..

>> and, third, the so-called commonwealth of puerto rico is politically subordinated to the united states sovereignty. and not a corporation or territorial noncooperation was

developed by several articles published by the harvard law review, a yale law review, and what was discussed in those articles were the building blocks that later the supreme court of the united states used in the so-called insular cases to constitutionalize the actual relationship within united states and puerto rico. i think those are stipulations that can be underlined according to what analysts said before. but i would like to return to the treaty of paris come and particularly make some remarks in regards to get. puerto rico belongs to but it is not part of the united states. that's the tool that was gave by the supreme court in order to deal politically with the territories acquired.

it seems the last paragraph of article nine of the treaty of paris provided when puerto rico was acquired by the united states that the civil rights and political status of the inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded by the united states shall be determined by congress but it was the precise is about provision in the treaty of paris that lacked any framework in order for the development of the new relationship between the united states and the territories ceded by spain. and that lacked the framework provoked the debate that eventually led to the articles, articles which eventually always as i said provided the building blocks of non-and corporation. but in light of all that, it has been clear also that the territorial nature in illegal political and political relationship between puerto rico

and the united states has been -- not only by the supreme court, united states, by the president, and by the solicitor general for the brief december 5 before the supreme court of the united states in the case of puerto rico versus sanchez. in fact, it seems that puerto rico is still subject to the plenary powers of congress. congressman and deathly exercise total control over puerto rico, and in the words of -- it's illegal under the international law and a violation of human rights. but before this what is the duty of the economy and scholars? i think it is an academic duty as a scholars duty to condemn colonists and. during the time i studied in the program here, i realize that the

cases are not part of the contents of any constitutional law force. during my second term i decide to write a paper which i the historical background of the territorial clause settled in the case with the main topic. i was back then enrolled in a very interesting course titled the constitution in times of crisis. the drafting of the paper was required as part of the final grade for the course. in meetings with my professor back then it was her interest in the topic in helping me with the research, he told me the cases were absent of the discussions of constitutional law at the academic level in law schools in the united states. i must admit i was surprised by that assertion. i was astonished by that conversation since i simply wasn't able to understand why although the doctrine itself in the cases derived directly from the intervention in the

development of the united states constitutional law, then why the same was not part of the subject and law schools. in the context we believe that as long as the economy and scholars ignore the insular cases, both become silent accomplices of puerto rico's colonial subordination to the united states. the absence of this caution of puerto rico's constitutional relationship with the united states in any course of constitutional law at this day and age represents an active intellectual aggression to the people of puerto rico. that is probably worse than the creation of the non-incorporation doctrine by the academy and scholars more than a century ago. one can elaborate different theories in order to justify or explain why academy and scholars back in 1899 felt in order to constitutionalize the colonial rule over puerto rico. one can, for instance, recognize that a century ago it was

perfectly legal under the law of nations for any power, for any nation-state or any of our to acquire through conquest and the territory and the people living in it. however, a century has passed and custome customer internatiow has evolved. customer norms against the acquisition of territory by conquest has finally crystallized. for instance, in the convention of the rights and -- states signed in 1933 it is clearly prohibited under article 11 the recognition of any right of any nation-state over territories acquired through any coercive measure. since 1933, acquisition of territories has been crystallized, customary international norms, that it's against the kind of acquisition. however, on the other hand, i

cannot elaborate a justification to the absence of cases into constitutional law courses in the united states. we might well explain the phenomenon by asserting the constitution relationship between puerto rico and the united states has not been an important issue for the united states 1952, and apparently by rebound of more importance for the economy as well. but in light of all of this what is the duty of the academy and scholars again? i think the academy and the scholars has an obligation to change its paradigms toward puerto rico. in light of economic crisis that puerto rico is currently passing through, scholars and the academy they also change the paradigms. it is not unusual to participate in this discussion in which scholars stand to establish that the people of puerto rico is perfectly happy with the ongoing status and economic reality.

it's not unusual also to hear from educated people that the people of puerto rico has consented to the actual relationship with the united states or the alternative, the we do nothing to overcome our colonial status. in the first place it has been clear from the colleagues that preceded me that the route and the main cause of the economic crisis in puerto rico is probably the colonial rule to which the island has been submitted for the last 118 years. therefore, it must be clear for the academy and the scholars that puerto ricans are not happy alone yields. secondly, and 20 to the poor -- the people puerto rico express their will in which the majority repudiated the actual territorial relationship with the united states. thirdly, through any nation-state made by the human rights -- university of puerto rico school of law and its

director, on april 4, 2016, the inter-american commission on human rights will hold a hearing under the title public debt our fiscal policy and poverty in puerto rico. for me the intervention of a supervisory ability such as the inter-american commission demonstrates that our political status and current fiscal crisis are both issues of human rights. in light of that the academy and scholars should change the paradigms in order to accept that the case of puerto rico is much more than a simple political matter of domestic concern for puerto rico. the case of puerto rico is a case of gross violation of human rights. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, professor.

will you answer the question that was asked speak with yes. while it is true you come to puerto rico to a stay, we don't fare too well. the fact is that puerto rico -- and to america or latin america, we fare very well. i prefer we compare ourselves to the united states because that should be our goal. second common puerto ricans in the vast majority, they cherish our u.s. citizenship. had also when puerto ricans look for better health care, they come to the states. window looking for better quality of life they come to the states. and i believe that by removing ourselves, the impediments of the current status, the power that two senators and five

congressmen will provide to puerto rico and our very nature of ourselves will be exactly the same what happened with alaska and hawaii. puerto rico will converge to the average, you know, to the united states in terms of economic performance. and i believe that puerto rico in the long run would be better served as being equal among equals, with no precondition, exactly the same rights and same obligations as any other state. and i also agree with others that the united states should provide puerto rico the mechanism for us to make a final decision and accept the outcome and give us the option to go through a process that is binding, that is approved by congress, and let us make a

final decision between non-territorial options. i believe that if that happens, puerto ricans will support stated with a significant majority. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i was supposed to question as to their ability or acceptability of non-territorial association between puerto rico and the united states. as many things in politics and my history of deference from the supreme court toward the political branches would suggest it is but a question of political will. there is no political, constitutional, statutory, or any other impediment for the united states to enter into a

compact association outside the territorial clause powers with puerto rico. it is only a question of political will. it is only question as to whether the united states and puerto rico think it is the better option for both parties interested the so it's a political argument. it's an economic argument. it has legal components. he brought the issue of just citizenship which sometimes is ablis abull in a china shop youo ricans are u.s. born, are u.s. citizens by birth. more accurate a sense 1941, more precisely 1950 to which the current version of the immigration naturalization act was approved, and that specifically says that all persons born in puerto rico are u.s. citizens by birth. what does that mean in constitutional law running for president or not?

it's a whole different scenario, but what it means is that congress has the authority to even deal with the citizenship issue. and if you read through other supreme court opinions, more importantly -- 1947 case, it is an other experience of the supreme court of the united states. there is no legal impediment, no constitutional impediment, no judicial impediment to maintain and to move from it being a law of the united states, the issue of u.s. citizenship, to being a concrete part of the compact of non-territorial association pixel becomes a question of what's better for the united states and what's better for us. do we want a situation in which hundreds of thousands sometimes in the millions of people would want to move from puerto rico to the united states because they are scared about the united

states made may not impose on puerto rico? do we want a situation where the federal government will have to continuously bailed out of puerto rico it may impose fiscal control, tough rules that ultimately to spend federal taxpayers money in order to secure some quality of living situation on puerto rico, for puerto rico. some for valid economic reasons there is a general accounting of this report from a couple years back that states the dangers that stated both for puerto rico and for the united states in terms of fiscal and economic issues. but those are not the only argument from the mainland. sadly there are some races and oppressive comments that are the basis for the resistance of many in the united states. so the problem is this. there isn't, there hasn't been a will as from the political

system to offer stated to puerto rico. there isn't, there hasn't been a will for the people of puerto rico to exercise its natural right for independence. there is and there has been territorial status has been -- as the majority of puerto ricans, and accept that as the current state of affairs by the federal government. if all other alternatives are unacceptable or either, many of the recently stated, then the only alternative for puerto rico and the united states to fashion a future to get this middleground alternative, but a middleground alternative has to start from a jumping point that puerto rico should be recognized its sovereignty, or draco should recognize it whatever non-territorial relationship with the united states and yes, for practical reasons that relationship should include the current guarantee a just citizenship of puerto ricans.

or if no more of a reason, a practical reason, half of the puerto rican nation resides in the united states. we are 7 million strong. for the first time it's almost or million outside of puerto rico but it's close to 3 million in puerto rico. if for any other reason, just a practical reason the united states -- if it does want to go this route, if puerto ricans don't precondition to exert its right for independence, then this middleground option will have to deal with it is shipping outside of jericho clause and will have to do with issue that puerto ricans have been u.s. citizens since 1952, to be more active in terms of the current legal situation. and i believe that when they dispose in those terms as a better deal for them and it's a better deal for us and i will go the route of the political process to try to get that.

just let me very briefly address the issue about the case which i wanted to mention that i forgot. tomorrow's case, the right of puerto rico by the government of puerto rico to legislate a local bankruptcy procedure because federal bankruptcy procedure do not apply to puerto rico because in 1994 congress expressly took out of puerto rico from that law.

something in place of the possibility of local statute or state statute or common territorial statute. what this situation brings is that puerto rico is taking out federal bankruptcy law but being taken out of federal bankruptcy law, puerto rico pay for any bankruptcy law in puerto rico remains prevented even though there's nothing to preempt us with. so to me that's fairly contrary to the general basic principle unjust constitutional theory and for me it's a new and interesting novelty of preemption by omission. >> thank you. professor, please answer the question. >> the question was, isn't independence contrary to current

dependency in the international community in which countries -- in order to come into arrangements of a regional nature. in other words, why independence in the age of interdependence, has been talked about in those terms? well, the premise of the question is precisely that sovereign nations fit together at negotiation tables who agree on the terms for economic, and in the case of europe, even political arrangements that are of mutual interest and benefit to those that were sitting around the table. however puerto rico cannot sit at those tables because or draco likes sovereignty -- puerto rico

lacks sovereignty. all we can do is coming to washington with an extended hand to seek measures, legislative or executive, that we consider that are beneficial to puerto rico. that the government will make decisions on those petitions depending, as it should be, on the benefit of the people which that government represents, which is the united states. and puerto rico has been absolutely excluded from those decisions. there is no interdependence between puerto rico and the united states. there is only subordination, and that simply has to and. the current legislative and

judicial processes illustrate what i'm talking about. the court of appeals come at the court will be heard tomorrow in the supreme court has quite frankly and i think cynically suggested that puerto rico should go to congress and seek legislation through, to repeal the 1984 repeal of the inclusion of puerto rico into bankruptcy laws. puerto rico must first solve its colonial problem. it must acquire sovereignty. and not pay in its current state of subordination. >> will no open the floor and i will handle the question of the poker. if anyone has a question step up to the microphone and state your name. >> good afternoon.

spent thank you all. i have distinguish privilege to actually an alum of both the "washington post" double and inter- american school of also very happy to see friends here. this panel cover a wide range of issues i'm going to try to address something for everybody, but i'm going to start with the comments regarding the history of the military and in the executive. the debate before, during, and after the spanish-american war in congress is very interesting for people who have exert a want to read the congressional record. but the debate of whether the united states was a republic or an empire was crystal during the debate. it wasn't just the military. people and congress opposed that concept, but some debate include civil rights, sometimes you win,

sometimes you lose. we know how that debate ended. but that links a little bit with how the history in the united states in terms of puerto rico and cuba interlinked and continues to be interlinked. i wanted to address a little bit, i have a question, your case regarding american samoa i found a very interesting, and i wonder if you see an impact on this case regarding the legislation fester with the jones act of 1917 but all the follow-up legislation that was mentioned regarding the citizenship of puerto rico? and any impact with the decision of the supreme court. i think i will be an interesting angle about the supreme court may impact of those decisions with the case that you currently

have. in terms of the constitutional case that is pending at the supreme court that had oral arguments, i would be very intrigued to hear from the professors, there was an interesting debate between justice kagan, justice breyer and justice sotomayor with solicitor general at different stages of that case. and they seem, justice breyer was seen surprised by the solicitor general's position of a change of the position. and i wonder if that would be interpreted as a political issue? because since the executive had a position, if congress had a position and that seems to have a different position, do you think the supreme court would use that as an excuse to say this is a political question and we are not going to address it because the political will seems to be shifting in the u.s.

congress? and i think finally i want to address a concern that was raised, but i think from a very high level but i want to bring out to the island. you mention self-determination. at in this debate seems to be missing the will of the people in puerto rico in this process. you mentioned the responsibility of the congress or the united states or how the congress can act. but i'm very curious that only because of one controversial decision in 2012, the same stuff settled the issue of the self-determination will of the people. and i wonder if the entire panel feel that that was addressed completely there, or the will of the self-determination of puerto rico still remains to be

exercised? into all -- thank you all. >> i'll be very brief. i would just answer a little bit of the last comment. i think, i don't get too stuck on the result of the 2012 decision, important as they may be. i think that moving forward only garnered a little over 50% because the question was written in a very partisan fashion in the middle of a very partisan movement, which coincided with a general election in puerto rico in which debates -- had the question been are puerto ricans satisfied with the current authority comes with the card

congressional authority of puerto rico and the current state of the authority on the us constitution, i would think that the percentage for not being satisfied with a reached e-85 or 90%. the problem was the way and the moment the question was presented, can be the most important part of that referendum was the second question in which clearly at least half of my political party stated that it was ready to have a relationship with the united states outside the territorial clause. i do think that percentage is growing every day. and i think one of the greatest catchphrases that has been said in this forum, there should be clarity for a new path forward.

i think and non-territorial evolution is the only path for the permits us to put in one pot of the different entry to the both puerto rico and the united states wish to be part of this stew. some people want to be part of the party, want something greetings income and others want to be part of this party what other ingredients in. other alternatives make us choose between those ingredients are i think the possibility of a non-territorial association between puerto rico and the united states is the only possibility of trying to have all those important ingredients, ingredients both for the united states and for puerto rico. it remains a question of political will. and at least there is agreement,

i think there's a majority agreed in puerto rico as well. there is one ingredient that cannot be part of the process moving forward. that's territorial alternatives. and i warned, this is important, non-territorial alternatives are abhorrent as middleground alternatives, called commonwealth of what you want to call it, and territorial alternatives are equally abhorrent an equally rejected by the 2012 decision as way stations, as the stops in the way to statehood. so it should be equally understood that puerto rico has rejected. those are territorial, both under the plenary powers of the congress, the only difference is that under unincorporated territory puerto rico doesn't pay federal taxes. under incorporated territory

puerto rico would pay federal taxes. >> thank you. are faster, would you like to answer? >> regarding the last question which perhaps related to the previous one, is the issue of self-determination settle for puerto rico? well, of course not. we are still a colony of the united states. of course, it's not settle but even the issue of self-determination is never settled anywhere. because all peoples have began to invite to self-determination. but the results were dramatic snapshot of what the people of puerto rico believe at that time. for the first time that territorial relations defined as such a territorial relation was rejected by the people, and that's a historical and political statement that cannot

be forgotten. however, i would like to point out footnote. even if the results have been the other way around, that result would have been invalid under international law. no people may renounce to its right to self-determination. that means that the right to self-determination has been unable right. that means it cannot be renounced. no people may agree to colonialism, to a colonial relationship. that is not valid exercise of self-determination. in the collective level, that cannot be done. in the individual level no individual may consent to slavery which is also an inhalable protection that we all have always.

so even if the result of in the other way around. the issue would not have been resolve. it is -- it is a consequence, a political question that political ramifications. so the political relations, political caution. no, of course it isn't. >> i would like to address your final question. and 2012 recognized by demonstration, it's critical for congress to express itself. congress has decided not to address our issue, added

criticizes -- will depend highly on how congress spreads itself in terms of the option is willing to accept under which conditions. i think this time of crisis is also a time of opportunities. and while we address the crisis, i also believe that congress should take this opportunity to allow us to make a decision, and also have the administration to the justice department come up with the conditions of the options that are available to us so that the reverend of obese i finally accepted by congress. i think so many changes and challenges, we should take this opportunity, this is a golden opportunity to finally resolve our problems. so i believe that the final

answer will depend on when congress makes that decision that it's critical for us at this moment. >> thank you. i believe there was a question directed directly at you, so if you like to enter. >> i don't disagree there was a wave in congress and a wave in the united states with it was a goal to pursue this. it's clear in the senate debates in the treaty of paris and in congress, nashville proposed by senator paine or paris. not for civil cover. and it was later modified. i think it's interesting and important is that the military intervention -- describe as functionalism, which is to say we will create a new territorial policy that allows us to do whatever we want locally without being bound tax precedent into contemporary pacific so the idea that the military and the

congress and the government creates individual policies without being bound vertically or horizontally. and i think that's the continuity. i think that's important because that explains in some ways other can be contradictory policies between the mariana islands and the citizens of puerto rico and guam your it also explains how there can be on uniform policies for puerto rico. historically legislation has treated puerto ricans -- it's been a hodgepodge of debate and that's my reading of the debates come granted a particular logic that emerges against. this is a debate that emerges in the military come emerges in the large policy republican, industrial republicans to take over the republican party and sort of make a major electoral we limit in 1896. this is part of the fever that occurs at the time that is broader than the military.

but that is functional policy in light of justice today's ruling -- justice kennedy's ruling, a result of his logical annexation of the territory that allows the military and the government later to essentially have individual policies that are incoherent and inconsistent, historically and horizontally. not only a better choice but among constitutional debate. >> thank you. i believe there's also a comment directed at the case you were commenting. >> i think you hit one of the disturbing consequences of the d.c. circuit's decision by holding that an american symbol and other under corporate territories are not part of the united states for purposes of the citizenship clause, has the potential to bring these areas

into other core to doctrine. you mentioned the case, the more disturbing case potential is rogers, which is the court recognized that for people not born in the united states, congress can actually take their citizenship away unilaterally without their consent, which is something that the court another context have said it cannot do to those who are born in the united states. and just to touch quickly on some of the comments with respect to territorial status, i think one of the things to think about, this is the approach we've been putting forward come as this conversation about political status and self-determination continues, residents of puerto rico and these other areas should immediately have a little rights and political representation in order to have political power in the very political process that they must navigate. so there's a historical precedent for this was the 23rd amendment.

there was an amendment that passed congress to fill in the states to provide representation in congress for them. some of these other strategies for providing political representation power as a civil rights issue while leaving open the decision of political status and self-determination, i think of something else that should be considered, particularly when both have been taken in puerto rico where he of 85-90% of puerto ricans who if given the option would love to vote for president, given their connection. something they learned. and so long as they are under the american flag they should of these fundamental rights. even if ultimately they decide to go a different direction and no longer be part of the united states or become a state. >> thank you. >> i'll try to be as brief as possible so you can ask your

question. given the right to vote to the inhabitants of the territories, sounds very nice. it's like mother's day and apple pie. nobody can be in disagreement. but may i suggest that argentina, only argentinians may vote. in france, only frenchman and french women can vote. in the united states, only americans should vote. the problem is that the inhabitants of another corporate territories are not part of the united states. it would incorporate them into the body politic of the united states, that might have consequences in terms of the constitutional doctrine of incorporation. so that would be very carefully

drafted, because it would be very oblique way of incorporating puerto rico into the united states with a slight problem that a civil war was fought when people tried to go away from the u.n. in fact, a professor at columbia university has written that the theory of territorial non-incorporation was really motivated to roll the territory perpetuity, but quite the contrary. 30 some years after the civil war, create constitutional construct that would allow congress to do away with some of these new territories because they were not part of the united states and could be disposed of without being a new state. so that would have to be considered in your proposal,

because as they say in puerto rico, -- [speaking spanish] -- stated cannot go in through the kitchen, through the backdoor. and that might be a way of bringing statehood into the kitchen door. >> thank you for the question. we have one final question. >> hello. i am a gw law student, also a research assistant for gw's public high school. and several of you mentioned health care regarding puerto rico and i would like to address my question in that area. there was mention of the health issue regarding the medicaid cliff and how puerto rico, affects obamacare in puerto rico. that's my law note that

hopefully gets submitted this friday. and the logical answer is that in july 2016 of the fiscal cliff believe 1 million uninsured on the island, taking a toll on every sector of health care industry on the island and spilling over into the state imposing massive migration. i would like to point out that of the $72 billion of that puerto rico has, 25 billion direct link to help their cause. medicaid. that's 34% of the entire debt. though priority is being sought out a federal of come what fiscal, legislative, legal precautions can be taken at a local level to ameliorate this in order to prevent -- high health care spending, if any? given the status of this forum i would like to make certain points, given certain comments

you raise. for example, you mentioned puerto ricans go to the united states to get better health care but if you look at that type of health care, puerto rico exceeds quality expectations and healthy, than most of the united states. obviously, if you have a stroke -- specialized hospitals. the general u.s. population does not receive better health care than the puerto rican population. in regards to how obamacare applies to puerto rico, there is a question of not paying federal taxes and have that negates the possibility of an individual mandate against the can't be a part of the on utter taxes at the are no federal taxes because they can't pay a subsidy on federal taxes if there are no federal taxes. however, professor, i was wondering if independence was the possibility, what type of

transition or health care measures would be taken on either because the island is heavily depend on federal funding and federal spending. so the alternative would be, my guess would probably be like a universal health care system. however, even universal health care system examples in latin america or in the caribbean, those have not been very successful. and those that have been successful have been in europe and europe does have and interdependence of nations, i would puerto rico independence benefit health to on the island or not it is a massive migration anywhere that will be received similar to the immigration crises that are happening all over u.s. and europe, et cetera, et cetera? and in terms of -- geving.com well, i would like to pose this

question to all three of you. and the status would not be resolved in the next 10 years and federal spending for medicaid will be over and the next year, in july of 2017, the house to the and immediacy, immediate solution or proposal, alternative to fixing the status will fix the problem because by the time the status is six, puerto ricans will no longer live in puerto rico. >> i will start with the medicare issue. first of all, medicare as you know is paid by deduction for our social security payments. medicaid is a different story. medicaid is a state program that is subsidized by the current government with monies that are paid with, by the states from present contributions of their citizens. so in essence the basic answer

to your question is, if we want to have -- we should become a state. that's the simple answer. however, if congress or someone will provide us have to self-determination in the short term, i also see that it's a different issue and it's a human rights issue. so my personal opinion is that as long as we are citizens of the united states, something as important as health, especially for those people who don't have resources, it should be not, your health, benefits should not be very where you live, but they should follow your citizenship. we use these economic crisis as a means to requests from congress full participation in

puerto rico's health medicaid program. they limit $311 million the contribution, and second, they limit the percentage that puerto rico can claim as part of the medicaid expenses. and there s. got a 57%, it is very close to the richest state. so puerto rico should be put myself in the direction of claiming what we deserve, what we should give if it were a state, which is closer to 75% or even more. and also we should request the elimination of the cap. what basis? i think it's part paid out. otherwise puerto rico will have to pay after 2017 close to $1,200,000,000 that we don't have. so that will create a crisis in

puerto rico even worse than the one we have today. so i think that, again, i repeat, the easiest answer is to become a state because that's where the money is coming from, from, you know, from income tax contributions. but if we look from the perspective of where we are today, we should unite and fight for that as a means of human rights and decency, and also as part of the solution. >> if i recall you're concerned correctly, apple independent puerto rico all of a sudden deal with -- heavily dependent on federal transfer? nothing will happen all of a sudden. not only in health but in anything else.

independence will require as has been proposed since 1989 with the first legislation present before congress and negotiated committees with jurisdiction at congress the we require careful transition from a dependent economy but to a self-sufficient economy, economic and otherwise must see the transition. what to do with the post offers? what to do with so many things that will have to be addressed because the event 118 years of creating a very complex creature that depends come as your question said. of course, we cannot accept the premise, none of us should accept the premise that sovereignty should be put on hold because there is sort of --

hanging over our heads. that would not be ethical. that would not be moral. that would not be legal under international law and exercised of self-determination. of course it will be a very hard problem, as many others, but then we shouldn't be that much concerned with the problems during the transition period to independence, i think usher concert was very well expressed. our concern should be in 2017. when i grew up i grew up with the idea that if it were not for the u.s., we would die of hunger. network suddenly seems we are dying of hunger under the cali. so i think that would be a much more, a much greater concern that the colony has created the health debacle which you are

advancing through your question. >> let me use your question to dispel the notion that bothers me a lot. discontinues talk about -- [inaudible] this is not about a hand-me-down. puerto rico has been subject to u.s. shipping laws for what, 70 years, and that puts a burden on our economy. order rico is subject to discriminatory treatment in the application of federal law. even in the health of medicare for which we pay for an equal basis on citizens living in the mainland. puerto ricans accept quote-unquote bombardment for 67 years. this is not a bailout of mercy or happiness or kindness of

spirit. puerto rico except not to have the power, subjected itself to not have the power to conduct federal and foreign economic relationship, and should be subjected to the will of congress on many issues, including tax breaks which theye it one day and took it another without us having the ability to stop it either way. that changed in 1986 was made because somebody in puerto rico had great idea of suggesting to people here in washington, well, you can take the benefits if you extend what was then called clinton care. because before we had obamacare somebody gave us clinton care. but they did come with a took away section 96 everest a wedding on clinton care. we come everybody, still waiting

on that and care. hillary clinton care is the first -- [inaudible] because that's a combination of not having the clinton reform and some decisions we make in puerto rico as to implement thing the local clinton reform version of a statute without having the federal one, and that's part of the debt we are discovering tomorrow. that's a big part of it and that created what i think is a reprehensible concept that somebody going to which was the debt. those i'm sure will be addressed at of the most and other locations. what i point out with this is in terms of health care access to

him a position where we paid equally as a stick and we should get exactly the same thing. but one of the problems, first of all, that we are subject to an authority that we cannot affect legally, and secondly that they put -- not made for puerto rico. that i made for the 50 states which are one of the wealthiest economies in the world. for example, we could, i'm a big proponent for the public health reform, that we have not a public option or closer public option that is possible. that is, that the states directly pays as a single-payer to the pharmacies and the hospital what have you instead of using in the race of health organizations and others. we cannot do that because of the federal law, we are being told that we don't comply yet with federal standards of internet and information age components.

but we have to hold onto that, not because we don't want to do it, not because it would be cheaper for puerto rico but because standards of society that is more developed than puerto rico. those are the type of issues that on a current basis affect the people of puerto rico. that's why we need to fashion a middleground solution, but that middleground solution cannot be materially, practically or morally subject to the churchill of the training. because if we do that than puerto rico will never have -- in its economy, in the size of its government, and the way federal laws apply or don't apply, in order to make a long-term friend. you cannot make a long-term plan when you have somebody else outside your scope of authority changing the rules as they go. you cannot play eight innings throughout with two strikes and

to look back at the umpire and said what the hell, let's play two more innings. you have to have clear rules for the game to go into the. and that's a problem puerto rico as eleanor to fashion a clear future, that we don't have the authority under our relationship with the united states to clearly agree on rules that havd to be respected by both parties, and that's what it means and that's why it's so important for order rico. >> in my other like i've done some work in public health. the united states has seven times more than any other industrial country. it is the worth -- the worst outcomes. submit it somewhere actually we thought health care and we have the flexibility not being bound by federal law to rethink welfare in puerto rico and that they could only happen through nonterritorial terms, it depended or something else. there are other models like a cuban model with more funny could potentially open up doors

for reflection. puerto rico rethinking their policy. you are right, the outcomes in puerto rico than in the mainland. >> thank you. ovf of washington college of law, and universal of law, and myself, i want to thank the speakers are being able to discuss puerto rico said that and political status. thank you for providing this amazing panel. thank you for delivering the message that puerto rico needs to change. thank you all for our president today for those watching online for demonstrating your interest in taking solutions for puerto rico. from today's forum we can conclude, puerto rico is at fault for its portrait of its lack of administration your but the united states government is

also responsible for the lack of oversight, responsible for not settling a political issue, the status issue, and responsible for expressly excluding puerto rico of chapter nine and the possibility of restructuring their debt. the federal government has led to puerto rico in the middle of the ocean with no lifevest. life vest. it is time to launch a rescue mission. all speakers agree to rescue mission is not a handout. it is a petition to restructure debt and promote economic development. the differences on how to restructure our debt. so welcome fiscal aboard while others did not. puerto rican state to ask themselves if they welcome -- not enacted officials to decide where puerto rico taxpayers money is that the i have my answer to that question but i believe in a democratic government were i elect i might vote.

[inaudible] where taxpayers money is spent, in option that is short of that is antidemocratic and looks more like a dictatorship than any other thing. i invite every puerto rican to answer this question for themselves and voice their opinions loudly. finally our panelists agreed that in order for puerto rico to move forward, the political status issue has to be resolved to it was suggested that congress needs to promote legislation, that binds congress with the result of one of the nonterritorial options available, the stated, association or independence. however, this is to happen in congress and we need to do more than just wait and see. they this forum serve as a petition for congress to act now. thank you all for attending. [applause]

>> thank you all for attending and thank you for watching online. ..

>> republican presidential candidate donald trump is in the process of turning guilt post office pavilion in washington d.c. into a high-end hotel appeared he held a news conference yesterday to talk about the project. he also took questions on the presidential race. this is 50 minutes. >> great to see you here before we do this, we have so many

questions on the building itself, how it coming and there's a great speaker system. the way. that's unbelievable. i just want to thank everybody for coming. we have had so many inquiries as to how we are doing at the old post office, what was formerly the old post office. upstairs is almost complete. the rooms are almost complete. we have close to 300 rooms super luxury it is going to be amazing. we are going to employ substantially more than i would say five other people, at least 500 people and we are getting them largely from the area and they are terrific, already in training. our chefs are employed in the service staff fully employed. they have a tremendous group of people appear the hotel is going to be incredible. most of what you are sitting on was open space going into the basement area. that's the brand-new floor. in the wiki gets covered with beautiful marble from different

parts of the world. much of what you are seeing here gets the final touches on it. this was considered one of the great buildings of washington, one of the great buildings in the country and it's been restored to the highest level of the well beyond from when it was built and it's going be something really special. when completed it will be truly one of the great hotels of the world in october looking forward to. as you know, this was a gsa and i was one of the most heavily bit project covering the history of gsa. tremendous numbers of people wanted it. they brought it down to 10 finalists and we got it because of the strength of our financial statement and because they wanted to make sure it got built in because of the fact we have something very special in terms of the concept. where you are now it's going to be part of a hotel lobby. you will see that in three months and behind me are restaurants and stores and shops and everything above the second

floor is rooms, luxury suites. what we have really that's very exciting as we are building one of the biggest ballrooms in washington and by far the most luxurious auburn. it is the largest luxury bother than washing it in the washington area. it's going to be a very special job. we are very proud of it. we are two years ahead of schedule. we are opening in september, said that as much in advance of what it was supposed to be. it was supposed to be september 2 years from now. we are right on budget and with really increase the scope of the work. we applaud to a very higher degree of finish is fixtures, when does come at center-right. we want to make this one of the great hotels of the world. it is coming out that way and when it's completed to will be very proud of it. it's a great thing for

washington. the building was sitting fallow for many decades. it was a magnificent building. there is a treatment for skin site. groups of not allow the government to take it down and it sat in that one out to bid and something happened where it didn't work out and it's been many years. we started a year and a half ago and will have it finished way ahead of schedule. you will be very proud of it. this is just some of the staff we have. some of the construction workers. love close to a thousand constructions workers. for instance, much of the building this landmark. the walls going up by landmark. the strength of your head right now it's all a very strong

landmark situation. we worked with the various landmark in groups that were terrific, really professional people. they love this building i can tell you. the exterior of the building and saw granite and in some cases for my effect. they don't build them like that anymore. so without all been said if you have questions, please raise your year. yes. [inaudible] >> that has nothing to do with it but that's okay. we met with senator sessions in the great people of washington and you pretty much know who was there i would imagine. we had a really good meeting. i don't know the list, but various senators. we can provide a list for you if you'd like. [inaudible]

>> no, not at all. we are very inclusive and frankly just in some of the other people just invited a small group and we are doing very well. it looks like we are doing very well in arizona and very well everyplace else. i think we will maybe easily make that number of the 1237. we should make it easily based on what i've seen so we won't have to worry about fighting at a convention. [inaudible] >> i think i'm very different than hillary clinton to put it mildly. i think we have a very different style. i don't think she will be one that will do much with trade agreements. people have no idea how important nowadays. the money being drained out of our country is enormous and that is not her thing. it is totally my thing.

i think she will be very weak on the military, and very weak with other countries and the amount of money we subsidize them with their military come which nobody even talks about. so we have to make our country solvent and we have to make our country rich if we are going to save all these things and we have to rebuild military is in very bad shape. it's been decimated over a period of years and we've got to get the right equipment, not the wrong equipment. we've got to get equipment that isn't there because of political experience and political know-how. we want the equipment they want, not the equipment they are getting because politicians have access to certain companies. we are going to rebuild our military and that's a big difference. >> she would know anything about it. her policies didn't work. look at libya, anything you want to look at. if you look at my projections

and my prognostications, they turn out to be very, very accurate. >> i'm going to make a speech in two hours. i also said -- yeah, what i said if you remember, i want to look into it and speak to government to people in israel in here. i want to speak to various senators including senator jeff sessions whose highly respect to actually, ted cruz respected him more than any senator in it that he was going to get endorsed by jeff sessions and he didn't. jeff sessions endorsed me, which is a very big endorsement. ted cruz still doesn't believe but have been. he couldn't believe it because they work together. it doesn't say much about somebody when you have almost no senate endorsements. you have almost no senate endorsements in the work with

people all the time. we worked very, very closely with many people, but just sessions. we worked closely with top people from israel. i'm going to be making a speech about it in a little while. say it again. [inaudible] >> i said i want to make a decision and i will announce it in the not-too-distant future. that's what i'm going to do at 5:00. yes, go ahead. >> , 9/11 survivor. trump tower would be part of the veteran job. >> we are doing some of that already. what are you looking for? what type of position? come here. you look so smart in good. do you mind if i do a job

interview right now? we need good people. what is your experience in front of the world? >> well, i design, i do all types of decorations. >> and you like this building? >> yes. >> there is the man. stand right over here. >> would you make a good deal on the salary? she's going to probably have a job. have a good time. thank you. >> mr. trump, thank you so much. can you talk about a man the goal of the meeting this morning? >> just to start getting together some of the people i've known over the years. politicians in just about all cases. there is senators and congressmen. gentleman to the stereo i have great respect for. we just have a really good

meeting. they can't believe how far we've come. a lot of people wouldn't have predicted that. it is really just a meeting. it gets a lot of the most respected people in washington. >> i heard what hillary clinton said this morning. when asked are you calling him a loser, how are you going -- >> is that the indian? you mean the indian? >> are you prepared for both sides? >> i have more votes from anybody. if you take the fact i had 17 people, 17 people is going against them at some of that back. hillary essentially had one. i have more votes than anybody. more votes have come into primaries to me than anybody else. the problem with the country right now is so divided and

people like elizabeth warren had to get their act together. that includes hillary. this country has to get together. we are in serious trouble. we are sitting on a financial bubble. going up rapidly with 21 million because of the budget. we have everything that needs money and we have health care that doesn't work. obamacare is not working. nothing works. our educational system was ranked last in many cases. everybody has to get together and get it solved. if they don't get together, were not going to have much of the country. >> in north carolina, pastor mark burns was on stage and told the audience that bernie sanders doesn't believe in jesus. >> i didn't hear this. when did he say this?

>> last week in north carolina. do you agree with that comment? >> i don't know anything about his religious beliefs, but i will find out. i know the pastor it is a very respected her sin. >> are we just witnessed it was pretty remarkable. this is a complete stranger who came up a new offered her a job. what inside your guy katie that feeling -- >> i felt good at her. i looked at her and i've got instinct. we are about to have that. i looked at her and she asked a question and it was a very positive question. look at that with the tears. how nice. she just seemed like a good person to me. now maybe she won't qualify because you have to qualify, but i think she will. she too may look like a good person. i have been things about people. for instance, i had an instinct about hsu is a very fine reporter. she made in ev and media

profession. don't leave me. >> before south carolina he said you could possibly run the table. that hasn't happened and there are still two people in this race. >> gimme a break. i'm super tuesday and won four out of five and did really well in ohio. i would've wanted. >> have you changed anything to run the rest of the primary? >> we have a lot of people calling. we have so many people calmly and in terms of delegates, a lot of delegates to a lot of delegates to you about one to come with us. i think we'll get a lot of delegates. some people say we are going to be 14-15. we will see. not so bad. i think we are doing very well

and i think we will qualify in the decision -- if we are 30 short, nobody also be close. people will have to decide. are you going to go with somebody? this is important. when i was putting my delegates together, i guess they must've been 12 or 14 people in the race. this is easy to put together the 1237 delegates. but i had senators. i had a great doctor. i had carley had many other people around me. so i was doing well. i was leading the pack in all cases. but you had other people getting 5%, 10% of 14%. to get 50% in a way as a unfair when you have a group of people

that started off at around 12. 17 but at the time i got to the elections, it was around 12 or 13 people. but then they started believing. hillary had one, much different. i could love if you agree with me, or they could make the point. we have a lot of delegates. we are almost up to 700 which is substantially more than anybody else. but i got this delegates the hard way. i got them by running against many, many different people, all accomplished on the senators, governors, successful people. now we are down to three and we'll see what happens. >> why defend the party has coalesced around you? >> because i'm an outsider. i understand. senators, governors, congressmen , women.

they are not used to this. a lot of people don't like it because i haven't taken money. i haven't taken campaign contributions. they want campaign contributions than a lot of the donors, some of whom are friends, to my office enough for me millions of dollars. i said i would love to take it but ikea. by the way, what are you going to do? i'm going to go with someone else. i said why? because i have to. the truth is they're gamblers. so when i said i want your money and i'm their friends but i don't want your money, they go someplace else. they are gamblers in a certain sense. yes, go ahead. >> dr. carson and i will share with them [inaudible]

>> dr. carson is a great guy. [inaudible] >> you know, when he called me and he came over and met, we had a good relationship. once i got to know him and he got to know me, he is a fine man, a fine person with a great family. so we will be talking about carson about a lot of things. that's great. i'm glad he told me that. i am mark >> i gave them page one. >> which one of the people you named any hopes to conform your aipac? >> i used also my son-in-law, garrett. is he here someplace?

his wife is about two minutes away from having a baby, so he is here. he is coming to aipac. where is garrett? he spoke to many of his friends from israel to put it together with a lot of really great people. i bon terra is probably today or tomorrow she's having a baby. so he is getting ready to get going. okay. >> general catalog was the ceo of the coalition in iraq. you've been really consistent over the past five years in criticizing the iraq war. [inaudible] >> has different opinions, but i do like different opinions. [inaudible]

-- chinese tourists to trump hotel. >> tourists are certainly -- we want tourists from china. >> utah doesn't look as well and could be blue state in 2016, which should be relatively unprecedented. are these two groups that don't share your values? >> now, i don't excel. i think we will do fine in utah. there wasn't one of the states we were projected to win, but i had one speech dared and it was massive. we turned away over 5000 people. you saw what happened. we will do well there. it was in a state i was really going out to arizona, but a lot of friends in utah so we stopped and made a speech inadequate response to it. i think i'll do very nicely.

i [inaudible] >> two quick questions on the foreign policy. do you think the u.s. also leaves nato. [inaudible] do you think the u.k. would've voted the referendum in june to the e.u.? >> they may leave the e.u. having a lot of problems. i don't want to make a comment about the u.k. leaving but i dare apply. i have a lot of investments in the u.k. and i will tell you i think they may leave based on everything i'm hearing. i [inaudible] >> we have diplomats from mexico

and emigrated to the voting status. >> to get immigrants voting status [inaudible] okay? we are going to bring it back. look, we have a tremendous trade deficit with mexico. $58 billion. we have tremendous problems coming across the border. mexico can stop in one day. we are going to build the wall anyway. do you know how tough it is to become a citizen of mexico? one of the toughest list of signers. over here you have a baby on the land and you're citizen, congratulations. try that in mexico. they laugh at you in your face. i can understand why the officials in mexico would want people to vote against me. the mexican people like me. if you look at the nevada polls that came out and if you look at the exit polls in nevada, the state and one, one of many come

you take a look at those polls. we do very, very well with hispanics. yeah, go ahead. >> mr. trump, speaker paul ryan was very quick to criticize the restatements. he's also worked behind the scenes to oppose your candidacy. at what point do you lose confidence that speaker brien should be the chairman of the convention? >> is a very fair question. he was going to call me last week. he couldn't have been nicer. just could not of been nice here. i have tremendous -- i have many millions of people behind me. we want to bring competence back to the country. we want to bring sanity back to this country. we want to do a lot of great things. to be honest with you, the republicans should be embracing. look, there is something happening with our country that's never happened to the extent it's happened now. millions of additional people are going out and voting in primaries.

the democrat case they are down 35%. nobody cares about halloween art in terms of voting. we are up 72% and it looks like much more than that. some states have over 100%. that is because of me. they can play games then they can play? i can only take them at face value. i understand duplicity. i understand a lot of things. he called me last week. he could not abandon its there. i spoke with mitch mcconnell. he could not have been nicer. "time" magazine calls it a movement. if they want to be smart. if they don't want to be smart, they should do what they are doing now and republicans will go down to a massive loss. all of these millions of people coming out to vote for me because you look at south carolina. i wasn't supposed to be made south carolina. i wasn't supposed to win nevada.

look at alabama. getting close to 50% with a lot of candidates, with even more candidates. if they want to embrace this, it's great. if they don't win, you will have publicly forward and could even be five supreme court justices approved that will never allow this country to be the same. it will take 100 years but that won't work. so they better be careful. if trump gets it, we are going to start a third party. their party means democrats will win almost certainly. you can't be that spiteful because he'll destroy the country. third party would destroy the country. i'm going to be submitted not listed in the next week or so. i've heard he shown it to a lot of people. a lot of people are a little bit worried about which judges. we are going to have a

conservative, very good group of judges. i'm going to submit a list of potential justices of the united states supreme court that i will appoint from the list. i won't go beyond that place. some people say maybe i'll appoint a liberal judge. i'm not appointing a liberal judge. i will have a list of 10. we are working on it already. heritage foundation and others work on it already. with some thoughts of mine -- i. vardy named a couple that i think would be good. we are going to do that and have probably between seven and 10 judges that i think will be the highest standards and from that list we will pick supreme court judges. i make that pledge because i want people to understand. the country is going in the right direction. but if the new president is a

democrat in pics very liberal people, this country is in big, big trouble. okay, tom, go ahead. >> the republicans and conservatives are still convinced to raising money that they will wrestle the nomination from you at the convention. >> you have to see what happens. i think i'll get the votes. maybe i won't. we have a very good team. we have a team in place. a professional team. i give you the names later but at the top of the line team. i think we will admit that. if he gets the votes, he can votes. i think we will have a big night in arizona and we will see. just like i said will win florida. a lot of people said how do you beat the face of the republican party. don't forget i watched your show when you did a show on rubio. i have no problems with them, but you did a show for five months ago and he said he is the future of the republican party. he's the face.

so trump went against the face of the republican party and beaten by 20 points. it was a big win. out of 67 counties, i won 66, which is unprecedented. it's never happened before. we will do well in arizona. i hope to do well in wisconsin and i hope to do well at the blood of other places. we should be a little put it away. [inaudible] >> can you clearly and categorically tell you -- [inaudible] >> i don't want violence. but let me tell you i went to stadium. 21,000 people near phoenix. we had 6000 people over the weekend. both in the same day was short notice. 21,000 people in the give them a short notice, couple of days. they blocked the road. these are professional agitators. they blocked the road, used foul

language. they put up signs using the f. bomb and also as in other words that were horrible. these are not good people. the people that are supporters are unbelievably good people. the incident that took lives in tucson with the gentleman i understand of the air force or i haven't found out too much but he had a very fine record in the air force. he was given a certain finger on the hand. he was talked to horribly and he was also that do not somebody that came up was somebody dressed as a member of the ku klux klan. and they happen to be african-american, the person who was a supporter. it was a shame what happened. you know what, he sought a member of the ku klux klan. you people don't write that. it's interesting because at the beginning of the news cycle, early in the morning they show the coup club claimed by walking up the stairs.

an hour or two later he didn't see that anymore. he just saw the man hating. i said is not a shame. they took it out of the cycle. it's terrible. this is an african-american man who was a supporter, who has a great family and he has had enough. i'll be honest with you. on a larger scale, the people of the country it had amassed where we are losing our jobs, losing all her trade. but that these trade deals. it's hard enough for a military can't beat isis. they've had enough of the increases and obamacare where you have 35, 45 and 55% increases in deductible so high to another dealer to use it. it's essentially not even health insurance. people in this country are fed up.

>> on a slate, mark, i don't see threats. i see people trying to go against you but you have that in life whether in politics or not. the people that go against me should embrace me and i embrace them very easily. they should embrace me because they send in your circles there is never bad and it's not like that like what we are going through in the history of politics. i've had people that you know very well. we have millions and millions of people all over the world. to be honest with you, they should embrace it. if they don't embrace it, that's always a threat. >> i started today. again, jeff sessions and others have endorsed me. i watch them on television a lot

in they've endorsed me. i don't want to try the folks crazy, but people in watching that are against me are really against me because they're calling me. i've seen people on television. they were on the phone with me an hour and half before to set up a meeting. you have a lot of people out here that you think are against me and mischievous politicians. they want to make a deal. they want to come in and be part of it. >> what would it take to join your team publicly? >> they have to embrace what is happening. we have people come in many many democrats fear that i will beat hillary clinton. it's ironic, albeit it. we have democrats come in and. 20% of the democrats coming in for the last primary. 20% were democrats. that the independents coming in vast numbers. the most amazing thing we have many, many people.

you wouldn't think there were this many people who haven't voted before. they've never voted before. you know that. when i'm doing the signings are shaking hands, every 50th person says mr. trump, i've never voted. i'm talking about 30-year-old man, 40-year-old woman, 50, 60, 70. my oldest is 93 are sold from tennessee. she's never voted before. she's so excited and she's going to be voting. 93 or so from tennessee. so i just tell you there's something amazing happening. we are going to get space at the other republicans can never think of lake michigan. michigan is not in the rose if you look at it, ohio is a state we have to win. you have to win florida. that's due in virginia, pennsylvania. he can't even think about it. we have a good shot at york.

remember to values? i don't think so. if you were in new york is over because it's got so many delegates. we have a chance of winning new york and various other states. that makes it a whole different contests. think in terms of michigan. i won michigan really big. don't forget kasich was in michigan. he stayed there is life there. he made the statement that if he does someone michigan he will leave the race. the last michigan and it lands lie to me. so i'm going to win michigan and i'm going to win other states that no other republican candidate can win. after the electoral college can standpoint makes it a much different real. >> many of your rallies did not [inaudible] i want them to pass the money.

[inaudible] >> as you would do that also. many countries can pay them they can pay big beard we are supporting south korea. that are thousands of television sets a year from south korea. there are became its economically. every time north korea raises its head cover they do anything come as news, we start sending ships, planes, everything else. we don't have proper reimbursement. i like it. have a lot of friends in south korea. they can believe they get away with it to be honest. germany can't believe it. you know who really can't believe it? saudi arabia. the richest country no matter how you cut it. now they're making half. they were making a billion dollars a day we subsidize the military. ridiculous. they wouldn't be there except for us. this is how we get our

well-stocked. one more question. who's got a good question? >> europe into a better relationship with russia as president. [inaudible] >> a difficult mission to maintain. the media understands. i think that's very nice. it has no effect on the other than it's very nice. if we get along with russia, that's very good. if russia wants to spend millions of dollars a day dropping bombs on isis, i'm okay with that. some people don't like it. they say now, that's our job. it's not our job. if russia wants to do that, i'm all for it. i want to get along with all countries. and we will. look at what china is doing in the south china sea.

that is so disuse or close to obama into our country. just take a look. look at what they're doing in the south. building a massive military complex. yet they are training us for money. taking money out of our country. we are prebuilt in china. so i want to get along with all countries. the interesting thing will do much better with all countries and you will get along with them better, shoo. with fast, go ahead. >> there are people on television, lawmakers publicly saying they don't support behind the scenes. >> people who are supporting trump want to support me. [inaudible] i don't want to do it now. many of the people that i watch on television as soon as we say

yes. you'll see a lot of people. okay? [inaudible] if there had us test on abortion might be considering? >> we are going to look at that. we are going to do getting to like going to get intellect. we want smart people, conservatives on the supreme court. it will make a list of seven to 10 people. i will be disturbing and not listed in the near future. thank you very much, everybody. thank you very much. let's take a tour. nobody asked about the hotel. does anybody want to see -- first of all, does anybody want to see we are building now the largest luxury ballroom in washington by far. we can take a look. if anybody wants to look at the rooms and suites, they are giving some tours. they have magnificent.

the building was gutted down to the basics into this deal except for this area because this area is solid landmark and we have made sweet, rooms or meeting rooms and we are building a ballroom. follow me and i'll give you a tour of the ballroom.

[inaudible conversations] [background noise] [background noise]

[background noise] >> i've been out -- that depends. i've been on medical about five years. i've been injured ever since 2000. i was deployed -- on the 9/11 survivor in iraq and afghanistan. >> were you expecting a job better? >> now, the only thing i was expecting this i wanted to put a great store the veterans administration website talking