Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time for a moment, because that is interesting, the United Nations. And what about section 748?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask, where in the Treaty of Paris did the Congress of the United States expressly extend United States nationality, think about that, to the people of Cuba, to the people of Guam, to the people of the Philippines or Puerto Rico? It is nowhere to be found in the Treaty of Paris. This so-called finding is a lie. It implies that the failure to declare allegiance to the Crown of Spain by a specified date meant the establishment of United States nationality for the inhabitants of Puerto Rico. In other words, they interpret the Treaty of Paris to say, hey, if you did not renounce your sovereignty under Spain, you became nationals. But we did not say that. The United States of America did not grant that to those people. It says, of nationals of that territory, the only territory being Puerto Rico. The terms of the treaty are very clear. Spanish subjects who fail to declare their allegiance to the Spanish Crown by a specified date became, in the words of the Treaty of Paris, not Americans or American citizens, but nationals of the territory in which they reside. In the case of Puerto Rico, clearly they became nationals of Puerto Rico, because they were not citizens of the United States, and we did not grant them United States nationality. I ask anybody to look at that treaty and find something different. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very clear, they became Cuban nationals, Guam nationals, Philippine nationals, and Puerto Rican nationals. And you know something, Mr. Young, the Cubans became independent. Guam, the Philippines. So think about it, they were nationals of a nation, along with other people of other territories. Mr. Chairman, Puerto Rico is a separate and distinct nation with its own culture, language and history. But the proponents of H.R. 856 seek to deny the existence of the Puerto Rican nation with its very defined terms. Mr. Chairman, this fact of the existence of a clearly defined Puerto Rican nationality is exactly the reason why Congress has not once in 100 years since the Treaty of Paris incorporated Puerto Rico as a territory. Mr. Chairman, there is very extensive public available research which will substantiate each and every one of my assertions. Finally, I will limit my presentation to the following: Think about it. After the Treaty of Paris, what is the next document that we have in relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States? You know what it was, Mr. Young? It was the act of Congress in 1900 known as the Foraker Act, the first organic act of Puerto Rico. And guess what? Under the section General Provisions of that act of Congress, it puts to rest any notion that the Treaty of Paris established United States nationality for inhabitants of Puerto Rico, as is alleged in this false finding, because I am going to quote it to you. This is an act of Congress, 1900 Foraker Act, section 7: All inhabitants continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April, 1899, and their children born subsequent to them, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of Puerto Rico, and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except such as have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain; and they, together with such citizens of the United States as may reside in Puerto Rico, shall constitute the body politic under the name people of the people of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a nation, under the Foraker Act of Congress. We did not give them nationality, we did not give them anything. We signed a treaty. So please stop saying that it is a group of people; the Foraker Act in 1990 and every subsequent piece of legislation. I am not, and I ask anybody to stand up and find where in the Foraker Act it says that Puerto Ricans were granted American nationality. It is not there in the Treaty of Paris. I would think that King George III, he must have just turned. I can just see him. If he would just show up for a second, I could just see him, because King George must have said, God, did I just hear a Member of Congress say that Puerto Rico is not a nation, that it is just a group of people? Because I think, as the King of England, I once said that about the 13 colonies. They said those 13 colonies are not a nation. That is not a group of people, that is just a group of colonies that we got out there that we own. They would have been cheering and applauding the English throne. They would have said, God, we have Members of Congress who say to us today, in 1998, after 1776 declaring our independence from the King and England, that still people dispute that there are nations out there. They are there. The facts are clear.

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) spoke earlier about the hour being late and how people do not listen and do not pay attention, but I have got to tell you, we got to. This is a very important issue. Why do I want to strike these words? I hope that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and others would participate in this debate, because I think it is important. Mr. Chairman, I rise to present an amendment and to move the first three lines of the findings under the word ``Paris,'' because that statement is false. I have there at my desk a complete copy and text of the Treaty of Paris signed by both the United States of America and Spain, in Paris, France, on December 10, 1898. I have read, and I hope all of the Members before they enter into a decision read the Treaty of Paris. Mr. Chairman, the only, I repeat, the only mention of the word ``nationality'' is found within Article IX of the treaty, and it refers to the future Spanish subjects residing in the newly acquired territories. Because this issue goes directly to whether Puerto Ricans not only are a distinct people, but also to whether this fact has always been recognized by our Congress, our government, and the people of the United States, Mr. Chairman, I am going to quote it in full. Article IX. Listen. You will learn a little bit of history tonight. ``Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or secedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or its proceeds, and they shall also have the right to carry on in their industry, commerce and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws that are applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the territory, they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making before a court of record, within a year from the date of the exchange of ratification of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced it and adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside,'' Puerto Rico. So when we talk about the issue of nationality, it is right in the Treaty of Paris. ``The civil rights and the political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.'' Let me repeat that. ``The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territory,'' that is Puerto Rico, ``hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.'' Mr. Chairman, I challenge any of my colleagues to prove me wrong and to find another place in the text of the Treaty of Paris in question the word ``nationality.'' It is nowhere else to be found in the treaty. Now, let us go back to the treaty. ``In default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced it and adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside.'' ``The nationality of the territory in which they may reside.'' What nationality? Of Puerto Rico. Now, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, treaties are in essence contracts between two or several nations. Treaties tend to be specific and clear. The failure of a treaty between two or several nations to be clear about its terms has led on more than one occasion to dispute. Mr. Chairman, this is serious business. If the United States Congress wished to grant Puerto Ricans the nationality of the United States, as it is claimed in the so-called findings of the Young bill, why is it not spelled out clearly and specifically in the Treaty of Paris? Let me go back and read to you other relevant parts of the treaty which I think will shed light on this article. In Article I of the treaty, it says, ``Spain relinquishes all claims of sovereignty over the title of Cuba.'' In Article II it says, ``Spain cedes to the United States the island of Puerto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.'' In Article III it says, ``Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands.'' Mr. Chairman, I ask, where in this Treaty of Paris did the Congress of the United States expressly extend United States nationality?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 5.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, first, before I begin, and I do not know if we can do something, but I figure with the will and the ability and the knowledge that the gentleman of New York (Mr. Solomon) has, and the gentleman of California (Mr. Miller) has, and the goodwill, that we can figure some way, because they keep referring to all of these amendments as mine when, indeed, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear for the record that every last amendment is a Gutierrez-Velazquez amendment. Apparently, we did not do the right thing when we introduced them, but if somehow along the way that could be clarified, I think that is very important, because the gentlewoman from New York and I are working together on each one of these amendments. I rise to offer my amendment to section 2 of the bill, the findings section. My amendment adds language to the bill to clarify that Puerto Rico is, instead, a nation. I offer this amendment because I think it is very important that both the people of Puerto Rico and the people of the United States understand clearly what the United States Congress is doing in relation to the people of Puerto Rico. The people of Puerto Rico consider themselves a nation. I think that should be made abundantly clear to all the Members of this House. They consider themselves a nation, a separate and distinct people. They love their American citizenship. Some of my colleagues say that is a contradiction. That is the contradiction we get with colonialism. It is not their contradiction. It is a contradiction that we have. But everyone should understand that. They love their American citizenship. But yet if you ask them, where are you from, they say Puerto Rico, not in the same sense that maybe the Chairman, when you say where are you from, and he would say from Florida, or I might say from someplace, or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) might say from New York, from the Empire State of New York. No, I suggest to all of my colleagues, if they go to a Puerto Rican Day celebration anywhere in the United States of the America, in the United States of America, you have what you have, and it is the reality. If we walk up to those people and they are celebrating their nationality, and you say what are you, they say I am Puerto Rican. What are you? They say, I am Puerto Rican. That is the way they feel. Then if you ask them, what are you a citizen of? They say the United States of America. That is the distinct difference that we must understand. That is why I must offer this amendment so that people understand it is not another territory. It is not another group of people. It is not. It is very different and distinct. I think we should remind ourselves of that as we proceed with these deliberations. The people of Puerto Rico have an ethnicity, have a language, have a culture. Excuse me, strike the word ethnicity, have an idiosyncracy of their own. There are words in Spanish--(The gentleman from Illinois spoke in Spanish). I mean, if you are from Mexico or Colombia or from Cuba, they say you are from Puerto Rico--(The gentleman from Illinois spoke in Spanish). That is the way it works, because those, indeed, are from here. We may wish, as my mother many times said--(The gentleman from Illinois spoke in Spanish), which means you may wish to hide yourself from the skies with your hand, but you cannot. The fact is that Puerto Rico is a nation, and we should recognize this here in this bill. It is a nation of people who are citizens of the United States. Remember something. President Clinton said, oh, but in America, we have people from Poland, and they are Polish Americans. We have people from Ireland, and they are Irish Americans. We have people from Germany, and they are German American, and on, and on, and on. He said, we all blend here together in the United States of America. That is true. The difference is, I would say to President Clinton, there is a Germany, a Poland, and an Ireland. When you make Puerto Rico a State, is there a Puerto Rico as a State or as a nation? Let us understand this is different. All of those people came here as immigrants to this country with the intent of staying here forever. The people of Puerto Rico want to have a special relationship with this Nation. Let us try to see if we cannot do that and achieve that together. I end my comments with that. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment numbered 36.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let us think about this a moment. We want all the people to be able to participate in this process that can participate in this process. I think we all really want that. Think about it one moment. Someone is born on the island. They spend 30 years there. They move because of economic reasons. They do not get to vote. But if they show up on the island 3 months before the elections, register there and have no emotional tie until their next promotion or their next job transfer, they get to determine the future of that island. Mr. Chairman, think about it. Think about it. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the Resident Commissioner who is an ardent strong supporter of statehood, that I would think he would wish to cherish the fact that people born on the island of Puerto Rico who live in the United States of America, and who live statehood and who understand statehood, would be allowed to participate because he is such an ardent supporter of statehood. And since they live in a State, it seems to me they would be voting for statehood because that is what they want, because they already live in a State and they want everything that he already wants for the people of Puerto Rico. Why deny those very Puerto Ricans born on that island the opportunity to participate when they live in the United States already in a State and understand this better? Let us bring the community together. Let us bring us all together, because I think that that is what is really vitally important. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today to speak for the 100,000-plus Puerto Ricans that live in my district in Chicago who really want to participate in this process. Let me end by saying that I think the work that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) has done has raised a lot of other issues. We will disagree, however, and I must state this, that it is not statutory. That the 14th Amendment of our Constitution applies to the gentleman, applies to all of those Puerto Ricans, and that we should not use any tactics in order to do that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that if there is no objection, that we vote on my amendment to the Serrano amendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, first let me say to my good and distinguished friend, the gentleman from New York, that I would not offer this amendment if I thought it was frivolous, if I thought it was silly, if I thought it was somehow just something that I woke up in the morning and thought it was the right thing to do. No, I say to the gentleman from New York, I think this amendment is very appropriate. But I want to thank the gentleman. He has been here for a long time. I went to a hearing back in New York when the gentleman first got elected to Congress, and I traveled from Chicago to New York City, and I remember the gentleman was chairing that meeting. The interesting thing about that meeting that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) was chairing was that it was bilingual, it was both in English and Spanish, something unfortunately that these proceedings are not, because he wished at that time for everybody to understand, because I know that the gentleman understood that Puerto Ricans spoke Spanish and that was their language. So we do not do that for that purpose. I will say one thing, we will ask for a vote on this, but we will ask for a voice vote on this amendment. We will ask--I told the gentleman from New York when we were in the back that I would do that, that I would ask for a voice vote, so we can debate it. Now, having said that, and I hope any trepidation that the fine gentleman from New York might have that we could somehow stir this away, because the gentleman feels he has it, and I hope that at least, I really, sincerely hope that we get at least what the gentleman wants. Let me now refer back. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) said something that was really interesting. He said that when it came to Puerto Rico, they were born there. I do not remember that in Alaska we looked for former Alaskans that got to vote whether Alaska should become a State. I do not remember that we looked for everybody born in Hawaii in order for Hawaiians to make a decision whether we should become a State, or that we looked for former people that may have even fought at the Alamo before we said that those are all the people from Texas, before they become a State. But we are doing it, and rightfully so, for the people of Puerto Rico, because it is a Nation and it is different. That is why, I say to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), by his very words, I continue to tell him, he cannot treat this merely as a territory, as another group of people, some chattel that happened to have come to the United States because of a victory during the Spanish-American war. It is a people, it is a Nation, and we should be careful and diligent in ensuring that as we proceed, we make sure that the decisions that we make are going to be good for all of us. That is why I suggest that we extend the amendment. What does my amendment do? My amendment says the following. Let me explain it as simply as I can say it. See, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jose Serrano), if he has a brother, because his parents moved to the United States of America from the nation of Puerto Rico, his brother's birth certificate says the same mom, same dad, Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico, just as his, except, of course, his would have been in the Bronx, maybe his brother, and his would have been in Puerto Rico. So you would have two brothers who have an exact same claim, and using your very expressions, that they came here because of political persecution, the one brother who came here because of political persecution and may have returned and be living in Puerto Rico today, something that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) has decided not to do, he may be living there today, right? We cannot figure this out. So I am simply saying, let the family, and I know that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) said that every cousin, uncle, but no, that is not what I am saying. In my family, I married Soraida and she has 14 brothers and sisters. Nine of them were born on the island of Puerto Rico. Because of economic and social conditions, the nine of them moved with mom and dad to Chicago. The other five subsequently were born. Their birth certificates are identical. They are Puerto Rican nationals, both born in Puerto Rico. The only difference is five birth certificates say Cook County. So we can prove it. It is not like I am saying anybody. In order to vote, you have to have a birth certificate, and where it says ``Mom born in Puerto Rico, dad born in Puerto Rico,'' you get to vote; not the children, not like my daughter and the children of other generations. Just so that those generations, that immediate generation that has such close ties can vote. Let me just tell the Members why. Many Puerto Ricans move back to the island of Puerto Rico.

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I do not think I can proceed. The gentleman is amending his amendment, am I correct?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. I had asked earlier of the Chairman if I would be guaranteed an opportunity to offer my amendment, and the Chairman said yes. I hope that that will still stand.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, this is academic debate we are having here. We are asked to believe the following: That Mr. Serrano, who was born in Puerto Rico, who came to the United States of America, who was allowed into the halls of this Congress with full voting privileges, that his citizenship can be revoked; that there is a court in this Nation, a Congress, a President and a court in this Nation, that will affirm that. We know that that is just never going to happen. Let us face it. Raise your hand anyone who believes that will ever, ever happen. It will not. Think about it. You have tens of thousands of men and women who served in the Armed Forces with honorable discharges. What court in this Nation would take away their citizenship? They paid taxes, they were born, their birth certificates. Think about it. It is not going to happen. So let us not play the game of fear with the people of Puerto Rico and inject fear. That is what is wrong with this bill, that we put them into fear. It is never going to happen, and we all know it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, there is not a limit of time anymore for amendments?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will I still be able to offer my substitute amendment after the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) finishes with his amendment?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very enlightening and interesting debate, because as so eloquently has been stated by the chairman of the Committee on Resources, he has basically paraphrased that there are nationals, that there is a nationality, that Puerto Rico is a nation and that the people born in that nation should determine the future of that nation. I think if for no other reason, this has accomplished very, very much. Because when the Serrano amendment, which I hope is adopted later on, and I have an amendment to it, when it is adopted, it will say that the people of Puerto Rico are a duly constituted people born on that island and born on that island of a nation of people, and so they should participate, much as the Algerians who lived in France participated, much as the Irish who lived in Great Britain participated, much as the people of all of the other countries colonized. What we have stated here is Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. Therefore, that all members of that colony. So Puerto Rico is a nation. That by accepting, and I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for finally so eloquently stating that point here today, because I think that that is an important part. Remember, that that is what we are doing, bringing two nations together. We should do it very, very carefully, with consultation and making sure that each partner understands what we are doing. Let me just take exception once again, because I see that there is one thing that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) all agree with in unison. That is, that Puerto Rican citizenship if you are born on the island of Puerto Rico is statutory. I think that is wrong. I think that is wrong. Let me just state for the record that the Immigration Nationality Act of 1945 tracked from the language of the 1940 act, it says that all those who live in the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, are nationals of that country and born in the United States. Once again what we are saying is that if you are born in Puerto Rico, like my dad, like my wife, that her citizenship if you adopt this Young bill can be taken away. Let me just make two points. A, does anybody really believe in this room that this Congress would ever take away the citizenship of 3.8 million people? Does anybody in this room think that will ever happen? Absolutely not. No President would ever sign that legislation. If no one would ever do it and no court would ever sanction it, why is it that we are saying it is statutory? On the one hand we say it is statutory. On the other hand I am sure that we will all dive on the blade so that that citizenship would never be taken away. I am sure every Member here would say, ``But I would never allow that to happen.'' If you are never going to allow it to happen and no President would sign it, then let us not make it statutory.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So I would get my own 5 minutes? So it is my understanding, and I thank the Chairman for his indulgence, and excuse my lack of knowledge of the procedures here. I want to make sure, because what I would like to do is make sure that the gentleman from New York can have his amendment. I just want to make sure that at some point, because of the half hour, I either get to introduce this as an amendment or as a substitute and that that will be guaranteed by the House that I can do that.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And in order for me to offer an amendment to the amendment, I would need to get someone who controls time within that 30 minutes or I would never be able to offer it? And I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the 15 minutes in opposition. Parliamentary Inquiries

Luis Gutiérrez

Speeches

Manage analytics