonably and directly related to a legitimate nonracially based goal. 18

The record clearly shows that the proposed constitution addresses directly those rights and protections expressly offered to the native people of the Virgin Islands, but never given. Since 1917 the United States has failed to provide for the Natives of the Virgin Islands the right of self-governing, a right to property and the right to maintain its culture. The opinions contained in the Justice’s memorandum must be discounted by their own admissions/omission because they did not review any evidence that was considered by the Fifth Constitutional Convention. Therefore. all issues raised by Justice surrounding its concerns about special treatment of “Native” Virgin Islanders must be ignored. A determination of the constitutional validity of a provision must include a fact based analysis.

Response 3. The Property Tax Exemption for Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders Has a Legitimate Government Purpose and Therefore is Constitutional

Justice in its memorandum states that the property tax exemption for Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders raises serious equal protection concerns. Without examining any of the record, Justice states, “we find it difficult to discern a legitimate government purpose… advanced by providing tax exemptions only for Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders.” 19

Since 1992, the Supreme Court has recognized that a property tax exemption based on longevity of ownership can have a legitimate government purpose if the government has an interest in local neighborhood preservation, continuity and stability of life and family. See Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 13 (1992), 112 S.Ct. 2326.

An examination of the record of the Fifth Constitutional Convention reveals numerous instances of the adverse impact suffered by Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders who have held their property for a long period of time without property tax exemption. The record contains numerous discussions and testimonials of people who would be considered Ancestral Virgin Islanders who have had lost their property due to hotel and resort development causing enormous increases in their property taxes. This occurrence has been eroding families and kinship in the Virgin Islands for many years. The Virgin Islands is rapidly losing the younger members of the families who move out of the territory for more affordable places to live. 20

The property tax exemption serves a legitimate government purpose in providing a mechanism to protect the property of the families who due to their longevity are the guardians of the life and culture of the Virgin Islands.

Response 4- The Designation of a Senator for St. Johns is Constitutional

The Justice Department has cited the designation of a senator for the Island of St. Johns as being a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice argues that in order for a legislative district to pass constitutional muster, the district must be drawn in a way to assure one man one vote or be drawn as close as possible to one man one vote. 21

Federal courts including the Supreme Court have recognized that one man one vote is not the only legitimate government purpose acceptable under the Constitution. It has been held that the principle of one man, one vote does not require exact mathematical equality in representation in the legislature; some consideration may be given by apportioning authorities to factors like geography, the integrity of subdivisions like counties, cities, or towns, and communities of interest. See Kelly v Bumpers,340 F. Supp. 568, 571 (E.D Ark 1972). The equal protection clause does not require absolute equality in the legislative districts but does require a rational basis for legislative distinctions, such as geography, economics, mass media and functional or group voting strength. See Thigpen V. Meyers, 211 F. Supp. 826 (W.D. WA).

Conclusion

As indicated in this memorandum the opinions of the Department of Justice are flawed. Justice throughout its memorandum expressed conjecture and could not properly evaluate the proposed constitution because it did not examine evidence gathered or the record of the proceedings that lead to the Fifth Constitutional Convention to set forth certain provisions in the proposed constitution. Moreover, constitutional analysis requires a case by case evaluation of the facts in order to properly measure constitutional implications. The opinions of the Justice Department regarding its review of the proposed constitution fail for these reasons.



_________________________________
1. Opinions on the proposed constitution were submitted by letter of Governor John P. de Jongh, Jr., the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Congressional Research Service.

2. Statements of conjecture by justice: “we find it difficult to discern..” Memorandum for the Office of Management and Budget (Justice, 2010)-page 1; “the ..constitution does not identify… and it is difficult for us to discern…,” Id at 7 ; “to the extent that those interest might be offered…,” Id at 8; “…seems difficult to justify…,” Id ; “because we find it difficult to discern…,” Id; “in absence of any identified …interest…,” Id at 10; “any challenge to USVI’s Senate districts would be fact-specific, we do not recommend specific … changes to the proposed constitution to address these concerns.” Id at 15.

3. See Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30-31, 89 S.Ct. 5, 10, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968393 U.S., at 30-31, 89 S.Ct., at 10; Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S., at 142-143, 92 S.Ct., at 855; American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 780-781, 94 S.Ct. 1296, 1305-1306, 39 L.Ed.2d 744 (1974); Illinois Elections Bd. v. Socialist Workers Party,440 U.S. 173, 183, 99 S.Ct. 983, 989, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979).

4. The annex was prepared by Delegate Gerard Emanuel. Note the summation of facts was also contained in Delegate Emanuel’s testimony before Congressional on March 17, 2010.

5. Justice concedes that the proposed constitution complies with Sovereignty and Supremacy requirement. Justice concession is derived from the following statements:” the present proposed constitution considered together bring it into substantial compliance with the Enabling Act's requirement that the proposed constitution recognize U.S. sovereignty and the supremacy of federal law.” supra Justice at 4; “The current proposed constitution's acknowledgment of the USVI's status as an "unincorporated territory of the United States" thus implies recognition of the United States' sovereignty over the USVI. Id. at 5; “The current proposed USVI constitution appears no less compliant with subsection 2(b)(1) of the Enabling Act than the constitution originally proposed in 1980, if not also the revised version of that constitution ultimately approved by Congress.” Id at 4.

6. Justice at 1.

7. Id at 6

8. Convention Between the United States and Denmark for Cession of the Danish West Indies, 39 Stat. 1706 (1916).

9. See UN Charter, Chapter 11, Article 73; See also UN Resolution 1514 and UN Resolution 35-118.

10. Id at 6; United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 647 1977; Sandoval at 45-46; Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 553 (1974).

11. See U.S.Amicus.Brief,1999.at 5; Sandoval at 45-46.

12. Rice v. Cayento, U.S.Amicus.Brief,1999.at 5;

13. Justice at 8.

14. 963 F. supp 1547; 146 F.3d 1075

15. 528 U.S. 495,509, 120 S. Ct 1044, 145 L. Ed 2d 1007

16. Id at 516.

17. Id at 531.

18. Id at 538 citing Mancari, 417 U.S., at 554, 94 S.Ct. 2474.

19. Justice at 4.

20. See Annex.

21. Justice at 14.

_________________________________________________________

See also relevant articles on this issue:

US Senate to Consider Constitutional Status Legislation for Dependencies

 Legislation in US Congress Could Move Political Status of US Territories

US Virgin Islands Presents Constitution to Congress

International Dimension of a USVI Constitution

St. Kitts-Nevis PM to Visit Bermuda

PM Douglas accepts invitation from Premier of Bermuda

by Erasmus Williams
sknpmpresssec@hotmail.com
May 6, 2010 9:58 am (PDT)

BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS, MAY 6TH 2010 (CUOPM) – St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas is to visit Bermuda on an official visit.
 
Dr. Douglas has accepted an invitation from the Premier of Bermuda, Dr. the Hon. Ewart F. Brown.“Three out of every five Bermudian families can claim some ancestry in St. Kitts and Nevis,” Premier Browne told Prime Minister Douglas in his letter of invitation.
 
“With such close links between Bermuda and St. Kitts and Nevis it is a tremendous honour to welcome Dr. Douglas during our Heritage Month celebrations. The Prime Minister has also committed to reaching out to the local Kittitian community and those who retain close links to the Island by hosting a town-hall meeting to discuss recent developments and change in St. Kitts and Nevis,” the Premier is quoted in The Royal Gazette.

While in the Bermuda capital, Prime Minister Douglas will visit the House of Assembly, pay courtesy calls on the Speaker and Deputy Speaker and address the 36-member lawmaking body.

He will also visit the British-appointed Governor and tour the Dockyard and Commissioner's House.

US Senate to Consider Constitutional Status Legislation for Dependencies

Proposed Virgin Islands Constitution, Puerto Rico Status Referendum Legislation, Political Education for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands to be examined.

Press Release
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
US Congress

Full Committee Hearing: to receive testimony on the proposed Constitution of the U.S. Virgin Islands; S. 2941; H.R. 3940; and H.R. 2499 (Hearing Room SD-366)

Scheduled for Wednesday, May 19, 2010
09:30 AM
Energy Committee Hearing Room - SD-366

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the proposed Constitution of the U.S. Virgin Islands; S. 2941, the Republic of the Marshall Islands Supplemental Nuclear Compensation Act of 2010; H.R. 3940, an act to amend Public Law 96-597 to clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to extend grants and other assistance to facilitate political status public education programs for the peoples of the non-self-governing territories of the United States; and H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010 (Hearing Room SD-366).

Committee Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of the Full Committee includes oversight and legislative responsibilities for: National Energy Policy, including international energy affairs and emergency preparedness; nuclear waste policy; privatization of federal assets; territorial policy (including changes in status and issues affecting Antarctica); Native Hawaiian matters; and Ad Hoc issues.
_________________________________________________________________________
Previous Consideration by US House

The full US House of Representatives in the Spring of 2010 has already adopted the political status education legislation for American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands (H.R. 3940), as well as the bill authorising a referendum on political status (H.R. 2499). The US Senate committee will consider both measures on 19th May.

Meanwhile, the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the US House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee considered the proposed constitution in hearings for the US Virgin Islands last March, with the Senate committee consideration is the next stage in the process.

According to the Subcommittee website:

The Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife - led by Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Guam/Guahan) - has jurisdiction over legislation governing the Nation's U.S. Territories and Compacts of Free Association, as well as issues relating to fisheries management, wildlife resources, coastal barrier protection and coastal zone management, and marine sanctuaries, among other areas.

The Insular areas of the U.S. include the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), as well as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The U.S. was ceded three of the five territories at the end of the Spanish-American War and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, originally, as a United Nations Trust Territory at the culmination of World War II.

The remaining territories were either acquired by the U.S. through a Deed of Cession, as was American Samoa in 1900, or through outright purchase, when U.S. Virgin Islands was purchased from Denmark in 1917. In addition, the Committee oversees matters regarding the Compact relationship between the U.S. and the "Freely Associated States" of Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

U.S. House passes status bill, 223-169

Commonwealth option included in possible 2nd vote

by Robert Friedman
Puerto Rico Daily Sun

The House on Thursday approved the Puerto Rico status bill by a 223-169 vote after a grueling full day of debate on the island’s past, present and possible future role in its relationship with the United States. But, in a major change in the bill, the commonwealth option was given a second chance if voters rejected the current status.

The Democrats carried the day for the measure as 184 of the party’s lawmakers voted in favor. They were joined by 39 Republicans. Those opposed to the bill included 129 Republicans and 40 Democrats. A total of 57 Republicans had signed on as co-sponsors. Apparently 18 either changed their minds and voted against the bill, or did not vote at all.

The big change came about when an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-Texas, was approved that would put the commonwealth on the second plebiscite as one of four options, along with statehood, independence and free association.

Under the bill, introduced by Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, a second plebiscite will be held if voters say in a first referendum that they want a change in the current U.S.-Puerto Rico relationship. It was unclear at press time how commonwealth would qualify for the second ballot if in the first vote, a majority decides it wants to change that status.

A last-minute motion, had it passed, would most likely have killed the Pierluisi bill. The motion, which included an English-only amendment and a gun provision in the measure, was defeated by a narrow 198-194 count.

The change was filed by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., the ranking minority member of the House Resources Committee, which approved the bill last year. Hastings tried to amend the bill so that English would be the one and only official language of a Puerto Rico state, and gun laws would be liberalized if and when the island joined the Union.

The gun provision was added to get the votes of the many Democrats who back any legislation that includes liberalization of gun laws—possibly out of conviction, but also out of fear that their gun-owning constituents would not return them to office.

The House also accepted a mild language amendment filed by Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Don Young, R-Alaska.

The amendment says that under statehood or commonwealth Puerto Rico should be treated as all other states on federal language requirements and that the teaching of English should be promoted on the island.

Pierluisi hailed the status vote outcome. He said it meant that “truth and democracy has won out over fear, misinformation and [political] paralysis.”

He said passage of the measure makes him confident that the Senate will take up the bill “with the same principle of justice and democratic rights …”

The debate and votes, which began at about 10 a.m., with a one-hour pause, did not wind up until just before 7 p.m. The principal players arguing on the floor in favor of the bill were Pierluisi and Resources Committee Chairman, Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., while stateside Puerto Rican Reps. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y. and Luis Gutiérrez, D-Ill., both of whom argued long, hard and passionately against the measure.

Gutiérrez made Puerto Rican patriot arguments against the bill, which he saw as “rigged” in favor of statehood. He said the one indisputable right that the Puerto Rican people had was the “inalienable right” to have the island become an independent nation.

He said Puerto Rico was a “nation of people” and said, apparently tongue-in-cheek, that he would support statehood if the island were allowed as a state to have its own Olympics team and its own one official Spanish language. “Would Congress approve that?” he asked.

In attempting to show that there is little interest in English on the island, he said that the only daily newspaper in Puerto Rico that has gone bankrupt and been forced to close was the English-language San Juan Star. He did not mention the existence of the Puerto Rico Daily Sun.

Velázquez, and the bills other opponents, emphasized that Puerto Ricans had turned down statehood in three previous plebiscites and insisted that “economic issues must be addressed first” for the well-being of the island.

She called the alleged skewering of the bill for statehood and against commonwealth “appalling, deceitful and shameful.”

The two Puerto Rican lawmakers had introduced five amendments, all of which were struck down. These included proposals to eliminate the first commonwealth yes-or-no plebiscite, to originate any status change from the Puerto Rico government, to add the option “none of the above” to a status vote, to only make English-language ballots available upon request and to allow all stateside Puerto Ricans to vote in the plebiscites, instead of those born on the island and living in the states.

The principal debaters were joined by some 20 or so other House members who had their say during the debate.

One of the most important and staunchest defenders was House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who made a last-minute plea in favor of the legislation.

Mayagüez-born, Bronx-raised Rep. José Serrano, D-N.Y., made a strong plea for the legislation. He said he supported it because it “begins a process,” and that the process would be fair. Serrano said island residents were very knowledgeable, status-wise, and “no one in Puerto Rico will be forced to vote for statehood, unless they want it.”

Montserrat Elected Vice Chair of OCTA

Press Release
Government of Montserrat

Montserrat to play greater role in keeping the OCTA on task

BRADES – Montserrat intends to play a greater role in keeping the members of the overseas territories and the EU partners to task so that the milestones established will be met, says Mrs. Angela Greenaway, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Economic Development & Trade.

The permanent secretary was a part of the delegation led by Chief Minister Reuben Meade to the Forum on the European Commission and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) held in Brussels last Thursday and Friday. Montserrat now holds the Vice Chairmanship of the OCTA and will chair the 2011 sitting of the forum in Brussels.

“The focus of the discussions were the future relations between the OCT’s with the European Commission. The Commission has issued an outline of the possible new elements of the new partnership arrangement. This outline sets out three pillars for possible future development – Enhancing competitiveness, strengthening resilience and promoting cooperation.

It is up to the OCT’s now along with the Commission to discuss in detail, how these pillars will be developed into a new OCT Decision which must be agreed and signed off by the end of 2013. The overall responses from the forum were positive but it is necessary that we stay on top of each member to ensure that the targets are met,” explained the permanent secretary.

“We plan to play a greater role in maintaining the dialogue between the overseas territories and the EU partners. There is a tendency for the momentum to be lost over time as the European Commission become distracted with other issues. Time is important as the current Overseas Association Decision expires on December 31, 2013,” Mrs. Greenaway added.

In his remarks, Chief Minister Meade said Montserrat was “sincerely grateful for the generous contributions from the European Union and the UK government in particular, to our recovery efforts. We are particularly thankful for the indicative budget of 15.7m Euros under EDF 10 which we have allocated to replace our Port that was destroyed in Plymouth, and we hope to receive further assistance, to complete the project now estimated at 30 million Euros.”

The chief minister said the strategic goals in the island’s sustainable development plan 2008 – 2020 “cannot be achieved without both technical and financial support.” He added that “sustainability cannot be achieved by simply focusing on poverty reduction” and there was a need to “redefine our relationship with the EU and ensure we sculpture the development objectives to meet our needs based on our rights to aspire to EU standards.”

The official UK statement said “the successor to the OAD must be flexible enough to meet the needs of both the larger, more prosperous Territories, and those which are more vulnerable and likely to be in need of development assistance for years to come.”

The Green Paper which was launched at the November 2008 forum “recognises that the EU – OCT relationship should be built on one of partnership. This is the basis of the UK’s relationship with our OTs. Partnerships, with their shared responsibilities and obligations, have their ups and downs. There has to be some give and take for a successful partnership to work. Compromise is sometimes necessary. As the re-negotiation moves forward, discussions should be open and transparent. The Commission must have no hidden agenda or pre-conceived ideas and must listen to its’ Territories.”

“The UK agrees that the OCTs should be seen as assets rather than burdens on the EU tax payer. Their links to Europe are long standing and important, but each has its’ own distinct culture, character and diversity. OCTs should however adhere to European values on good governance. Those with a financial services industry must reach internationally agreed standards. And the EU should recognise the progress that has been made in this area.”

“Any proposed changes to legislation have to be relevant, and must take into account the capacity limitations of the Territories. OCTs cannot be tied into legislation that they do not have the resources to implement effectively. Where they cannot meet these requirements, or do not have the expertise to become a centre of excellence there should be no discrimination against them. We cannot have a first and second tier of OCT,” the statement said.

The OCT-EU Forum is a tripartite meeting that includes the associated and dependent territories of the EU (Anguilla; Aruba; British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; French Polynesia; Greenland; Mayotte; Montserrat; Netherlands Antilles; New Caledonia; Pitcairn; St. Helena and dependencies; St. Pierre and Miquelon; French Southern and Antarctic Territories; Turks and Caicos Islands; Wallis; and Futuna); the European Commission; and the four EU Member States that have such territories (UK, France, Denmark, and The Netherlands).

This annual meeting is chaired by the European Commission with the aim of outlining the visions for cooperation between the parties, enabling the OCTs to take a full part in the implementation of the OCT-EC association, and to allow a broad-based dialogue to enable the EU, all the OCTs and the Member States to which they are linked to consult each other on the principles, detailed procedures and results of the association.

New Caledonia is the 2010 chair of the OCTA and will host the next meeting later this year or early 2011 in that territory.

US House Fails to Vote on Washington DC Voting Rights

Dems ditch D.C. voting rights bill
POLITICO
By: Jake Sherman

Democrats have ditched plans to bring a District of Columbia voting rights bill to the House floor, a major setback in the long-running effort to give the nation's capital full representation in Congress.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested that unrelated issues — such as gun rights provisions – sidelined D.C. voting bill. Hoyer had originally hoped to bring the bill to the floor this week, but now believes the legislation may be dead for the year.

Hoyer made the decision with Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), the non-voting representative of the District, who was uncomfortable with the gun legislation that was being attached to the bill, a Democratic aide said.

Norton said the bill would not have made it through the Senate anyway because the gun-related amendment would have allowed wide open gun ownership in D.C.

Norton said gun provisions – which she said were drafted by the National Rifle Association – would “surely bring down the support we have had of anti-gun Democratic Senators.”

It is a personal defeat for Hoyer, who has long championed the legislation, and for D.C., whose 600,000 citizens do not have a full voting representative in Congress. Hoyer, on several occasions, said he is “profoundly disappointed” that the legislation will not be brought up and added that he personally wrote the statement he delivered to reporters Tuesday morning.

The legislation should be focused “solely on the central premise of American democracy,” not local D.C. crime issues or the addition of a House seat for Utah. Both of these issues have haunted the legislation in the past.

“I believe that the bill that should be adopted would extend that right to the residents of the capital city of the world’s greatest democracy,” Hoyer said. “It is a blight on that democracy that we have not done so. That bill should be unfettered by any other provisions.”

Past versions of the D.C. voting rights bill have been bogged down when Republicans successfully attached amendments that would force much more open gun laws in the city, which has the strictest gun laws in the country.

When asked what sidelined the legislation this time – opposition by liberal Democrats to the gun provisions, or the threat of a filibuster by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) because of the at-large seat – Hoyer said simply “the price was too high.”

Analysis of 1998 US House Vote on Puerto Rico Status Legislation

As the U.S. House of Representatives proceeds to take up H.R. 2499 to facilitate a referendum process on political status alternatives for Puerto Rico, the issues under intense discussion in 2010 are strikingly similar to those discussed during the last time the U.S. House voted on similar legislation, in 1998. An analysis on the earlier Congressional vote was published in the March 1998 edition of the journal Associate (the predecessor publication to Overseas Territories Review. The 1998 Associate article provided significant insight into many of the same issues which are being debated in relation to the present legislation, and is reprinted below, for comparison purposes.


Puerto Rico Political Referendum Legislation Narrowly Endorsed by US House of Representatives

Associate (Vol. 1 No. 4)
March 1998
Washington, D.C.

Supporters of full integration for Puerto Rico into the United States (U.S.) as the 51st state of the union were given a boost on 4th March (1998) as the U.S. House of Representatives approved by the narrowest of margins legislation that would provide for a U.S. Congressionally-recognized referendum election by the end of 1998 on three political status options. This major development is occurring 100 years following the U.S. takeover of the island from Spanish rule - some say, from the Puerto Ricans themselves who had declared unilateral independence from Spain prior to the arrival of American troops.

According to a 1997 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Report on U.S. Insular Areas, the bill "would establish a three stage process for enhancing self-government in Puerto Rico" with the first stage being a (non-binding) referendum to be held no later than 31st December 1998 on the political options of commonwealth (status quo), separate sovereignty (independence or free association), and statehood (integration).

If the referendum choice is either integration or separate sovereignty, the legislation calls for the development by the U.S. President of a ten-year transition plan to be submitted to the Puerto Rico electorate for approval in another referendum. "Assuming the plan was approved, the final stage would begin with the President's submission to the (U.S.) Congress of proposed legislation to implement the form of self-government consistent with Puerto Rico's choice including a proposed date for implementation," according to the report, and "if this is enacted by the Congress, it would be presented to Puerto Rican voters for approval by (another) referendum."

If the commonwealth option is chosen, the status quo continues and another referendum would be held within the subsequent ten year period.

On a vote of 209 to 208 following a marathon session that went well into the night, the full House of Representatives endorsed the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act authorizing the people of the commonwealth/territory of 3.8 million people to choose between the three options. The legislation was introduced in response to a local referendum held in Puerto Rico in 1993 in which the commonwealth option garnered a plurality of some 48.4 per cent.

This marked the first time that the political status under which Puerto Rico was being governed was not favoured by the majority of the population. But as it was noted in the debate by Representative George Miller of California, the political parties in the territory had written the definitions of the individual status options presented in the 1993 plebescite, and the Congress had not responded because it felt that the definitions "were not accurate and would not be supported by the Congress... and did not reflect the laws and the Constitution (of the United States)."

Subsequently a series of Congressional hearings were held in Washington and in Puerto Rico in 1995, resulting in 1996 legislation authorizing a Congressionally sanctioned referendum, rather than a local process.

This legislation was approved in the House Resources Committee, but not taken up by the full House. The present legislation had been introduced in February, 1997 with the definitions of the options ultimately written by the U.S. Congress, following proposals sent by the Puerto Rico political parties.

The House bill will now be considered by the U.S. Senate where similar legislation has been introduced in 1997, but where no action has yet been taken. The measure was fully supported by the island's pro-integrationist New Progressive Party which controls the governorship, the non-voting resident commissionership to the U.S. House, and both houses of the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly. The measure also has the support of President Bill Clinton who commented that the vote "was a victory for democracy and against exclusion."

In a February address to the Democratic Governors Association dinner in Washington, Clinton said that "...it is time that we respond to the aspirations of the 4 million (Puerto Ricans)...and allow them to determine their ultimate political status."[Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Rossello had previously been elected as Chairman of the Democratic Governors' Association, of the Council of State Governments, and of the Southern Governors' Association in a well planned strategy to position Puerto Rico as a de facto state. This had a significant impact on the favourable vote by Democratic Party representatives on the measure on the House floor].

While not endorsing a particular political option, Clinton disagreed with "some people who question the alternative of statehood (integration) because of the Hispanic culture of Puerto Rico," and emphasized that the "ethnic, racial or religious heritage" of the people should not be used as an impediment to their political aspirations.


The Ethnic Question
 
President Clinton's reference to ethnicity was made undoubtedly in response to strong support for an amendment offered by Representative Gerald Soloman, Republican from New York. That amendment would have mandated English as the official language in government business and in schools in any U.S. state, including Puerto Rico, if it was successful in changing to that status. Some like Cuauhtemoc Figueora, Director of Policy and Communications for the (U.S.) League of Latin American Citizens felt that it was unfair to use the Puerto Rico issue as the vehicle for the English only movement, since such a requirement does not presently exist for other U.S. states (although some 23 of the 50 have voluntarily adopted English as their official language). Conversely, Chairman of the Board of U.S. English, Mauro E. Mujica, noted that his organization was in favour of the Soloman "English only" amendment and expressed the "concern about creating our own Quebec." He went on to note that "after 100 years of association with (the United States), 75 per cent of Puerto Ricans do not speak English and 70 per cent think of themselves as Puerto Ricans and not Americans." He indicated that he was "concerned about creating a state...where only a slight majority (supported that option) and the minority begins to create trouble." He went on to emphasize that "we don't want a secessionist group created in Puerto Rico." The legislation calls for a simple majority of the Puerto Rican voters for the winning option.
 
In the end, the "Soloman amendment" was rejected by a vote of 370 to 41 , and a "softer"substitute amendment on the language issue was introduced by Republican Dan Burton, and subsequently adopted by the House by a margin of 238 to 182. The new language would provide, in the event of Puerto Rican statehood, that the official language requirements of the U.S. government would apply to the new state "in the same manner and to the same extent as throughout the United States," and called for the promotion of English proficiency in the public schools by the age of 10. A second amendment that would have permitted Puerto Ricans living outside the island to vote in the referendum was also rejected overwhelmingly, bringing into question whether the vote would be considered a true "act of self-determination" consistent with internationally recognized referenda held or planned in other territories, such as Namibia or Western Sahara.
 
As in the case of the local referendum held in the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1993, and its excessive number of political status choices (based on perceived U.S. Congressional considerations), it was clear that consistency with international principles on self-determination does not always figure significantly in resolving the constitutional dilemmas in U.S. territories. Another such example is the refusal to accommodate the rights of the indigenous people in the self-determination process of that U.S. Pacific territory of Guam serving as a reminder of the constraints that emerge when provisions of the U.S. Constitution are unilaterally applied to non-integrated, or un-incorporated, territories in a manner as if they were integrated states. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands which developed from the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands was the only U.S. territory that seemed to have negotiated a sufficiently autonomous arrangement, but as it turns out, the U.S. Congress and executive branch are re-interpreting important provisions of the U.S. - Marianas pact leading to more "federal" control.

Unlikely Political Alliances
 
The legislation is considered one of the most controversial measures debated by the full House of Representatives in recent years. Representative Soloman in remarks in the general debate commented that both the American and Puerto Rican people are at odds over the matter, and that "members of the House (of Representatives) are divided on this issue, and not necessarily by party." The Puerto Rican politicians themselves were not unified - consistent with the differing views on the island - with supporters of the bill being led on the House floor, in part, by Puerto Rico's non-voting Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero Barcelo, while opponents of the measure were led by (Democrat) Chicago-based Puerto Rican Congressman Luis Gutierrez.
 
Much of the Republican leadership including the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich endorsed the bill, and it was reported that Republicans were asked to support it as one of a number of actions they should take to gain Hispanic votes in the coming U.S. Congressional elections, consistent with an analysis produced by Republican pollster Frank Luntz. Many Republicans as well as Democrats seemed convinced, however, that the bill was drafted in such a way as to favour the political integration option in a referendum, and many simply were not ready for that now, if ever. This conclusion was reached since the bill defined the status quo option as a territory that should be decolonized pursuant to the United Nations International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, according to the House Committee Report accompanying the bill.
 
Such a portrayal of the political status under which Puerto Rico had been governed since 1952 was strongly opposed by the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party (PDP) who perceived the commonwealth arrangement as a de facto associated state, governed not by the territorial clause of the U.S. constitution, but rather, by a bilateral pact. PDP President Acevedo Vila had earlier contended in March, 1997 hearings before the House Resources Committee that "the assumption made in the bill that it is not possible to have a non-colonial bilateral relationship, based on mutual consent with American citizenship as a bond between Puerto Rico and the United States is against history (and) legal precedents," and noted that previous legislation introduced in the House on Puerto Rico had recognized the bi-lateral nature of the U.S. - Puerto Rico relationship. Acevedo Vila has termed the present bill "unacceptable," and argued that it "reneges on the word of the United States given to the people of Puerto Rico and to the world in 1953," in reference to statements to the United Nations by the United States delegation that the attainment of commonwealth by Puerto Rico was a form of association with sufficient autonomy that it no longer required oversight by the U.N.
 
The General Assembly later that year agreed to remove Puerto Rico from the U.N. list of non-self-governing territories (via Resolution 748), although the current arrangement does not meet the standard of a "full measure of self-government" approved by the U.N. in 1960. In what many describe as a classic political contradiction, subsequent efforts to have Puerto Rico re-inscribed on the U.N. list for more than three and one-half decades have been met by steadfast resistance on the part of the U.S. State Department which does not hide its disdain for the U.N. committee that oversees the self-determination process of the remaining non-self-governing territories, mostly in the Caribbean and Pacific.[ The U.S. delegation to the U.N. has been quite successful in recent years in convincing other member countries to approve reductions in the resources appropriated to the U.N. committee from the U.N. budget, and actively seeks the committee's abolishment on the premise that the remaining non-self-governing territories are, in fact, self-governing after all, regardless of whether any changes have been made to upgrade their political status arrangement. This proposition, of course, is diametrically opposed to the position just approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in the Puerto Rico legislation that defines the island as a colony. This 'two Puerto Rico,' as in 'two China' policy, finds Puerto Rico to be a colony in the U.S. Congress, but self-governing at the U.N. ]

The Popular Democratic Party itself had been divided over whether the commonwealth status is an associated territory, as insisted upon by the party leadership, or a colony, as seen by a growing segment of the party. Advocates within the party for a true form of free association argued for their option to replace the "colonial commonwealth " definition. They did not succeed within the party, but independent groups like the Puerto Rico Organization for Free Association (PROELA), the Puerto Rican Autonomist Commission and the Puerto Rico Democratic Action Foundation worked in favour of the inclusion of the free association option, both on the island and in Washington.

The Cost of Statehood

The issue of the projected cost of statehood was another factor in the debate. It was argued by opponents of the bill that if statehood was ultimately granted, it would cost the U.S. treasury over US3 billion in increased welfare benefits as well as the expansion of other social programmes and "corporate welfare." This view of increased U.S. assistance to Puerto Rico under statehood was supported by a 1990 Report of the Congressional Budget Office and by other more recent studies including a 1996 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Analysis of Certain Potential Effects of Extending (U.S.) Federal Income Taxation to Puerto Rico, and a 1997 GAO study on Tax Policy-Puerto Rico Economic Trends. A number of private studies, many commissioned by pro-statehood organizations on and off the island, have countered the findings of these federal analyses.


Supporters of the referendum measure, in particular Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero Barcelo, argued in the debate on the House floor that under statehood, individual Puerto Ricans and corporations based there would contribute over US 4.5 billion in income taxes to the U.S. treasury. But concerns persist that Puerto Rico would be the poorest of the integrated states, would receive more U.S. economic assistance than other states, and would pay the least in taxes to the U.S. treasury. Perhaps the mass defection of Republicans away from their leadership and against the legislation was due in large measure to this potential economic impact. What is also emerging is the concern that the present commonwealth status also comes with its own financial price tag, and an indefinite continuation of the status quo could also come under increased Congressional scrutiny for financial reasons. One outcome of the debate is the increased realization that under the present status, Puerto Rico pays no income taxes to the U.S. treasury.

A rather unlikely alliance in support of the bill was the position taken by the Puerto Rico Independence Party (PIP). In a classic case of the "unity of opposites," both the pro-integration and pro-independence parties argue the same point - that the present commonwealth status is colonial and unsustainable. The two parties only differ with respect to the solution. The PIP which has heightened its level of visibility with the U.S. Congress believes that independence will ultimately win out because, as its President Ruben Berrios told the Washington Times newspaper in March, "If we don't obtain a victory now we will obtain it tomorrow because statehood will never be granted." His argument, which is gaining support among U.S. Congressmen, is that "statehood is totally unacceptable to the United States," and if commonwealth is now properly defined as a colonial problem in need of a solution, the only answer is that of independence.

As an indication of this integration - independence dialectic, Romero-Barcelo argued in the House debate that "the unvarnished truth is that Puerto Rico's colonial status remains unchanged," and that "the intent (in creating the commonwealth status) was to create a provisional government until the issue of status was resolved." As Berrios wrote in the bi-monthly U.S. Foreign Affairs journal last November/December, "Congress has acknowledged that commonwealth is territorial under U.S. law which in turn is colonial under international law,(and a) colonial anachronism."
 
As the Debate Intensified...
 
Even the influential words of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan were used to support the bill when Representative Joe Moakley of Massachusetts quoted Reagan's 1982 statement that, "in statehood, the language and culture of (Puerto Rico), rich in history, would be respected," and that "statehood would benefit both the people of the United States" and the people of Puerto Rico. The Ronald Reagan Foundation quickly distanced the former president from the process, however, in a letter to the Congress stating that Reagan "is not now nor will he ever be taking any position on (the current Puerto Rico legislation), the issue of statehood for Puerto Rico, or self-determination for the Puerto Rican people." There was no indication as to why the longstanding Reagan endorsement for statehood was being withdrawn.
 
In any event, Representative Don Young had later made reference to the support expressed in the 1989 State of the Union Address by Reagan's successor, President George Bush, who "long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have their right to determine their own political future," and who expressed his personal support for integration. So far, no retraction from former President Bush - but the process is far from complete.
 
In the end, it was the Democrats who rescued the bill. Only 17 of the 27 Republicans on the House Resources Committee, from which the bill originated, voted in favour of the legislation in the full House. All but one of the same Republicans had voted for the measure at the committee level. The final tally showed some 177 Republicans abandoning their leadership by opposing the bill with only 43 in favour. On the other hand, the Democrats who had earlier in the process balked at the definition of commonwealth, overwhelmingly supported the measure with 165 votes to only 31 against.
 
The Road Ahead
 
The narrowness of the vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, the lack of consensus among the members of the majority party in the House, and the often contentious debate over culture, language, dignity, finance, Olympic teams and the like under the statehood option all point to a less than certain future for the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status bill. The legislation now shifts to the U.S. Senate where Majority leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has offered little support for bringing the measure to the Senate floor this year [Of course, Lott has changed his mind before, most recently, in his widely reported reversal of his original call for the expedited completion of the U.S. Special prosecutor Ken Starr's investigation on alleged sexual misconduct of President Clinton ].
 
In effect, It would be a simple procedure not to take up the politically explosive issue in the Senate this year, simply on the grounds of the crowded Senate calendar and the fewer than normal days of formal session because of elections in November. But Republican Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with jurisdiction of the Puerto Rico legislation, supports bringing the bill to the Senate floor this year, and several Senate Democrats have also called for debate on the measure. Members of both parties, however, have made it clear that approval will not be easy, in view of the close vote in the House. As the PIP 's Berrios wrote "the traditional policy of Congressional immobility on Puerto Rico seems to be losing ground, though it is still a tempting option for a Congress with a propensity for crisis management."
 
Puerto Rican politicians are also gearing up for the shift in focus to the Senate. It appeared that the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party had abandoned its lobbying efforts in the House, in the face of a well documented multi-million dollar campaign for approval of the bill by the pro-integrationist forces, and had concentrated their approach on the Senate. The pro-statehood New Progressive Party was, of course, elated with their victory and have stepped up their efforts to press for a Senate vote based on the "momentum." The Puerto Rican Independence Party, meanwhile, views the narrow victory as consistent with their plan to press the issue, in effect, forcing the U.S. Congress to reject statehood for Puerto Rico - something that Congress has been particularly adept at avoiding over the years.
 
As the debate accelerates, some experts are betting on the "independentista" strategy. If the Senate does approve a companion measure with a compromise House-Senate version signed by President Clinton, enough momentum might be generated in Puerto Rico for a positive vote in the referendum for statehood (especially with the threatened boycott by the commonwealth forces). But will the U.S. Congress support a state with less than a "supermajority" of the voters, in view of the very real concern among many Congressmen over the "Quebec" syndrome? Or as Berrios asks, "Is the U.S. willing to risk a Caribbean Quebec or a tropical Northern Ireland ?" He noted that "it is one thing to accept individual Jamaicans or Dominicans as immigrants(but) it is quite another to annex entire nations like Jamaica or the Dominican Republic as states." Thus, with statehood rejected and commonwealth discredited, the independence advocates argue, some form of separate sovereignty - either independence or free association - would win by default. This is not an implausible outcome.
 
Of course, should the Senate takes the safe way out and not address the bill at all - there is a tendency not to take up controversial legislation during an election year - the measure will have to be re-introduced in 1999, possibly with new Congressional members and their own ideas on the subject. The process would then begin anew. In view of what has occurred over many years of debate on this issue, it is difficult to bet against this eventuality either. The Congress may be still dealing with this issue decades into the future.
 
And so it has...

US Congressional Republicans Consider Implications of Potential Puerto Rico Statehood

April 23, 2010
House to Consider “Puerto Rico Democracy Act” Next Week
Bill would Set up Vote on Potential 51st State

US House of Representatives
Natural Resources Committee Republican Press Office

Next week (26-30 April) , the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act. This bill would authorize a federally sanctioned plebiscite (vote) of the Puerto Rican people regarding their political future.

The bill mandates a two-step voting process. The first vote would allow the people of Puerto Rico to choose between selecting a “different political status” or maintaining their “present political status.” If the majority of the people vote in favor of a “different political status,” then a second vote would be held allowing people to choose between three options: independence, statehood, or a freely associated state. Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States and has “Commonwealth” status.

“There are some important factors that should be made clear and be carefully considered before Congress votes on this bill. While it is said that the outcome of the plebiscites are non-binding, the results could set the stage for future action as soon as next year – including a Congressional vote on statehood for Puerto Rico,” said House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Doc Hastings.

“Action towards potentially creating a 51st state is not a decision that Congress should make casually and has very serious implications for both the 50 existing states and the people of Puerto Rico. Congress needs to have an honest and forthright discussion of these issues. For example, under this bill, a majority vote is not required for statehood or independence to be declared the winner. There is also the question of a common language and Puerto Rico’s recognition of Spanish as an official language. In addition, if Puerto Rico were ever to became a state it could get six new members of the House of Representatives and cost billions of dollars per year in federal spending.

The people of Puerto Rico would also have to pay federal income tax on income earned on the island, which they currently don’t pay. As we approach this vote, I will be encouraging Members of Congress and the people of 50 states and Puerto Rico to educate themselves on the details of this bill and its potential implications.”

# # #

Three months ago, the National Journal (Washington, D.C. USA) reported on the adoption of the H.R. 2499 by the House Natural Resources Committee in July 2009. The article, written by Erin McPike, provided significant insight on the efforts underway by Puerto Rico’s pro-statehood government and Resident Commissioner to move the legislation forward, and on the perspectives of key Congressional Representatives on the implications of the legislation.

29th January 2010
Puerto Rico May Face Statehood Choice
National Journal

Even some insiders are surprised to hear that Congress is about to take up the issue of Puerto Rico’s political status

By Erin McPike

The issue of Puerto Rico’s political status has been simmering for nearly 50 years. Now, at a time when Congress has plenty of other pressing items on its agenda, lawmakers may soon be voting on a measure to allow the residents of the largest U.S. territory to determine their own fate.

Last July, the House Natural Resources Committee approved the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, which would establish at least one plebiscite in the Caribbean territory to survey the populace about what status they want for their island. According to the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the bill will come up for a floor vote this year. “It remains a priority,” spokeswoman Katie Grant said.

Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, a Democrat who represents Puerto Rico in Congress, together with Gov. Luis Fortuno, an energetic and rising Republican star, have marshaled 182 House co-sponsors for the legislation, including 58 Republicans. The two say they have commitments from more than 264 House members — 180 Democrats and 84 Republicans — to vote for the bill.

Puerto Rico’s quest for self-determination has, in fact, long had supporters on both sides of the political aisle, and in an election year, both parties are interested in courting Hispanics. “Every Republican president in the last 50 years has supported this process,” Fortuno said in an interview. “President Reagan was a strong supporter of this process, and actually of statehood as well.”

President Obama has also signaled support. “We… pledged during my campaign to work with Congress and all groups in Puerto Rico to enable the question of Puerto Rico’s status to be resolved during the next four years,” Obama wrote in a letter to Fortuno last January, shortly before his inauguration. “I am fully aware of the difficulties that Puerto Rico has faced in the past when dealing with this issue, but self-determination is a basic right to be addressed no matter how difficult.”

Although the House approved a Puerto Rico self-determination bill by a single vote in 1998, the Senate never took up the matter. Back then, it was a pet project for House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., who hoped to attract Hispanic votes, and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who saw echoes of his home state’s long fight for statehood.

In a recent interview, another Alaska Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, said she also is sympathetic. Murkowski is vice chairwoman of the Senate Republican Conference and has taken the lead in reaching out to Hispanics and women. She noted that she has met with Puerto Ricans in Washington and has visited the island to discuss the statehood issue.

“It needs to be that decision of the people,” Murkowski said. “I know that it has been an issue that has provoked a great deal of stress on both sides, but I think if the people of Puerto Rico believe strongly that they need to become a state, we need to respect that.”

Puerto Rico’s commonwealth form of government — in Spanish, Estado Libre Asociado (ELA), or Free Associated State — was approved in a public referendum in 1952 under the leadership of then-Gov. Luis Munoz Marin, according to The Almanac of American Politics. Under ELA, Puerto Rico is part of the United States for purposes of international trade, foreign policy, and war, but has its own laws, taxes, and representative government. Ever since Munoz retired in 1964, the central issue in Puerto Rico’s politics has been status: Should the island continue or modify ELA, should it seek statehood, or should it seek independence?

For many years, public sentiment moved gradually toward statehood. In a 1967 referendum, Puerto Ricans voted for ELA over statehood 60 percent to 39 percent. But in a 1993 referendum, the vote was 48 percent for ELA and 46 percent for statehood, according to The Almanac. In a November survey of 787 Puerto Rican voters, pollster Pablo Ramos found that 58 percent favored statehood, results almost identical to a 2008 survey.

The pending legislation is not self-executing: It simply provides for Congress to authorize an official survey in Puerto Rico that would inform the U.S. government about what the territory’s citizens want. Congress could then move forward as it sees fit. If a majority of Puerto Ricans voted to change the territory’s status, a second plebiscite would take place three to six months later that would ask residents whether they would like to become a state, gain independence, or become a sovereign nation with U.S. ties. If a majority voted for the status quo in the first plebiscite, the proposal allows for another plebiscite eight years later.

Fortuno, a telegenic 49-year-old who has begun turning heads in national political circles, served as resident commissioner in Congress for the four years preceding Pierluisi. The two are close friends who grew up together and share support for statehood. But they emphasize that the legislation they are pushing merely calls for self-determination, not statehood.

“The Founding Fathers never intended for 4 million American citizens to be left in any territory forever,” Fortuno contended. Pierluisi put it this way: “Until and unless you settle this issue, you have to continuously deal with it, because you need to make sure that the people consent to this, because it is clearly not a permanent-type arrangement; it cannot be. You have to check on the people.”

Pierluisi noted that Puerto Rico is not treated like a state under federal health care or housing programs, for instance, and he says that the duo’s goal is “parity.” Hospitals in the territory receive lower Medicare reimbursements than all other U.S. hospitals.

Opponents contend, however, that the legislation is a statehood bill. Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., a native Puerto Rican who is close to the territory’s Commonwealth Party that supports the status quo, is among the naysayers. She has said she does not support the bill because it would not allow the people of Puerto Rico to establish the process by which the island’s status would be determined. Velazquez introduced legislation in the previous Congress authorizing a constitutional convention, whose proposal would be ratified through a referendum and then submitted to Congress.

Other opponents include Republicans who believe that Puerto Rican statehood would be a boon to Democrats in electoral politics — even though House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana is a co-sponsor of the bill.

Should Puerto Rico become a state, its four million residents would likely equate to six congressional districts and eight electoral votes. But for Republicans worried about the boon for Democrats, Pierluisi has this message: “The last two territories that became states were Alaska and Hawaii. And the members of Congress thought… that Alaska would be Democrat and Hawaii would be Republican, and they read it all wrong.”

Puerto Rico’s population is heavily Catholic and socially conservative, he pointed out. Members of Congress “shouldn’t be trying to predict where Puerto Rico would go,” Pierluisi said. “We have a Republican governor and a Democrat resident commissioner. We have a majority of Republican mayors and members of the Legislature right now.”

Back home, Fortuno has to make massive cuts in the bureaucracy and budget because of the recession. Phil Musser, a GOP strategist and former executive director of the Republican Governors Association, noted that passage of the pending legislation “would just be the feather in his cap.”

“Fortuno is one of the unnoticed assets of the Republican Party,” Musser said, adding that the governor “is making big, tough choices in his first year in office and has the ability to become a larger and more important voice in the Republican Party nationally because he’s a good communicator, well liked by his peers, and is a leading Hispanic in a party that’s bereft of Hispanic voices.”

Even though the House is expected to pass the legislation easily, most leadership aides questioned about it were unaware of the bill’s status and contents. Some called Puerto Rican issues messy. The issue would head next to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said he, too, did not know that the House is all but certain to pass the legislation.

“We’re going to see what the House does,” Bingaman said. “We haven’t discussed it yet in my committee.”

Fortuno and Pierluisi hope that a House victory will provide momentum for them to start lobbying the Senate. Pierluisi aims to find 10 veteran senators — six Democrats and four Republicans, particularly those with large Puerto Rican constituencies — to co-sponsor the bill.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, both said they were familiar with Fortuno from his four years in the House. But even though the two senators have been actively involved in GOP outreach to Hispanics, they stopped short of saying where they would come down on the Puerto Rico Democracy Act and were even unsure about how to talk about it.

Fortuno, however, is quick to point out the upside for his party. “It would present an opportunity, for example, for senators who may have a tougher position on immigration, to show that they may have that position on immigration but they are not anti-Hispanic,” he said.

Easter Islands (Rapa Nui) Oppose Loaning Moai Statue to France

Easter Islanders set to refuse Moai statue loan to France
By Graciela Almendras in Santiago
From: AFP

THE Rapa Nui people on Easter Island are mobilising to preserve their heritage and, in the latest twist, have refused to loan one of their renowned Moai statues for an exhibition in Paris.

During a referendum in early March, 89 per cent of the islanders, most ethnic Polynesians, opposed transporting the ancient monolithic human rock figure 13,000km from the South Pacific to the Tuileries Gardens in Paris, where they were set to be put on display between April 26 and May 9. Chile's National Monuments Council, which had initially backed loaning the Moai, said it would make its final decision on April 14. But the "most likely" and "foreseeable" outcome is that it would abide by the islanders' choice, a source close to the institution said.

The mysterious basalt sculptures with outsized heads were made some 500 to 750 years ago and have become a symbol of Easter Island, a territory annexed to Chile in the late 19th century. Italy's Mare Nostrum and France's Louis Vuitton launched the project to haul the Moai across oceans for public view in Paris two years ago. They aimed to introduce the island's culture to Europe in exchange for helping preserve its heritage with a fund that initially included half a million dollars.

Archaeologists and logistics coordinators had scoped out the site and preselected a statue 5m tall that weighed 13 tonnes. They had planned to insure it for $2.14 million. The island's 4000 inhabitants were informed about the project during public meetings before a referendum was held under the auspices of the International Labour Organization's convention on indigenous people.

Out of 900 people who responded, 789 islanders said they opposed sending the Moai to France, while 94 said they supported the move. The islanders' clear refusal is an example of how inhabitants of this isolated piece of paradise are increasingly defending a heritage and ecosystem they say is under threat.

They have expressed worry at the 50,000 tourists who flood the tiny island each year and a growing number of immigrants from continental Chile some 3500km away. Authorities are also concerned about the large number of visitors expected for the solar eclipse set for July 11.Last year, islanders symbolically closed their island - which is just 24km by 12km - for 48 hours, blocking the Mataveri airport and urging increased awareness of their migration problem.

In October, they managed to obtain guarantees that the Chilean constitution would be revised to reflect those concerns. Now, they have focused their efforts on preserving the Moai. "You can understand their reaction," said Luis Carlos Parentini, a historian specialising in indigenous communities.

"Throughout their history, they saw much of their heritage disappear. They could be suspecting that what leaves the island won't come back. "And they don't have much to gain out of this, as the island is already immensely popular."

The islanders may have good reason to be sceptical. A smaller Moai standing 1.2m tall and weighing two tonnes that was offered to a head of state in 1927 travelled from Argentina to Europe for 80 years before it was finally returned in 2006.

UK Rewriting Turks & Caicos' Constitution

by Chris Burke

It's official. The United Kingdom is rewriting the constitution of Turks and Caicos, which the UK invaded in August 2009. Since there is no democracy in Turks and Caicos now that the UK took over, the people have no official say in any changes.

The UK allows itself access to all facets of the islands as the ultimate moral authority. The UK decided there was corruption, not enough voters, and poor governance, quite suddenly actually. Since the take over in August, the people have been excluded from any government decisions. The UK makes no qualms about its plan to rewrite Turks and Caicos' formerly autonomous constitution. It plans to do so without the input or vote from the people.

The first meeting, held by the UK in front of a "consultative forum" (they can give only opinions) was April 13. The UK admits that it will be redrafting the electoral status, and local's government input. Furthermore, the UK admits that election in 2011, as promised, is "unlikely". Also on the list of amendments is UK's strengthening of its rights to Crown land as well as other rights to resources in the islands.

Why have the people been excluded from all decisions by the UK? The UK asserts that the people are corrupted because of the divided political loyalties between the two previous political parties in Turks and Caicos. As a result of the UK's corruption assertion, it also took the people's right to judiciary and trials by jury. This was done not to afford the accused an unbias verdict, it is due to UK's assertion that a jury panel of incorruptible jurors could not be assembled in Turks and Caicos.

There is no venue in which to challenge UK's actions toward Turks and Caicos. The official and ultimate authority is with the Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of England. Queen Elizabeth has the final say to make any amendments to the rights of the territories at her discretion. And the Queen used her authority to allow a take over of the islands without so much as a vote from the parliament, the people of Turks and Caicos, or any other checks and balances.

The former Permier, Michael Misick, had called for a judicial review of the UK's force and dissolution of the constitution, citing the "right of peoples to self-determination". However, ultimately the Queen has authority over Turks and Caicos law, said the high court.

Many believe that all of UK's corruption assertions were hasty and made without balancing information. Indeed, not only have the people's right to self determination been taken, but a corruption hunt has been looming over the people causing a climate of fear and intimidation.

No word yet on when the UK plans to finalize or publicize any drafts of its rewritten constitution.

Two Former Turks & Caicos Premiers Alarmed at Bank Closing

Statement of Hon. Galmo Williams
Leader of Progressive National Party, (Deposed Premier)
Turks and Caicos Islands
in Closing of TCI Bank

My Fellow Turks & Caicos Islanders:

I am today very disheartened in having to address you on the closing of TCI Bank Ltd. The TCI Bank over a very short period of time had become a beacon of hope for the people of the Turks & Caicos Islands. Its primary establishment as an indigenous bank was founded on the principle of providing ownership for our people in a financial institution that would be profitable and could one day anchor the banking services in our country.

As far as the Progressive National Party was aware, the bank was well on its way to achieving that objective. Many Turks & Caicos Islanders had invested their hard earned money in the capital of the bank and scores of our citizens as well as those who have relocated to our shores had taken out savings accounts, current accounts, fixed deposit accounts and loans at the bank. The name, TCI Bank, had become a household name, a symbol of pride, and indeed a vital financial institution in the development of these islands.

Whilst it is still early days yet, and being very careful not to apportion blame at this stage, I am nevertheless concerned that it appears on the surface that sufficient effort was not made to save the bank. What further concerns me is that every effort seems to be made in certain quarters to roll back all the strides that we, as a people, have made in recent years. It is evident that on a daily basis the quality of life that our citizens once enjoyed is being increasingly eroded. This has become clearly evident since the British Interim Government under Governor Wetherell and Mark Capes have taken over the administrative affairs of our country. No one can deny the blatant disregard for the plight of our people and the pungent atmosphere of fear which now permeates over our country. As one person has said to me recently, “it is now only left for the Governor and his British cohorts to peel back the tar off the road in inflicting their damage to this country”.

I am a firm believer that unjust works never prosper and that the troubles we are experiencing today too will pass. But as a people we need to become more aware of what is happening around us; we have to realize that those who preside over us do not care if your money in the bank is safe or not; they do not care if you have a morsel of food on the table for your children to eat tomorrow or not; nor whether or not you are able to send your child to school to get a decent education. If they did, they would not continue to talk down the economy of our country; they would not be promoting higher taxation thereby causing a mass flight of capital from our shores.

If Governor Wetherell and his team meant the people of this country well, they would allow for inward investment to flourish thereby helping investors rather than being a hindrance; they would promote confidence in our country by letting the international community know that the Turks & Caicos Islands is open for business rather than weaving a web of red tape around any idea put forward for investment. Had they been more cognizant and respectful of investors and the fragile business environment that exists, the confidence in our economy would have been maintained even while the legal and political processes ran their course. A more positive attitude towards investors and our people on the part of our British occupiers would have engendered confidence and would have perhaps helped to save the TCI Bank.

My best wishes go out to the hard working citizens, guests, investors, staff, regional institutions and anyone who may have supported or have a stake in the TCI Bank. I can now only trust that the provisional liquidators and the powers that be work expeditiously in the best interest of all stakeholders. It is critical that this most disturbing matter be settled in a timely and efficient manner to minimize any losses that might accrue to the bank’s creditors and shareholders.

May God continue to bless you and the entire Turks & Caicos Islands.

________________________________________________________________________________

Statement of Hon. Michael Misick

Former Premier
Turks & Caicos Islands
on closing of TCI Bank

I feel a debt of deep personal sadness to learn of the forced closure of the first indigenous Bank by the FSC and the Dictator Gordon Wetherall administration.

My heart and solidarity goes out to the thousands of working men and women that now have in some cases their life savings at risk.

Is it a coincidence that some persons like Clive Stanbrook were notified in advance of the bank's closure which enabled him to move millions of dollars out of the bank thereby helping its demise while average men and women are left to suffer?

It has come to my attention that the chairman of the bank and lawyers of a proposed purchaser of the majority shares were in a meeting and hours away from concluding a deal to save the bank, when they got the news of its closure. The pending sale was known both to the FSC and Gordon Wetherall.

The forced closure of TCI Bank by Gordon Wetherall is just another attempt by the British Government and their installed dictator Gordon Wetherall to dismantle all the institutions that were created to advance our country towards nationhood. It's also a further attempt by Gordon Wetherall and his supporters to ensure control of the economy of the islands in the hands of a few white elite British expats.

It is ironic that the same week ‘The People's Bank' closed, permission was granted to a Cayman based bank that is associated with Clive Stanbrook and the Grace Bay Boys to operate a new bank.

It has also come to my attention that less than $3 million dollars could have saved the bank from collapse. National Insurance, which is one of the major shareholders of the bank, have over one hundred million dollars in British and Canadian banks both in the islands and outside.

A decision should have been made in the interest of the thousands of customers and the good name of the country for National Insurance to place deposits with TCI bank to prevent its collapse.

Let me be clear under my leadership or a PNP administration we would never have allowed TCI Bank to fail and have thousands of working people lose their life savings.

Just as President Obama did in the USA and Gordon Brown did in the UK and other leaders did around the world when they spent Billions of dollars to bail out banks to avoid working people losing their savings, I call on Gordon Wetherall to stop making excuses and step up to the plate, rescue and bail out TCI bank to protect the reputation of the Turks and Caicos and prevent thousands of people from losing there life savings.

If the British care one ounce about the Turks and Caicos people this is the least they can do.

If this is not done this will confirm my suspicion that this too is part of a wider British conspiracy to stop at nothing in their efforts to stop the progress of our beautiful Islands and implement their colonial agenda of keeping us poor while making sure the few British elite reap the benefits of our country.