Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, we will be able to ask for a vote on this perfecting amendment later on. I have not relinquished my right.

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will close by making the following arguments. I think they have not been refuted here today. In a book written in 1978, Statehood is for the Poor, written and authored by the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), he stated clearly and unequivocally that language and culture are nonnegotiable. Now, when the campaign goes to Puerto Rico, I want to make sure that if that is what they are saying to the people of Puerto Rico, that that is what this Congress is guaranteeing them. Let us not let them be under any illusions about what is going to be. Since that is exactly what has been proposed by the Statehood Party and repeated so many times, I want those statehooders who have applauded, who have cheered, who have cherished statehood and want to preserve their language and culture, to have exactly what they have demanded and asked and rallied for. So, therefore, in the name of self-determination, I ask that this amendment be adopted so that we respect the wishes of the Statehood Party. We should do no less. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on this perfecting amendment and make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this bill is supposed to be about self-determination. Self-determination should be informed. The Statehood Party in Puerto Rico has promised statehood. This means that under statehood, Puerto Rico gets to keep its culture and its language, and I agree with the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) that that is the kind of statehood that we should have. As a matter of fact, and I quote from a book, Statehood is for the Poor, published in 1978 by the current Resident Commissioner, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo): Our culture and our language are not negotiable. That is published in Statehood is for the Poor by the Resident Commissioner. And I believe that the people of Puerto Rico have come to understand and to accept that that is the way that statehood would be proposed and that their culture and their language would be something that is protected. Puerto Rico has spoken Spanish for over 500 years. When I get to Puerto Rico and see my parents, we speak in Spanish. When I go to a courtroom in Puerto Rico, it is in Spanish. When I register a deed, it is in Spanish. When a police officer pulls somebody over for going a little too quickly, the citation is in Spanish, and the subsequent sentencing, I assure my colleagues, is in Spanish, and you better have a lawyer that can speak Spanish. When you to go school and you graduate, your diploma is printed in Spanish. Every record, including your birth certificate, is in Spanish. Spanish is the language of the people. Are we talking about civil rights? Let us not talk about imposing another language. Go to Puerto Rico today. Go to the Veterans Administration or Social Security Administration office in Puerto Rico today, and everyone will speak to you in Spanish, unlike Chicago or New York or Oklahoma, because Spanish is the language there. And since statehood has been proposed in Puerto Rico, the culture and the language are nonnegotiable. I think we should guarantee that to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the Resident Commissioner. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Solomon amendment. I think we have heard here time and time again that when called to duty, drafted, called to serve, there is no litmus test, there is no test of language for people. Indeed, the 65th Infantry served with distinction and honor and valor in the Korean conflict, and almost everybody spoke one language as the troops were ordered into battle, and that language was Spanish. We should not raise this as an issue here today. The language of the people of Puerto Rico is Spanish. We should respect that. Just as I have said before, it would be detrimental, it would be detrimental to attach to statehood an English language requirement, because then people who would want to become a State would say, well, I cannot accept it that way. It is wrong. We understand what the language of our people is. Look in Puerto Rico today. From kindergarten through 12th grade of high school, English is taught, but people have preserved their Spanish language. Let us respect them.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would like to sit down and let the Members figure out the rest of it. My only concern is that because of the gentleman's ranking and seniority here that I be allowed, if the gentleman just says, ``Congressman, I will make sure you get your 10 minutes,'' and the gentleman will allow me, and I will limit my perfecting amendment to 10 minutes, and then we can proceed with the rest of this. The gentleman's word is very valuable to me, and I will just take that. Then I can sit down and let these gentlemen figure out the rest of it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the only other amendment. I have a perfecting amendment. Obviously the Burton substitute would go first, but I have a perfecting amendment. So if we could reach an agreement so that my perfecting amendment would get 10 minutes of time, I would not ask for an extraordinary amount of time, so that I could have the perfecting amendment and reserve at least 10 minutes of time outside of the gentleman's hour that he already has. Then we could all have a unanimous consent, and I think we might be able to figure this out.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) was very eloquent when he spoke about the thousands of Puerto Ricans that have given their lives in the armed forces. And the gentleman ended his statement by saying they should be able to vote for statehood. Indeed, they should. That is not the question here. The question is should not they be able to vote for other statuses also, and should we stack the deck against them and in favor of statehood? Listen. I want everybody to understand this. We cannot have self-determination if the people who are going to have the plebiscite do not agree with the definitions, if we say to those people when they walk into the ballot box, and this is what we are asking them to do: statehood, citizenship guaranteed; commonwealth, maybe, including those thousands and thousands that have served in the Armed Forces that are citizens today. That is weighting it against, and it is unfair. So if we are going to bring up the courage, if we are going to bring up the commitment and the service, let them decide in a fair manner what their future is. And I remind my colleagues, this is not a group of people. It is not a territory. It is a nation. They feel that they are a nation. Puerto Rico is a separate and distinct country.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Let us be clear. The gentleman is right. We are making the decisions because that is what is happening. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 856 because this is the exact opposite of what its supporters pretend it to be. H.R. 856 is supposed to be a bill for self-determination, not for statehood, which my friend from Rhode Island has every ability, he is for statehood. That is what he wants. If I were for statehood and I was willing to gamble everything for statehood, I would be for this bill because this is a guarantee that statehood is going to win the plebiscite. I can understand that. Let us be clear. Now I want to be clear about my position, also, Mr. Chairman. I am for independence for Puerto Rico. I am for independence for Puerto Rico. There was a time that the statehooders and the commonwealthers and the whole system would jail people like me for being for independence for Puerto Rico. That is why there are not more people for the independence of Puerto Rico. As they jailed the people of your former fatherland, Ireland, for wishing the independence and the sovereignty of that nation. I would suggest to everybody what we can oppose, and it is wrong. Supporters of this bill have approached my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, and told them that the passage of this bill only means that Congress authorizes the people of Puerto Rico to express their preference for political status among 3 options. Some supporters of the bill have played a very cynical game of telling some of my Democrats, ``Vote for this bill, and you will have 6 new Democratic Members of the House and 2 new Democratic Senators. That is why we should vote for the bill.'' That is being and that should be said here, because that is part of the debate and the conversation, and we should fully explain to the people of Puerto Rico how it is that this Congress is arriving at a decision to make their self- determination. At the same time, some of the very same people have circulated a memorandum full of very strange statistics. Mr. Chairman, beware of strange numbers for they could be telling stranger lies. It is a memorandum entitled ``Puerto Rico, Republican Territory,'' in which some magician tries to convince the uninformed that Puerto Rico will produce 6 Republican Congressmen and 2 Republican Senators. It sounds strange to me. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a Puerto Rican; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), of Puerto Rican descent; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano); and even the Resident Commissioner has decided to sit on our side of the aisle, the main proponent of this bill, and he is in the Democratic Caucus. Let us not play games with one side or the other getting some advantage over this, because that is not respectful. Mr. Chairman, this is a strange manner in which to conduct a serious debate on the future of a whole people. Self-determination is a serious matter. The sacred right of self- determination has to be exercised in a totally democratic, open and above-board fashion. The true sovereignty of any nation, and Puerto Rico is indeed a nation, rests with its people. I think that the Members of this Congress should understand what the people of Puerto Rico believe, because this is something that is going to affect them. They did a poll in Puerto Rico, El Nuevo Dia, that is The New Day, the largest paper of circulation in Puerto Rico; by the way, owned by a statehooder. They asked the people. On the nationality question, 65 percent of the people see themselves as Puerto Rican and not American, 65 percent of the people in Puerto Rico; 62 percent of the people consider their Nation to be Puerto Rico and not the United States. But at the same time, 75 percent consider their American citizenship to be very important. Strange, you say, that sounds like a contradiction. It is the contradiction of colonialism, obviously. But it is also what the authors of this understand very well. On the one hand, they tell you, Puerto Rico is not a nation, it is just a group of people. It is this little tropical island that sits out there somewhere in the Caribbean. But let me tell everybody in this room, the people of Puerto Rico which you are deciding today their options, consider themselves as a Nation. They consider to have a nationality, that nationality being Puerto Rican. You should understand that. You should understand that very, very clearly. At the same time they want to keep their American citizenship. I think that that is very clear. Just March 4, they asked the people of Puerto Rico what they think about the Young bill. They asked the people of Puerto Rico. They said 35 percent reject the Young bill, 33 percent support the Young bill, and another third do not have an opinion on the Young bill. It says if Puerto Ricans within the great diaspora of Puerto Rico, that is Puerto Ricans in the United States, do not get to vote on this, over half of them say we should reject the Young bill. That is the people of Puerto Rico. But let me go further, Mr. Chairman, because I think it is very, very, very important that we understand what is going on here. Look, there is a value I hold even dearer than my wish for the independence of Puerto Rico, and that is the respect that I have for the true aspirations of the Puerto Rican people. That is their inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico to their self- determination. That is precisely why I oppose this bill so strongly. H.R. 856 is exactly the opposite. It is a bill, read it, it is a bill that is cleverly designed to obtain an artificial majority for statehood for Puerto Rico and to lead Congress down an irreversible path, first through the incorporation of Puerto Rico, and then to the admission of Puerto Rico as the 51st State of this great union. In fact, some opponents of H.R. 856 call this a trap. Now, Congress makes an offer of statehood to the people of Puerto Rico. The only requirement, the only requirement, is that a simple majority vote in favor of statehood. But the ballot is so stacked in favor of statehood that I am going to read a quote, and, please, listen to this quote: The Resident Commissioner, Carlos Romero-Barcelo, said, ``Victory for statehood is guaranteed because the definition of ``commonwealth'' does not include fiscal autonomy and does not include U.S. citizenship, a guarantee. The definition of Commonwealth in this bill is that of a territory. We just left the word ``territory'' out.'' Quote-end quote of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico here. So I am not saying this bill is stacked in favor of statehood; the very proponent, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, has stated this publicly, and that is wrong, to play politics, partisan politics. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), because both gentlemen have been decent with me. When I asked to participate in their hearings, they both know that they had to override objections of certain Members to allow me to participate in their committee, but they did. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) have always listened to me, have always come and said, ``Luis, what do you think? Let us talk about this.'' I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) tried to fix this. I know he did. He did make every attempt to fix this, and I know that he went to everybody and tried to bring people together. He testified so yesterday, and I know it to be a fact. Unfortunately, it was not able to be done. It was not able to be done. This has to be a process of consensus, of building people together. Mr. Chairman, do you know something? That is why I did not yield, because when I asked for the opportunity to speak about this issue, I was objected to time and time again. I will respect the wishes of those who wish to speak to this issue that have respected the wishes of the people of Puerto Rico and all Members of this House, but do not expect treatment from me which others have disregarded for others. Once the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood under this rather unfair game plan, the Commonwealth Party has said it cannot participate in the plebiscite. That is going to be a problem. You have got about 48 percent of the people who say if you do it this way, we are not going to participate in this thing. Now, I am going to make one last statement and then reserve the balance of my time. Look, this is serious. This is serious. If you approve this Young bill, do you know what you have said? You have said that 3.8 million Puerto Ricans do not have the protection of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. You have said that their American citizenship is not guaranteed. I will tell you what people will say. They will never take it away. This Congress would never take an action. Do you know something? My dad did not get to see me until I was a year old, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), because when he was called to duty, he served. He served, Mr. Chairman. How can we say that my dad and tens of thousands of other Puerto Ricans who have served this Nation, right, that their citizenship is statutory, can be taken away from them at a whim of Congress? I do not believe that. As a matter of fact, in the 1950 Nationality Act, this Congress approved something that says the 50 states and Puerto Rico, anyone born there, is protected by the 14th Amendment and are citizens of this country. That is what the 1950 Nationality Act says. So do not come back here and say that commonwealth is statutory citizenship, because, you know something? I want Puerto Rico to be a free and independent nation, and in that I disagree with my colleague, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo). The gentleman wants it to be assimilated and a state, but I think it is important, it is important, that the people of Puerto Rico have the definitions that they can have. Lastly, in 1993, when the Resident Commissioner's party was in power in Puerto Rico, the Statehood Party, they controlled the two houses, the House and the Senate, and they controlled the governorship. They had a plebiscite in Puerto Rico. Why, when they controlled all the rules in Puerto Rico, was the Commonwealth status not not a territory? Why was not the citizenship not statutory when that came up? Why is it? As a matter of fact, in 1990 we unanimously accepted some definitions here, 1990, and none of these considerations. Do you want to know why? Because they want to stack the cards. If the people of Puerto Rico want statehood, I will be the first one to come here and support statehood for Puerto Rico, but it has got to be a fair process. People can laugh and people can chide, because they do not understand the seriousness of this matter. This is about the 14th Amendment. This is about my dad, this is about my wife, Soraida, born in Moca, Puerto Rico; and I do not intend to go back to her tomorrow and say her citizenship is any less than mine. She was born a citizen of this country, and I am going to protect her right. It is not statutory, it is protected. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me explain to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) why we are deciding this bill. We are deciding this bill because, unlike the description that the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) has given, we did not welcome the United States to Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States during the Spanish-American Civil War.

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

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. If the Chairman will, please, I do have a very good point. This is very serious. We are violating the rules of the House, Mr. Chairman. This is being handed out against our rules.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, before we vote, there have been some pretty scandalous things occurring.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill but in support of the rule. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), for having an open rule today, because, finally, we are going to have some debate on this very critical issue, debate that I must say that on numerous occasions I, as a Member of this Congress, who represents over 150,000 Puerto Ricans in my district, was not allowed to participate in that debate. I think that was wrong. And now we want to have a debate here. So I want to thank both of the gentlemen for that. I only come to raise one issue right now. I have a very deep preoccupation at this point, concern, and that is that all of these proceedings are being conducted in English. All of these proceedings are being conducted in English, and yet the people of Puerto Rico are the ones who are going to have to interpret everything that this Congress is doing. Many of them are not going to be able to understand what is going on here today, Mr. Speaker. I know some of my colleagues will smile and chuckle, but it really is not anything funny. It is serious. People should understand, American citizens should understand what it is this Congress is doing in terms of their position. Let me give my colleagues an example, gentlemen. If I walk into a theater, a movie theater today anywhere in Puerto Rico, anywhere in Puerto Rico, there are subtitles to everything said in English, in every movie theater in Puerto Rico. Why? So that the people can grasp what is going on in the movie. Many times I would laugh two seconds ahead of the rest of the audience because by the time they read the translation, I am an English native speaker, and I would understand that. So I bring that as an issue that even in movie theaters, even in entertainment, and this is much more important than that. Look, if we were in the House of Representatives in San Juan, Puerto Rico, all of this would be going on in Spanish. So the legislators, when they legislate in Puerto Rico, do it all in Spanish. If we were in the Senate in Puerto Rico it would all be being conducted in Spanish so that the people would understand the proceedings of the representatives they elect. If we were in a courtroom, the judge and the lawyers would all be speaking in Spanish. If we were buying a piece of property today, we would register that piece of property, not in English, but in Spanish. So I would like to ask the chairman of the Rules Committee to see if there is some way that we might not have some simultaneous broadcast of this, a way in which this House of Representatives could translate so that the people of Puerto Rico can be fully informed of the farce of self-determination which is being perpetuated upon them with this bill here today.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for yielding to me. I want to say two things on behalf of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and myself. We do not intend to call for any recorded votes, at least on our amendments, any subsequent recorded votes on our amendments. Just so that the gentleman will know, we will debate them but not ask for recorded votes on them, A. Although we promised the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) that we would offer no more than 12, we will offer no more than 5 additional amendments.

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure how this all works. I understand that the gentleman from New York has an amendment and I also have an amendment to his amendment. When does that happen in terms of the procedure here today?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today there will be a rule taken up on the Young bill, a bill that is supposed to deal with the self- determination of the people of Puerto Rico. It is really a statehood bill. It is a bill that will guarantee statehood. In 1993, as many of my colleagues remember, the people of Puerto Rico had a plebescite, independence, Commonwealth and statehood. We all remember the headlines, the headlines read blaring across our Nation, Puerto Rico rejects statehood. Now we are going to come back 5 years later, and since they lost it that time, we are going to write a statehood bill to make sure that that is the option. It is wrong. I am going to give everybody one example. My father did not see me until I was 1 year old. The reason was because he was serving in the Armed Forces of this Nation. He was born on the island of Puerto Rico. He served in the Armed Forces of this Nation. Under the bill we are going to consider tomorrow, we are going to state that my father's citizenship is statutory. Now, when my father goes and votes, and he likes the Commonwealth, he disagrees with his son about a lot of things, and that is one thing we disagree about, he is going to want to vote for a Commonwealth. He served in the Armed Forces of this Nation, an American citizen. When he goes to vote, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is going to guarantee him his American citizenship is statehood. You want an election that is going to guarantee a false vote, that is going to be tomorrow. Let the people of Puerto Rico decide.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my support to ``A Season for Nonviolence'', an international grassroots movement in commemoration of the 50th and 30th anniversaries of the assassinations of Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. ``A Season for Nonviolence'' envisions a better world for all human beings. This movement's actions are based on values firmly rooted in our society's diverse beliefs and traditions. To this end, ``Gandhi/ King: A Season for Nonviolence'' applies its efforts and resources to identifying and bringing into full public focus the rich spectrum of grassroots projects and programs by individuals and organizations who are promoting a culture of peace. During the period between January 30, 1998 and April 4, 1998 groups throughout the world will sponsor projects and programs to create greater awareness and consciousness of the principles and practices of nonviolence, including symposia on interfaith and inter-racial healing; days of dialogue, prayer and meditation; artistic and cultural events; essay contests and special activities for children. In my home city of Chicago, many groups are working to focus the hearts and minds of our citizens on nonviolence in recognition and celebration of ``A Season for Nonviolence.'' I commend the efforts of all of the groups and individuals in Chicago and across America who are dedicating their time and resources to this noble goal. I am very pleased and honored to recognize them today.