Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 291, 292 and 293.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yesterday I urged my colleagues to stop drilling leases from going to BP. We need action now. If Congress can stop BP from receiving government leases, then BP can and should stand for Banned Permanently. But why stop here? We must go further. Today I urge my colleagues to join me to cancel all Federal contracts with BP. How much money are we talking about? In 2009 alone, the Department of Defense paid at least $1.5 billion to BP--$1.5 billion with a B. In other words, big profits for them. We need to audit and to stop our taxpayer dollars from going to BP, a company pumping millions of barrels of black poison into our water and towards our shores. Let's ban permanently BP's black poison and eliminate BP's big profits along with their British pollution.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably delayed for votes in the House chamber yesterday, May 18, 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 273.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the initials BP used to stand for British Petroleum. But now it stands for Burying People--or Burying Precious natural resources--under a vast sea of oil. But here's what BP, a serial abuser of our safety, our environment, and our legal system, should really stand for. BP: Banned Permanently. Today, I ask my colleagues to end any and all Federal oil drilling leases for BP and begin an immediate civil and criminal investigation to examine the existing leases under BP. Almost a month into one of the worst manmade environmental and economic disasters, BP has worked harder to minimize public understanding than to minimize destruction to the Gulf of Mexico. There's plenty of finger-pointing from BP, their $62 billion in profits, and their multimillion-dollar team of lobbyists. What BP should hear from us, the American people, is simple: BP stands for Banned Permanently. I urge my colleagues to join me in demanding that Interior Secretary Salazar tell ``Banned Permanently'' they've made their last dollar from the American people.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 256, 257 and 258.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, the old joke around Congress is that the Senate is Washington's legislative hospice: a place where good bills and ideas go to die a slow and quiet death. I had really hoped that, given the necessity for financial reform today, this joke would have been proven wrong. Unfortunately, many of the reforms passed in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, including strong consumer protections and much-needed reforms to the industry, are being watered down. The latest victim of this appeasement and the most egregious example of the Senate's appeasement strategy for Wall Street lobbyists is here, which is the removal this week of the dissolution fund. I made sure that this dissolution fund was included in the House bill. It was intended to act much like your car insurance by discouraging risky behavior. Let's say that a bank like Goldman Sachs drove a new Ferrari down the road with little regard for traffic or public safety. It would then be assessed more in fees to the fund than a bank that drives safely and observes all the posted signals. Think again. Under the new plan in the Senate, Goldman can drive its Ferrari any way it wants, and when it crashes, the American public will have to pay.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I am happy the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) brought this amendment up. I think it should be soundly defeated, but I am happy he brought it because it just demonstrates the imperialist nature. Here we are in the empire, the Congress of the United States, plenary powers over Puerto Rico, dictating what language they have to use. You know what, it's amazing, but I'm not surprised, Mr. Burton, because I understand the people of Indiana are still a little angry at the people of Puerto Rico when they arrested Bobby Knight. Bobby Knight got arrested in Puerto Rico. I think this is an important story to tell you. He got arrested in Puerto Rico. There were Pan American games, and the basketball team from the United States was competing against the basketball team from Cuba, and Bobby Knight went into a rage because all of the fans in the stadium in Puerto Rico, all American citizens, were clapping and cheering for the Cuban team and not the American team. So he said to himself: What's wrong with these people? And he threw a chair, as he likes to do, and he got arrested. There is an arrest warrant, and I don't know, maybe Mr. Pierluisi can tell us if the arrest warrant is still valid and out there since he was the attorney general. It just tells you they're a nation, they're a people, and they affirm who they are in every instance.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You know, I am kind of like Mr. Rangel. I mean, this definition is a new definition. Now I will tell you this, the gentleman from Puerto Rico represents the Statehood Party in Puerto Rico. He came down here and he defined his own status or a lack of definition of his status. But you know what the next thing he did was, he defined the opposition status. You know, that reminds me of kind of like Barack Obama going to John McCain during the election and saying: Tell you what, why don't you tell me what my platform is, write it for me, and that's what I'm going to run on later on. You cannot allow this to happen because it is not a democratic process. The result is already. Let me just share with the gentleman that Senator Wicker, and I am going to ask that his statement be included in the Record at the appropriate moment, just issued a statement straight over from the other body, saying he's going to oppose this measure. It hasn't even been adopted and they are already going to oppose it, so we all know what the end result and futility is of what we do here today. They are already telling us that they are going to oppose this, and there is no companion bill. Does the gentleman have another question?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you. This is what I think we genuinely need. But let me just add further, there has been much said about the importance of American citizenship and there are many Puerto Ricans who cherish their American citizenship and have fought for their American citizenship. But if you have 4 million American citizens and they don't want to incorporate as a State, shouldn't we respect that? Here's the logic, they were American citizens; therefore, they deserve statehood. The finality of it all, the justice of it all, right, the correct course of it all is to grant them statehood. I think if they wanted independence tomorrow and they are citizens of the United States, and let me just say, it seems to me that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were subjects of the king, and one day they got up and said we want to be free. They didn't quite agree with them, but that also is an option for American citizens. You know what, maybe these 4 million American citizens don't want to become a State because they love their language; because they love their culture; because they love their idiosyncrasies; because they love applauding for their Olympic team when it goes out there on the international stage; because so many Miss Universes come from Puerto Rico. What if that is what they want, should we not respect that decision?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You know, I do, I see this as a congressional mandate. And you know what? We should not mandate statehood. Citizens organized of the United States of America, in incorporated or unincorporated territory, under or outside the territorial clause of the Constitution of the United States, should, together, in a vast majority, I believe-- because, listen, this is like me going to my wife, and I ask her, Will you marry me? And she kind of hesitates and she says, How about if I'm loyal 50 percent of the time? How about 60 percent of the time? How about if we condition this relationship? Come on. That's what we're talking about here. We had a civil war to decide this. Once a State, always a State. Be careful what you wish for.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, it's very clear that every time we have an amendment, they want to, like, finish it up. But that's okay. It's been unfair from the very beginning, so what's a little more unfairness. The fact is, I was a schoolteacher there. I was an elementary schoolteacher for 2 years in Puerto Rico. Do you know how much time the children in the public school system--which we support, taxpayers of the United States support. Do you know how much time during the day they speak in English? One class out of six. You know how I know? I spent 50 minutes a day teaching them English for almost 2 years. And you know what, the students used to walk in, and they used to say, ``Oh, Mr. Ingles.'' It was like the math class. It was like the biology class. It was like the class they didn't want to take. But you know something, that doesn't mean that they necessarily don't love this country. It's just that they affirm who they are, and we should respect that. They're Puerto Ricans, a colony of Spain, and have Spanish as their predominant language. Let's respect that cultural linguistic integrity in Puerto Rico. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York, Congresswoman Velazquez.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the Chair. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield myself 1 additional minute, Mr. Chair. I just want to make this abundantly clear to everyone, and I know that Mr. Pierluisi, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico who used to be the attorney general in Puerto Rico, understands this to be true. And if not, I would like him to step up and just say, Luis, you've got it wrong. Please tell me that. This is what happened in 1998: ``None of the above'' was the option included in the 1998 plebiscite by the very sponsor, by the very party that the proponent of the legislation that comes before us today, Mr. Pierluisi's party. They controlled the Governorship. They controlled the House. They controlled the Senate. They set up the parameters, and they included it. Yesterday they come and say to me that I am being misleading about what is going on. And more than that, it's the option that won. I also say fundamentally that one of the reasons I thought it was a good option was because I thought that it wasn't fair the way it was designed and the way it was construed. So I said, You know, I don't like the construction, so you should always give the people--especially people seeking self-determination--the option to say to us, the Congress, We didn't like the way you designed it, so we reject your proposal. So let me use the last 30 seconds with this: I want you to look at this bill, and you are going to find a section that says that over 1 million Puerto Ricans born on the island of Puerto Rico that live in the United States--not in Puerto Rico--that live in the United States are guaranteed a ballot. What does that say to you? There is a reason they speak Spanish, ladies and gentlemen. There's a reason they love the Puerto Rican flag. There's a reason they go to the Puerto Rican Day--there's a reason. It's okay. They have a passion for their culture, for their language, for who they are and their identity. And it is affirmed by the very proponent of this legislation, who understands that they are nationals--not of Puerto Rico, which you do not represent. But you are allowing them to participate in this process because you recognize they have an inherent right to participate in the future of Puerto Rico.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, here we go again. They say this is a bill. The chairman of Natural Resources says this is a bill to make sure that the people of Puerto Rico are able to define their future and do it in a free, objective manner. Really? Well, the last time they had a plebiscite in Puerto Rico, guess which option won? None of the above. Guess which option they exclude? The winning option in the last plebiscite. So who's kidding who in this place? They have this thing rigged from the beginning to the end. If not, if they were so faithful to the wishes, to the will, to the passion of the self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico, why aren't they including the very option that won? They say they respect the decision of American citizens on the island of Puerto Rico and we should give them an opportunity to express themselves freely in a referendum. Guess what? They did. And yet we reject the very option that they chose for themselves. What kind of democracy is that? I don't know what kind of democracy that is in other States, but I know how I feel about it. None-of-the- above, for me, offers this wonderful opportunity to the people of Puerto Rico. Just so that we understand, because everybody says things, I want to read this. This is what the Democrats say about my amendment--my own party: you mislead voters into thinking there is a legally better alternative to Puerto Rico's political status other than an independent state or a sovereignty. Me? Me? I'm misleading people? What is the last option that won, adopted by the government of Puerto Rico, and voted on in Puerto Rico? Announcement by the Chair

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I know it's hard, but the truth is the truth. Announcement by the Chair

Mr. GUTIERREZ. The truth is that the last time one of the alternatives was exactly what I offer. If you really believe and you really trust and you really respect the judgment of the people of Puerto Rico, then include it as they included it when they were able to do it. If you say you're not imposing your will on them, then give them the option when they had the ability to choose the different options. I'm not asking for anything else other than that because I think that it is important and fundamental that we check into the history books. Notice, no one, no one will contradict the fact that ``none of the above'' was the one that won, that that was one of the offers. And then they say that I mislead. I don't mislead anybody. The fact is, people say I'm doing this and that. That's okay. People like me, who defend the sovereign rights of the people of Puerto Rico, you know what happens to them in Puerto Rico? They get files on them by the Government of Puerto Rico. They get jailed. They are made sure they lose their jobs. They get sanctioned. Everybody always says, Oh, why aren't there more people that believe in Puerto Rican independence? There's a lot of people that believe in Puerto Rican independence. More of them don't show themselves because when they do, you know what happens? Those that support other alternatives lock them up. Let me tell you something. Careful.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentlewoman. We have been working very closely together. Mr. Chairman, this is a wonderfully crafted amendment, but I think that it is very important that the Congress respects the self- determination of the people of Puerto Rico to choose their future relationship with the United States or without the United States but to decide their future relationship. This is the key pledge: Congress pledges not to dissuade, to influence, or to dictate a status option to the people of Puerto Rico. Look, in my first election in Puerto Rico, I represented the Puerto Rican Independence Party. I was 19 years old in San Sebastian del Pepino. I was a delegate for that party until the first election. There was one vote for the Puerto Rican Independence Party in my polling place, what they call ``Integro''--right?--just for independence. That was mine at that point. I went to the university. I used to sell Claridad when I was at the university, and I would sell it to others. I've been a proponent of Puerto Rican independence. I got a nice, little carpeta, too--right?-- and I haven't called the FBI yet to see what long list of things they've written down about me and who I've associated with, but let me tell you something: The gentleman from Puerto Rico knows that everything is not all fair and square in Puerto Rico. There is an adage in Puerto Rico--right?-- which is don't get together with those people or you will be fingered. Do you know what? 1.8 million pages. You know, my dad was right. They had figured us out. They had said who we were. Do you know what would happen? You couldn't get a job. You couldn't be a teacher. You couldn't be anybody prominent in the society of Puerto Rico. So I am here to say, for all of those who fought for the independence of Puerto Rico and for its right to join as a sovereign nation in the world of nations, don't do this. Don't dictate. Please note that although I have always been an advocate, I have never come before this Congress to dictate my opinion, to dictate an outcome which benefits me. Let me tell you something. You think you've got a definition for the commonwealth that you can destroy? I have got a definition for independence that I can sell also. But I think it would be wrong to do it. I think it would be unfair to do it. What the gentlewoman from New York is simply doing here is saying return this process to the people of Puerto Rico. As I come up here every time, ``Founding Fathers,'' ``Founding Fathers,'' ``Founding Fathers.'' Then they ask you who is your favorite Founding Father? And no one can name one. Let me tell you something about the Founding Fathers. They had a Constitutional Convention. Let's allow the spirit of the Founding Fathers to act in Puerto Rico.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just want to make a couple of comments before we end this debate, as we will very, very soon. I know that everybody thinks this is about self-determination. If it were truly about self-determination, why are the other two parties in Puerto Rico opposed to the bill? Why is it that all those who believe in independence are opposed to the bill? Why are those that believe in commonwealth opposed to the bill? If there is such consensus, if the gentleman truly represents the will of the people of Puerto Rico, why are the other two parties opposed to the bill? And that's a very important question that we ask ourselves. Secondly, Mr. Pierluisi acknowledged, just so that we have it all, in the Puerto Rican media, that he didn't seek the opinions of the opposition party with regards to this bill because it would have been, according to him, una perdida de tiempo. That means ``a waste of time.'' Now, all I want to say is it isn't a waste of time. It is valuable. And that's why I am so happy that you are doing what you're doing because I think we can all gather around the gentlewoman Velazquez and support her amendment. Buscar consenso no es una perdida de tiempo. To seek consensus is not a waste of time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes of my time. I thank Mr. Chaffetz and I thank the gentlelady from New York for their comments. Why do I propose this? Because we're getting hoodwinked again. That's all that's happening here. You know what they're going to do? I'm telling you, this is just like those derivatives that they've got at Goldman Sachs. You don't know what's in it. Look into it, because it's going to blow up on you later on. Let me tell you why. Here's what it says on page 5. It says, ``English ballots--the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission shall ensure that all ballots used for any plebiscite held under this act include the full content of the ballot printed in English.'' That's all it says. Now, you know why they do that; to give you the misunderstanding, right, the false sense of confidence that people are actually going to go, and there's going to be a campaign, and it's going to be conducted in English, and the people can go and take an English ballot. The fact is that the ballots in Puerto Rico are printed in Spanish. The fact is--okay, let me give you another one. There are, like, four big newspapers--well, there were four, but the one in English went bankrupt. The ones that thrive are the ones in Spanish. Did you ever turn the TV on in Puerto Rico? Go down there. There are, like, three or four really Puerto Rican stations. As a matter of fact, public TV in Puerto Rico is in Spanish. The news is in Spanish, and we help provide some of the funding through our contributions--not the Congress of the United States necessarily. The fact is that I am here to affirm, to affirm, and I hope that this Congress recognizes that the people of Puerto Rico are a nation. They have a language. We should respect that language, and that language is Spanish. And as we move forward, the ballots, in order for them to understand this process, should be in Spanish. I reserve the balance of my time.