Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

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 thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Look, let's take another look at it. Mr. Lungren came before us, and on numerous occasions, what did he say? Allow Puerto Rico to become a State. Just check his words. Before that it was Mr. Burton from Indiana. In other words, they equate American citizenship with a fundamental, inalienable right to statehood. There's no one right, inalienable right, that the people of Puerto Rico have. It's to their independence. And the Founding Fathers that we like to talk so much about would agree with us here today. If Thomas Jefferson were here today, he would say one thing: There is one and only one inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico, something that could never be taken away from them, and that's to their independence. And why do I bring this issue up today? I bring the issue up today so that we can understand that Puerto Rico is not just 4 million American citizens on an island; it is a culturally, it is a psychologically, constituted geographically, linguistically constituted nation of people, Puerto Ricans. Go to that nation of people today, and while they may love and cherish America, which is actually a good thing if you think about it today, a nation of people who love and cherish America, they still are fundamentally Puerto Rican. Ask them. Has anybody been to a Puerto Rican parade in New York? Go out there with American flags on the day of a Puerto Rican parade. See how much money you make at the Puerto Rican day parade in New York or Chicago. No, it's an affirmation of who we are. Very different than the Italian day parade, than the Irish parade, than the Polish parade, in which you see many American flags. Why is it that we continue to affirm this? Why is it that even those proponents of statehood for Puerto Rico have not been able to banish the Olympic team? They dare not. Why is it they have not been able to banish the language of Spanish? They dare not. Because those are things that are intrinsic to the people of Puerto Rico. Look, let's stop kidding ourselves. Let's stop kidding ourselves. This is an attempt to do one thing and one thing only. Everybody talks about the American citizens and their right to statehood. What about the American citizens, and I say the only inalienable right that they have, to their independence? What about the 1.8 million pages that were sent to Congressman Serrano on the backs of the FBI and intelligence agency for those of us that fought for Puerto Rican independence? What about those that have been jailed? What about those poets? What about those great Puerto Rican patriots who believe and will continue to believe in independence for Puerto Rico? That is a reality that we need to deal with. So when Mr. Cantor was speaking about the inalienable right, he was speaking about the inalienable right that the Founding Fathers bestowed upon those to be free from colonialism. The current situation in Puerto Rico is deplorable. The current status of Puerto Rico is a colonial status. And we should move forward to eliminate that stain in our relationship with the people of Puerto Rico. But they have just as much right to independence, they have just as much right to independence as they do to statehood. And as a matter of fact, they have asserted that right. Let me end with this: We keep saying let them, congressionally sanction. Ladies and gentlemen, they have come together on numerous occasions, and on each and every occasion, they have said, We don't want to be a State. They would like something different. Why are we imposing? And really, look, everybody talks about the Founding Fathers. You know how the Founding Fathers did it? They had a Constitutional Convention. They got together and they had delegates from different States come together so they could have a Declaration of Independence, so they could build a Constitution. You know what? Let not the Congress of the United States say that this is democracy. Do you know what true democracy is? This Congress saying to the people of Puerto Rico get together in a constitutional convention, assemble yourselves, decide among yourselves, and we the Congress of the United States will respect that decision. We will not impose a process. We will not impose definitions upon you.

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. How many more speakers does the gentleman have remaining?

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. I thank the gentlelady. Look, this is the Puerto Rico 51st State bill. It is the only result you can possibly expect. The deck is stacked. We all know. I was talking to my friends on the other side, and you know what they keep saying to me: Why are you against statehood? Everywhere I go: Why are you against statehood? They don't say: Why are you against the people of Puerto Rico having a free vote in determining their future and in exercising their right to self-determination? Why do we come here and try to like hoodwink one another, fool one another. I mean, you know what I would like to see on the House floor, the same depth of honesty, sincerity and clarity and transparency that exists when people come up to me and ask why I am against statehood for Puerto Rico. That is not why I am up here. I am against a process that does not allow the people of Puerto Rico to exercise their sovereign right to determine their future in a free manner. Now, what does that mean? Everybody says well, there are 4 million American citizens in Puerto Rico. Have you ever considered one thing, that the proponents of statehood, the proponents of statehood have never said that the Puerto Rican team must be part of the U.S. Olympic team? Have you ever thought about that contradiction that exists? I am happy to have statehood with a Puerto Rican Olympic team, and would support such a statehood; but does the Congress support such a statehood? The fact is that the gentleman from Puerto Rico is doing a wonderful job on this bill, knows and understands that the language that is used in Puerto Rico is the Spanish language. It is the language of government. It is the language of commerce. It is the language of industry. It is the language of the courts. It is the common language of the people of Puerto Rico. And you know what, I would love to see the 51st State have Spanish as their primary language. But do you not think the Congress of the United States should consider such a fact? And the reason I put this to you is because they keep saying, remember those words, ``mandated by the Congress.'' This is plebiscite mandated by the Congress. So what they are going to do is have a plebiscite mandated by the Congress where the statehooders get to define what statehood is during their plebiscite. They are going to have a Congress where independence gets to be defined, and the only one that we define is the relevant current status in Puerto Rico. That is the only one that we define. I want to take a minute so that we can see how absurd, it says here, and this is the definition, sovereignty in association with the United States, a political relationship between sovereign nations not subject to the territorial clause of the United States Constitution. You don't think that's going to confuse some people? Just think about it a moment. What does that mean? Okay, so I guess at this point what the Congress of the United States is saying, if this is the winner, this is the winner, Puerto Rico is sovereign. It means Puerto Rico is independent. Does the FBI got to go? Does the IRS go that day? No, seriously, who controls immigration in and out of Puerto Rico? Who controls the ports? The Federal Government is gone, do we stop sending Social Security checks? Medicare and Medicaid, are they suspended? I mean, think about it one moment. What is it that occurs at that moment? I would love to see a relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico where Puerto Rico is an independent sovereign nation. That is my belief. But ladies and gentlemen, I will not impose my beliefs on the people of Puerto Rico. The people of Puerto Rico, as the gentleman from Utah referred to earlier, they said, No. They said, No. They said, No. How many times do we have to say ``no''? Do not impose a result that the people of Puerto Rico have rejected freely and which they can constitute. As a matter of fact, the last time there was a plebiscite in Puerto Rico in 1998, do you know which option won? This option beat statehood: none of the above, received over 50 percent of the vote. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote. Motion to Table

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much. Look, we had a debate the last time. If statehood wins, I'm going to support it. I'm going to support it, but it has got to win in a fair way. It has got to win in a fair way. And you know what, the people of Puerto Rico, 1967, 1993, 1998, they had a chance. Why is it that we are advancing this? What happened to the people of the District of Columbia who, on numerous occasions, have begged and implored this Congress to take action as America citizens, and we have done nothing. And the people who have said no, we don't think so, we are moving forward. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for allowing me the opportunity. First of all, I really think that if you're going to talk about democracy, if you're going to talk about freedom, that if you're going to talk about self-determination, then you have to deal with the process, and this process is just patently unfair. I thank the majority for two amendments. That was nice. But isn't it interesting that as a Democrat--100 percent Democrat, one that has been consistently a senior Democrat--that when I came down here in 1998 when it was Gingrich's bill, when the author was Young, when it was a Republican-sponsored bill and I went before the Rules Committee, I had seven amendments ruled in order. Each amendment was given 30 minutes. That's 210 minutes of debate time. And now when my party, the party that says they are promoting this legislation to foment, to foster, to encourage, and to engage the people of Puerto Rico in a democratic process, the Democratic majority has decided to give me two amendments and then 10 minutes each. Well, you do the math. That's 10 to 1, 10 times more time, and that's just on mine. I want everybody to remember--I think it's kind of sad--Dorothy Height. There is a wonderful ceremony. I would have liked to have been at that ceremony. Here is a woman who gave everything for freedom, for civil rights, and this Congress couldn't wait until after the funeral arrangements were completed to begin this debate? You don't want people on this House floor to hear this debate. You don't want a full, compelling, articulate debate on this issue. You want this issue done today. You want it done quickly. You want it done swiftly. I am telling you, this is going to blow up just like the Goldman Sachs derivatives blowup that don't have any transparency. And then everybody's going to say, What, that happened? We don't know how that happened. We don't know what room that was put together in. We don't know who put it together. But we are going to make a case today, a case today that this bill is just not what it pretends to be. It is a bill, I mean, listen to yourselves. You say: Well, we have to stop the current system. I agree. I don't like the current colonial system of Puerto Rico either. I think it is a bad system, too. I would like to eliminate it and make sure that it ends in Puerto Rico. But you want to know something, I want to do it with respect to the people of Puerto Rico. I want to make sure that as we engage in this process, it's proper, so I just want to read something to you. Here's what it says. It says that the people of Puerto Rico will be able to vote for statehood. But guess what, we don't define what ``statehood'' means. I think statehood, they should continue to have their Olympic team because the statehooders say they can continue to have their Olympic team. I think statehood, they should continue to speak Spanish and be the predominant language which it is today. Under statehood, I think that's fine. But we don't get to debate it or discuss it. I think there are many issues we should look at, but we are not going to define statehood because you know what, the proponents don't want a definition. Now independent, we don't need to define that either. What is the one alternative that we define, the current status. You know, that's like, can you imagine Barack Obama going to John McCain and saying: Hey, John, by the way, would you set my platform for me so when we run against each other, I have to defend and articulate what you have said my platform is, because that's really what is happening here today. Moreover, this is what is going to happen today: The people of Puerto Rico are going to be engaged in a process in which, you know, one of the alternatives is going to be sovereignty in association with the United States. Let me repeat that. Sovereignty in association with the United States. People of America, call in if you know what that means. Call in right now if you've figured it out. I'm sure there are political scientists all over the country. You know what, it's okay if we don't understand it. The Congressional Research Service, that's what they're paid for. They have smart people there. You know what they said: It is ambiguous at best. And this is going to be congressionally sanctioned? And one of the alternatives our Congressional Research Service says they don't even have an explanation for. Let's have an open rule and let's vote ``no.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Today we are going to have Puerto Rico as the 51st State bill. They're going to say it's a Puerto Rico self-determination bill, but really it's designed to get one thing and one thing only, and that is to have the people of Puerto Rico accept statehood for themselves. It seems to me when I checked the history books, in 1967 there was a plebiscite. They said, ``No.'' In 1993 Puerto Rico had a plebiscite. They said, ``No.'' In 1998 they had a plebiscite. They said, ``No.'' Millions of people are trying to get into this country, trying to get to America. We have 4 million American citizens, and they said, ``No.'' Why don't we respect their wishes? Why do we have to have this artificially crafted bill which has as a predetermined objective statehood for Puerto Rico? It's wrong. We should not impose statehood or any other alternative on any people, especially when they said, ``No, no, no.'' Just so that we get it clear, it's spelled the same in English as in Spanish, N-o. No, no. So there shouldn't be any problem here in terms of understanding just what the people of Puerto Rico have said.

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 221, 222, and 223.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably delayed 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 155 through 159.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 and ``no'' on 141.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 112 through 115.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 92, 93, and 94.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and commemorate the important contributions of the Peace Corps during National Peace Corps Week. President Kennedy's inspiring inaugural quote, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' sparked the establishment of the Peace Corps in 1961, and since then, almost 200,000 Americans have answered to this call to service. For five decades, participants in the Peace Corps have made significant strides to advance the cause of peace and human progress in countries around the world. Just as important, these dedicated volunteers often continue making a difference in their local communities in the United States once they return home. At the present time, almost 7,700 volunteers serve in 76 countries across the globe. They continue to work tirelessly to provide meaningful assistance to people in need, helping to improve the lives of our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world. The Peace Corps remains a strong symbol of our nation's commitment to service and progress. This program epitomizes the human desire to make a difference and the American spirit, rooted in a willingness to help improve the lives of others. I encourage my colleagues to take this opportunity to recognize the important and meaningful work of the Peace Corps, and I hope they will join me in commending the Peace Corps' achievements and commitment to service.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 75, 76 and 77.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 49 and 50.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House chamber today, due to a family emergency. I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 39 through 48.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House Chamber today, due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 39 through 47.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I was absent from the House Chamber today, due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber this evening. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 26, 27 and 28.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber this evening. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes, 17, 18 and 19.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber this evening. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 6, 7 and 8.