Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked by the new discoveries that have been made by the editors of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) in his so-called investigation. Just listen to this: It turns out that when Franklin Delano Roosevelt rallied our country during the Depression, what he really said was, ``The only thing we have is fear itself.'' At John F. Kennedy's stirring inaugural, what he actually said was, ``Ask not what you can do for your country.'' Most shocking of all, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has discovered that Republicans as well as Democrats have been misquoted through the years. Even George Bush, if the skillful editors of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) were around in 1988, they may have changed history. In Burton-land, George Bush actually said, ``Read my lips: New taxes.'' Hard to believe? No harder to believe than the distorted, dishonest, and discredited tapes Mr. Burton tried to fool the American people with. This deceit is shameful. I guess the only thing the gentleman's committee's multimillion- dollar spending spree cannot buy is fairness and honesty. Do all Americans a favor and stop this charade.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, immigrants in Chicago and throughout the United States work hard, same money, and send billions of their U.S. dollars to relatives living in foreign countries. The money wiring industry--dominated by giants Western Union and MoneyGram--have emerged as the major vehicle for sending dollars across borders. Immigrants with family in Mexico are among the primary customers of these services. It is estimated that between $4 and $6 billion is sent annually from the U.S. to Mexico through such wire payments. This figure has an enormous impact on Mexico, as it represents the country's fourth-largest source of income from international sources--trailing only the money it receives for manufactured goods, oil, and tourism. Many Mexican immigrants prefer to use the services offered by wire transfer companies rather than postal or other delivery services. Some customers are attracted by the companies, advertisements which promise fast, affordable, convenient service. Others have been dissuaded from sending money through other means after reports began circulating of armed robberies of courier services in Mexico and mail pouches disappearing from Mexican postal branches. As a result, Western Union and MoneyGram have virtually cornered the market. The two companies--plus a third, Orlandi Valuta which, like Western Union, is owned by the First Data Co.--account for a combined total of more than 90 percent of all transfers. At first glance, the wire transfer companies appear to represent an attractive option for prospective consumers. In part, this is the result of massive advertising campaigns through which the companies target Latino customers. In such advertisements, companies promise relatively low rates. For instance, one company recently publicized a $12 fee for a $300 transfer to Mexico. On other occasions, the companies have tried to appear to be even more generous. For instance, following the devastation caused by Hurricane Pauline which struck Mexico in October 1997, Western Union advertised ``free'' service for concerned family members in the U.S. sending money to help the victims. However, such promises are grossly misleading. The cost to the consumer is far less reasonable--and certainly not ``free.'' That is because the companies fail to inform their clients--either in print advertisements, in displays at their establishments, or on forms presented to the customer--that an additional cost will be imposed on the customer and on the recipient in Mexico. The hidden cost arises from the rate at which the wire transfer companies convert dollars into pesos for their customers, compared to the rate that these companies have had to pay to obtain Mexican currency. While the wire service companies obtain pesos at a rate that closely matches an established benchmark rate, the companies distribute pesos to their customers at a far lower rate. The difference between those two figures represents a source of additional income to the companies and an additional cost to the consumer--one which is not disclosed. Before transferring money, many customers research the current benchmark exchange rate to find out how many Mexican pesos can be obtained for their U.S. dollars. However, customers are not informed that the wire transfer companies fail to abide by that benchmark rate, and establish their own conversion scheme allowing them to pocket additional money. A benchmark exchange rate is set daily by Banco De Mexico. While this figure is an unofficial rate, those entities doing the largest share of business converting U.S. dollars to Mexican pesos--such as major financial institutions, markets, government agencies, and the wire transfer companies--generally receive a rate which closely matches the daily benchmark rate. On the other hand, Western Union and MoneyGram arbitrarily set a different exchange rate for their customers--one which has been found to routinely vary from the benchmark rate by as much as 12 percent These ``currency conversion fees'' allow the companies to post huge profits. According to one analysis of figures, Western Union alone made an additional $130 million based on the conversion scheme--roughly equivalent to the amount that the company made for the service fees. In other words, this hidden practice allows the company to virtually double the money it is making off of the Mexican community. The wire transfer companies allege that this is a legitimate and common practice. The fact is, however, that other major companies and institutions which convert dollars into pesos follow more closely the benchmark exchange rate which is set daily by the Banco de Mexico, often matching the benchmark rate exactly when providing services to their customers. The wire transfer companies are wrong, therefore, when they claim that this represents a ``common'' business practice. How does the rate affect an individual customer? One day late last year, the benchmark exchange rate was listed as 8.3 pesos to the dollar. On the same day, both Western Union and MoneyGram were offering customers 7.3 pesos to the dollar. As a result, for every $100 transferred, the customer (or the recipient) would lose an additional $12 dollars--on top of service fees. This practice targets a particular community. When a comparison is made of transfers to various counties, this practice appears aimed at Mexican immigrants and their families in particular. For example, on a recent occasion, the exchange rate which MoneyGram set to convert U.S. dollars to Mexican pesos was three times more costly than the rate for changing U.S. dollars into Canadian currency. Specific advertisements (misleading as they are) are aimed at the Mexican market. One MoneyGram advertisement claims (falsely): ``Send $300 to Mexico for $14.'' The company's tactics in the wake of Hurricane Pauline have been cited as further evidence of a trend of seeking to make additional money by misleading the Mexican-American community. Lawsuits have been filed in federal court in California claiming the companies have engaged in false advertising and charging hidden fees. Likewise, a class-action lawsuit will also be filed in federal court in Chicago next week. I am introducing today legislation aimed at curbing the wire transfer companies' tactics which they have used to take advantage of their customers. My legislation would require the wire transfer companies to fully disclose their practices to their customers, thereby making sure that such ``hidden'' costs are brought to light. This bill would require companies to list--and to reasonably explain--their own currency conversion rates on all advertisements, forms and receipts provided to customers, and in display windows or at service counters in all establishments offering international wire transfers. Failure to comply could lead to criminal penalties and civil liabilities of at least $500,000. I am entitling my bill the ``Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act of 1998.'' I welcome the support of my colleagues who wish to join me in protecting consumers in our communities.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my constituents Ray and Pat Murphy, a very active couple in my community who are celebrating their well-deserved retirement this Saturday, April 25, 1998 at Nativity of Our Lord Church Hall in Chicago. Decades of dedication and hard work characterize the lives of Ray and Pat Murphy. The mother of two children, John and Margaret, Pat Murphy is the true example of a hard-working wife and mother. In addition to her work as a volunteer in many political elections and her tireless support of causes that she strongly believes in, Pat also worked for more than 38 years with NAPA-Genuine Parts Company until her retirement three weeks ago, on April 3, 1998. Ray Murphy deserves recognition for his hard work and dedication to our community. After working for the railroad, the Standard Unit Parts Company, the Checker Cab Company and the City of Chicago, Ray began a 22-year career with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County that ended on November 19, 1992. Only a month later, Ray took on yet another challenge and started working at the Cook County Sheriff's office, where he stayed until his retirement on February 27, 1998. In addition to his professional accomplishments, Ray is also the President of the Hamburg Athletic Association and is a member of the Irish Fellowship. Mr. Speaker, it is people like Pat and Ray, hard-working and dedicated community members who make a difference in our lives and constitute the backbone of our society. Their strong family values and commitment to hard work and honest living is what this great country is all about. Their legacy is celebrated today and will certainly continue on with their children John and Margaret and their grandchildren Dennis, Amanda and Patricia. Today I salute them and their wonderful contributions to their community in the city of Chicago and wish them continued happiness, health and success in their future endeavors. May they continue to pursue their love for travel and embark on many exciting and safe trips to their favorite destinations.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this vital amendment that will enable thousands of people in my community to obtain access to employment opportunities they may otherwise be denied. The additional $108 million that this amendment will provide for welfare-to-work programs is crucial if our nation is to ensure that our current prosperity benefits all people in America. Back in my hometown of Chicago, less than 10 percent of welfare recipients own or have access to an automobile. That's right less than 10 percent. At the same time, job growth in the Chicago metropolitan area is greatest in areas that are accessible only by car. Obviously, this poses a significant obstacle to the people who need employment most. A serious mismatch exists in Chicago and countless other urban areas in our nation between job growth and the location of low-income communities. The lack of affordable housing in many growing suburbs ensures that low-income people, the people who would fill the myriad service jobs that are being created in new suburban strip malls and office parks, can't live where job creation is most dynamic. So we must address this problem. We must take action to get people to where the jobs are. Failure to do so means we are cutting off from jobs and financial security the very people who we have mandated to work under new welfare reform regulations. So we cannot fail in this task and we cannot fail to pass this important amendment that is fundamental to building a fairer economy that includes all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. America can only work if we enable all our people access to jobs.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, last week as the cherry blossoms bloomed in Washington, Americans were treated to yet another sight that they had long awaited, a Republican legislative agenda. Finally the GOP articulated an issue when the leader of the other body declared that Republicans would block any increase in the minimum wage. Yes, while the Dow Jones climbs higher, Republicans say that some workers are unworthy of sharing in America's prosperity. As my colleagues know, when trading closes each day on Wall Street, someone has to clean up the Stock Exchange, someone is serving drinks to the investors getting together to celebrate, and somebody is stitching together the $3,000 suits fashionable in the financial district. Yet some of those workers are struggling to get by on an annual income lower than the wardrobe expenses of some of the well- dressed brokers. Mr. Speaker, I have one request of the Republican leader of the other body: Keep talking about the minimum wage. The staunch opposition can only help us in uniting working families, and when we Democrats pass a minimum wage increase over objections, we will be saying, ``Senator Lott, thanks a lot.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my support to the work of Chicago Civil Rights leader Reverend Ronald I. Schupp. For the past two years, Reverend Schupp has held a peaceful twenty-four hour fast and vigil outside of the Chinese Consulate in Chicago calling upon the government of the People's Republic of China to grant independence to Tibet and its people. This vigil has been held on March 10, now known as Tibetan National Day, recognizing for thirty-nine years the ongoing efforts of the Tibetan people to gain their freedom. The 14th Dalai Lama, who in 1989 won the Nobel Peace Prize for his continuing efforts for a nonviolent peaceful solution to end the occupation of Tibet, is still laboring ceaselessly to accomplish this goal. I fully support Reverend Schupp and the vigil he is once again undertaking.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, we have had a good long day here of debate and discussion and I think that people should understand something. This is a very serious decision that we are entering into. I know we have had this debate about statutory citizenship all day and it is just very important to me. It is important because I think that we have shown that the 14th amendment should apply to all the people of Puerto Rico. Think about it. The 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States will be simply thrown up in the air if we adopt this. That is wrong. It is wrong to all those citizens on the island of Puerto Rico. I want a fair process. I want a process that says here is independence, and a version of independence a little kinder and gentler and a little more realistic than the one offered here; a version of statehood, a realistic version of statehood, the kind of statehood that I lived in Puerto Rico. I would like to tell everybody that in 1972, when I was 19 years old, I registered to vote. The first time I voted was in San Sabastian, Puerto Rico, so take it from me, I know what the statehooders propose, what the independence people propose, what the commonwealthers propose, because I was there listening for many years. I went to the University of Puerto Rico. I graduated from high school in Puerto Rico. Politics, politics and the national questions and status is something that we debate and discuss everyday. Let me tell my colleagues, if we do not clarify some of these things, here is what we will get: the 30 second spot that is going to scare the living daylights out of anybody. I see it already. Vote for statehood or your citizenship will be taken away. And you know, whoever pays, my mother said--(the gentleman spoke in Spanish)--I am sorry, I am not supposed to say. Basically what that means is that a paper will hold whatever you write on it. And whoever has the money to write those 30- second scripts and to put them up on the TV set, that is wrong for us to allow something like that. That is wrong for people to go in. Let us not force a vote on any issue. That is what we are doing here. It is wrong to talk about citizenship which we all know will never be taken away from a people. And if we know it will never be taken away, let us not let it be used in this plebiscite. And let us have a plebiscite. And I reiterate once again, whoever wins fair and square, we can all come together and move forward, move forward as a people. I would like to say this last thing. Look, when Members of this Congress talked about South Africa and Nelson Mandela, nobody ever said they should just move back to South Africa if they thought that was so important. When Members of this Congress talk about Ireland and the importance of Ireland and its independence, nobody says they should go back to Ireland if they want to talk about that. When Members in this Congress talk about Israel and talk about their proud Judaism, nobody says they have to go back. When people talk about Cuba, nobody says go back to Cuba. Why is it that when people want to raise issues because I am of Puerto Rican descent that I am told go back to Puerto Rico or do not have anything to do with it. The resident commissioner is invited to come to my district any day, as he has often done. I think we should all be invited to speak to one another as brothers and sisters in the quest for justice, equality and a fair and reasonable solution to this very critical status question.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment number 24.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes, on the whole.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let me explain, and the Chair can help me. I really do not want to propose an amendment, I just want to be able to close. And I was informed that there would be no opportunity after all the amendments were exhausted to say anything in closing

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not want to make this the kind of issue that the resident commissioner wants to make it. I just want to make the point the fact is Bobby Knight had a few problems in Puerto Rico. He was arrested. And he did say some very disparaging words, and those disparaging words had a direct relationship between the games that were being played there and the reaction. He could not understand how 10 American citizens, if we want to make it, it was more than 10 I assure the resident commissioner, could cheer for a team other than the United States when it was going for a gold medal. And subsequently he got into some trouble about that. But it just talks about the special nature of the relationship. I want people to understand. It did not happen in Alaska and it did not happen in Hawaii and it did not happen in Texas. Why can we bring up all these issues, and it happened in Puerto Rico, of language and culture? And the resident commissioner said it was not geopolitical. Okay. But he said it was sociological. That is pretty incredible. That is an admission here. Sociological nationality. Let us examine what that means. That means it is a separate and distinct people. That is our point here. Our point here is let us have a fair referendum. Look, there was a referendum in 1993. The party of the resident commissioner was the party that wrote the script and the rules. Everyone voted. The resident commissioner, that if statehood would have won that plebiscite, that he was going to come here and demand statehood for Puerto Rico. So the gentleman thought that was a good plebiscite then and those were good rules and regulations then. Why is it today that the gentleman comes with this other version when he would have taken that version and asked us to have adopted it back 5 short years ago?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. There will be an additional 5 minutes then at the end so we can all close, those who wish to close; is that true?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, is there going to be any time allotted to close this debate after the end of all of the amendments?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, under statehood, according to the International Olympic Committee and the Amateur Sports Act of 1979, the United States Olympic is the sole representative in the Olympic games and Pan American games, of which Puerto Rico participates in both the Olympics, sending its own team from Puerto Rico to the Olympics and Pan American games. No other body or organization can represent the U.S. or any part thereof if they become a State of the Union. If Puerto Rico becomes a State, it is extremely unlikely that they may compete in Olympic games separately from the U.S. as an Olympic team, as has been the long history of the people of Puerto Rico. To the end the International Olympic Committee granted the National Olympic Committee of the United States exclusive powers for their representation for their respective countries at the Olympic games and all other OIC- sanctioned events. Evidently, if Puerto Ricans are pushed to vote in favor of statehood, they are going to lose one of their most treasured traditions of representation in the sports arena. Furthermore, Puerto Rico would no longer be able to participate in the Olympics as a separate entity. Puerto Ricans would be forced to lose one of their richest and treasured sources of patriotic pride. I want to remind my fellow colleagues that Puerto Rico is such a proud nation that when President Carter called for a boycott of the Moscow games in 1990, the Puerto Rican national Olympic team sent two athletes with a Puerto Rican flag. Think about it. Puerto Rico as a nation will never give up its Olympic representation that ties them with the U.S. because they could not disappoint their national athletes that train so hard. Think about it. The President of the United States says, we are going to boycott, and yet the people of Puerto Rico send their own Olympic team, American citizens, to go and participate while other citizens. You see how they are different. You see how there is a separate relationship. Let us understand that. I just want to make one last point. I did have an amendment to pardon Bobby Knight because Bobby Knight went out to Puerto Rico in 1976, this is true, just to make the point, 1979 during the Pan American games, probably the Resident Commissioner remembers, and in the final for the gold medal it was the United States and Cuba, and there were 20,000 fans there, and they were all chanting, Cuba, Cuba, Cuba, not because they believed in Communism, not because they believed in Fidel Castro, but because they had a sense of the great andeano, the Jose Marti. They were applauding the athletes from another Spanish-speaking country. Unfortunately, he did not get it and he made some obscene gestures, was arrested and said, how can these citizens of the United States not be cheering for the American team? Why? Because they loved their American citizenship, but they are a different and a special kind of people. Let us treat them specially in accordance with their fine tradition. That is why I present this amendment. Let us allow them to continue to have their Olympic team even if they are a State of the Union, because we want to respect their great history and pride.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to address the grave injustice done to the independence and to the commonwealth versions of Puerto Rican history that are included in these findings. As I have shown previously in the debate on the findings sections, the findings sections to be included in this bill have been chosen to provide a distorted pro-statehood version of Puerto Rican history, beginning with the very denial that Puerto Rico ever existed as a nation and as a people. It is unfair to present such an unbalanced view of the Puerto Rican history if the true objective of this bill were truly self- determination. Rather than attempt a superficial discussion on historical facts on which those of us with a little knowledge of Puerto Rican history find it very hard to agree upon, and upon which, in all truth, the majority of my colleagues unfortunately know little of the details, and of the interpretation of those historical details, we are asked to subscribe to with our vote. This bill is so slanted in favor of statehood, especially in the findings section, that it is really an overkill. The purpose of this very conveniently selected presentation of Puerto Rican history is to provide political ammunition to the Statehood Party during the plebiscite campaign. Adoption of this amendment will make this bill less unfair and less skewed in favor of statehood. I have just shown you clearly, I think, when we spoke about the Treaty of Paris, that nowhere in the Treaty of Paris, and I asked the gentleman from Puerto Rico if he has found in the Treaty of Paris where it says United States nationality, because if he finds it, then you know I will take it back, because then maybe I missed it somewhere, but he has not responded to that. Where it is in the Foraker Act of 1900, I asked the gentleman from Puerto Rico to please find. And it says there, Puerto Rican citizenship. It exists. It existed as a nation of people. There is a difference between nationality and citizenship. That has already been determined throughout the world. Yes, Puerto Ricans are nationals. I know that some of them feel less Puerto Rican than others and that there may be degrees to which people feel. I am sure that when we had the great war of independence from Great Britain, there were many of those who said, oh, God, I do not want to be a member of that new emerging Nation of those 13 colonies. I kind of like King George. He is okay. And there were others who felt as Thomas Paine, as Jefferson and as others, that it was time to incorporate into a new Nation and to make that Nation valid. That is what we have got in Puerto Rico. Let us understand it. Let us not skew the issue. I ask that the findings just simply be eliminated because what you are doing, if you allow these findings, is a blank check, because they will take these findings, convert them into 30-second commercials and distort the reality of the congressional intent.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I propose to add this finding because I think it is very important for Congress to understand the reality of the Puerto Rican people. This bill makes a formal offer of statehood, too. This amendment informs Congress and the American people about a very recent and very important decision made by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, of which the Resident Commissioner was once Governor. In the case of Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer, a great supporter of statehood in Puerto Rico, against Juan Mari Bras, somebody who wishes independence for Puerto Rico, in this momentous decision the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, not Luis Gutierrez, the Congressman from the Fourth District of the State of Illinois, but the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico determined that Puerto Rican citizenship is a birthright of all persons born on the island, borne of the natural right of all persons guaranteed under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. I did not make this up. This is a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. Talk about self-determination. Are we simply going to disregard that decision, the same Supreme Court where there is a statehood Governor currently in Puerto Rico? This Supreme Court decision based both on Federal law and precedent as well as the Constitution of the Commonwealth was that Puerto Rican citizenship is, and I quote, separate and distinct from United States citizenship. A very well known and respected leader of the movement for Puerto Rican independence, Mr. Juan Mari Bras traveled to Venezuela and in accordance with U.S. law went to the U.S. Embassy in Venezuela and filed an application to renounce his American citizenship. He returned to Puerto Rico and resumed his law practice. A year later he received a formal certificate accepting his resignation of American citizenship. When he registered to vote in Puerto Rico, his right to vote in the Puerto Rican election was challenged. The case went all the way to the Puerto Rican Supreme Court, which upheld his right to vote in Puerto Rican elections. The Court decided also that while it was constitutional for the Puerto Rican Legislature to require U.S. citizenship to vote in Puerto Rico, along with residence and other requirements, native-born Puerto Ricans are guaranteed their right to vote in Puerto Rican elections by sole virtue of their Puerto Rican citizenship conferred to them by their birth in Puerto Rico. So states the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. This is very important because it highlights the important fact that Puerto Rico is indeed a nation, that citizenship and nationality are two different things. It is in the Treaty of Paris. It is in the Foraker Act. It is in this recent decision, because I know that some of my colleagues are saying, why are you going so far back? Well, I went back 90 years, and now I am coming present. Members should know this, this Congress, that the Supreme Court Justices, all American citizens, had decided, what do you do with Juan Mari Bras? He was born in Puerto Rico. He renounces his American citizenship. What country do you send him to? Where do you get rid of him to? The Supreme Court said he was born on this island, there is nothing we can do. He renounced it, and he has no other country because he is a national of this nation, Puerto Rico. I suggest to anybody to please explain to me what you do with people in the circumstances of Juan Mari Bras. Now, I think it is important that we discuss and debate all these issues. Unfortunately, we will not have enough time today.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It is also independence, and also autonomy is in there. Is it not interesting that the gentleman says that the United Nations says that self-determination is statehood, the ultimate assimilation of one country by another? My only point is the Supreme Court has ruled on this thing invariably differently. There is no definite decision about that. All I am saying is that Cabot Lodge went down there, made the agreement. We went before the Committee on Decolonization. We went before them, before the world community, and said the people of Puerto Rico and the United States have reached a compact. We came back here to Congress and we said this is what we are going to respect. Now I know the gentleman is going to go back and say that did not exist and it was a big lie. The Congress lied. Cabot Lodge lied. We were all one big liar. Is that what we are saying here today? Eisenhower lied. Everybody lied. I do not think quite we can say that.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), my friend, that number one, I think it would be good for us if the gentleman could please offer to us the Supreme Court decision sometime that states that the commonwealth does not exist, because I would like to read it. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also see something from the United Nations, since the gentleman referred to the United Nations, where the United Nations says that the autonomous status is somehow also something that is not acceptable in international law. Because I would really like to see that for my own edification. I think that that is important because I think that that is the process that we are about here today, is learning from one another. Because I can bring the gentleman the Foraker Act that was passed in 1900 that says this Congress gave Puerto Ricans Puerto Rican citizenship. I have here the Treaty of Paris which says that those members of that territory will be nationals of that territory. Complete, complete disregard for these findings that we have here. So there is a lot to be debated and I think that we really do have to understand something. Let us have a debate about some constructive questions. Unfortunately, because of the way the rules are worked out, we only could debate it today. It seems interesting. I always wondered, as I said yesterday, if we were determining our future relationship with Israel, if the 40-some-odd Jewish Members and others of us here who care about that relationship would want to limit it to one day; if it were about Ireland, if the gentleman from Rhode Island and others would say, ``God, Luis,'' if I came to them and said we have to limit it to one day; if it was about South Africa and the African-American Members would say, ``We have to limit it to one day?'' It is sad. So much to discuss. So much to debate. So much to learn about. And yet so little time to make this momentous decision. That is what I really think. No one hears about the Foraker Act. Did my colleagues read the Jones Act of 1917? Did they read Law 600 of 1950? No, it is like the complete history is in these findings. Findings that were prepared. Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat something. I think that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) did a great job, but let us understand something. The gentleman said before the Committee on Rules yesterday that when he could not reach an agreement with the ``commonwealthers,'' he took that definition from the commonwealthers, took it to them and it was rejected. Then do my colleagues know what he did next? He said he sat down with the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) and the two of them made an agreement of what that definition should be. I do not think that is an exactly fair and equitable manner of arriving at definitions that are going to determine the future of Puerto Rico. I thought we had a democracy here, bipartisan. Mr. Chairman, can my colleagues imagine if I got to write the platform for the Democratic Party and said here it is, go run on it?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.