Nydia Velázquez

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Towns. Today is a very significant day for the residents of my congressional district and for the constituents of Congressman Towns. We have worked tirelessly for years with the communities in Brooklyn surrounding the Gowanus Expressway to find the best solution to the congestion and dilapidated condition of this major highway and key component in the New York area's transportation network. These residents have patiently asked that a full study of alternatives to the planned reconstruction of the Gowanus Expressway be conducted. For the economic viability of the area and the environment health of the families living near this planned reconstruction, it is crucial that the impact on the surrounding communities be adequately assessed. For these reasons, I thank the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, particularly Chairman Shuster, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Oberstar, and Ranking Member Rahall, for understanding these concerns and supporting our proposal. The Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act finally responds to the pleas of these New York neighborhoods. H.R. 2400 authorizes $24 million dollars for New York State to conduct a Major Investment Study (MIS) of the Gowanus Expressway Corridor. None of these funds may be used to supplement or finance any part of the currently proposed rehabilitation and reconstruction of the highway. The intent of the funding is to provide for an MIS to determine the short and long term social, economic and environmental benefits and costs of different alternatives to rebuilding the current elevated highway--including a tunnel. The MIS will include Phase I to IV civil engineering and design documents so as to accurately determine the initial and long term fiscal, environmental, social and economic costs of replacing the current elevated structure of the Gowanus with a tunnel. This analysis will include a complete engineering study, including hydro-geologic study and the cost of tunnel connectivity with bridges and tunnels adjacent to the corridor. Using the methodology devised in the ``West Brooklyn Traffic Calming Study'' CMAQ proposal, the MIS will devise mitigation measures to reduce current and future traffic diversions from the Gowanus Expressway in adjacent neighborhoods. Additionally, the MIS will include an assessment of service improvements to all subway lines needed to produce an increase in ridership and reduction in motor vehicle traffic in the Gowanus corridor before, during and after the reconstruction of the highway. Upon completion of the MIS and tunnel alternative study, any remaining authorized funds should be held for the future planning and design phase of the Gowanus project. The Gowanus MIS Project is part of a sound national and regional transportation policy. With this transportation proposal, the Gowanus neighborhoods are one step closer to real answers to this long-standing local transportation problem. This proposal is not only about transportation--it is also about the economic development and empowerment future of our communities.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Department of Transportation DBE program has provided over 20,000 firms with contracts worth over $2 billion in 1996 alone. As a result, tens of thousands of jobs have been created, providing economic development in cities, rural areas and in communities desperately in need of hope and opportunity. This important program has provided opportunity for women and minorities working in nontraditional fields like construction and deserves our support. As the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, I can tell my colleagues that this program is effective, valuable, and most importantly, it is fair. I must remind my colleagues that this is not a quota program; it is not a set-aside. It is an economic development program that is goal-based and focused on outcomes. It uses competitive bidding that includes white males, minorities and women business owners competing for transportation contracts. This program enjoys bipartisan support in this body, including the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the subcommittee of jurisdiction. Recently the other body overwhelmingly rejected a similar amendment to destroy this valuable and necessary program. This amendment threatens to undermine a bill that will help us meet the goal of rebuilding this Nation's infrastructure and providing for our transportation needs. Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues engage in rhetoric about empowerment and opportunity. Well, this program is all about opportunity and empowerment. By providing opportunity in the transportation bidding process, small local firms are creating jobs, teaching skills and reaching the tax base and helping communities literally rebuild themselves. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act and the millions of Americans who are members of federal credit unions. Access to financial services and opportunity is important to low and moderate income communities like the one I represent. H.R. 1151 ensures that the greatest number of people can enjoy the benefits offered by the credit union system. I urge all of you to support this important legislation. Crest unions are the main source of capital in many communities. In New York more than 3 million people rely on credit unions and the credit union system for their basic financial services. The hopes and dreams of families from the Lower East Side of Manhattan to Greenpoint in Brooklyn are built with the help of their local credit union. H.R. 1151 allows those hope and dreams to be realized. Federally chartered credit unions date back to the Depression when the financial services industry was not able to make small loans to workers. Whether it is buying a new house or sending children to college, credit unions are still often able to meet their customers' needs at a lower cost than other financial services institutions. In fact, millions of customers are still attracted to credit unions because of low fees and good rates on loans and savings. Consumers must continue to have that viable choice. Yet, after a Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the field of credit union membership, the fate of thousands of members hangs in the balance. Only by clarifying the definition of the membership provisions of the Federal Credit Union Act, can we ensure that all credit unions continue to serve their customers. Join me in passing the Credit Union Membership Access Act and make sure that we provide all people the right to chose their financial services institution. On behalf of New York's 700 credit unions and their 3.5 million members I urge all of you to support H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Women of Great Esteem, an organization that supports the advancement of women in a multi-cultural environment. This worthy group assists the homeless, works to combat violence in the community, provides educational training, and conducts AIDS outreach. Each year, Women of Great Esteem honors women who embody these goals of service to others. This week, seven women who have dedicated their lives to the community will be honored at the Second Annual Women of Great Esteem Awards. The Honorable Una S. Clarke, Dr. Rosalind Jeffries, Dr. Karen McCarthy Brown, Rev. Barbara Pennant, Ms. Waveny Joseph, Ms. Alourdes C. Lovinski and Ms. Ivonne Mercado-Ford each deserve our sincerest thanks for their commitment to bettering the lives of women everywhere. They have challenged the community to recognize the appreciate diversity and affirm the gifts, talents and dignity of all women. It is a great pleasure to congratulate these women for their achievement, and I too express my gratitude to Women of Great Esteem for their valuable service.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3412. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Small Business for bringing this legislation to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which makes corrections to the Small Business Investment Act and the Small Business Investment Company Program. There is no question that the value of small business investment companies has been felt across this Nation. SBICs have invested nearly $15 billion in long-term debt and equity capital to over 90,000 small businesses. Over the years, SBICs have given companies like Intel Corporation, Federal Express and America Online the push they needed to succeed. The result has been the creation of millions of jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenue. The bill before us today expands on that legacy by taking a good program and making it better. The passage of H.R. 3412 will make the SBIC program even more efficient and responsive to the needs of small entrepreneurs. The changes made by this legislation will serve a number of important purposes. By giving the SBIC program greater flexibility in issuing investment guarantees, small businesses will be assured lower interest rates. Second, H.R. 3412 clarifies SBA's role in ensuring equitable distribution and management of its participating securities to SBICs of all sizes. Finally, the bill confirms that small businesses, regardless of their chosen business form, are eligible for SBIC financing. These changes are part of an ongoing process that will enable us to provide creative financing to more small businesses more efficiently. Last year alone SBICs invested over $2.4 billion in over 2,500 small businesses. This bill will allow us to expand the scope of the SBIC program even further, allowing us to create more jobs and provide even greater economic opportunity to our Nation's small entrepreneurs. I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman in support of the proposed corrections, and I am happy to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3412. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Puerto Rico's greatest athletes and role models, Heriberto Cruz. Mr. Cruz is a shining example of someone who has developed his talents to the fullest and has given back to the community tenfold. We can all be inspired by his example. Mr. Cruz, now living in Brooklyn, New York, was born in Puerto Rico. Starting at a young age, he excelled in track and field events and quickly became a star. As a student at the University of Puerto Rico, he was the only athlete in the history of intercollegiate games in Puerto Rico to win the Best Athlete award 4 years in a row. Also, while at school, he participated and excelled at a number of international competitions, such as the Central American Games, the Pan American Games, and even the 1964 Olympics in Tokyo. Mr. Cruz received recognition for his many accomplishments when he was inducted into the Puerto Rican Sports Hall of Fame in 1991. Mr. Cruz's success off the track matches his success on the track. Since retiring from the sport, Mr. Cruz has become a teacher and a marvellous example for the youth of Brooklyn, applying the same lessons he learned on the track to everyday life. His example teaches kids always to strive, to work hard and play fair to succeed in life. I urge my colleagues to recognize Mr. Cruz's excellence both on and off the field and join me in paying tribute to this excellent athlete and role model.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, Puerto Rico is a nation, a Latin American nation and a Caribbean nation. It is a historically constituted stable ethnic community with a common culture, a common history, a common economic life, and its own language, Spanish. But more importantly, there is a common psychology of a people who are unique in their customs, traditions, music and way of being. We call it Boricua. It is unfortunate that the sponsors of this bill have ignored this fact. Puerto Rico has been long recognized by the courts, Congress and international countries as being a distinct nation. Puerto Rico's special status as a separate nation under the sovereignty of the United States derives from an extensive history of legal precedents. The Supreme Court recognized Puerto Rico as a distinct nation when, in the early part of the century, it decided that Puerto Rico was in fact an unincorporated territory which never intended to become a State. Congress recognized Puerto Rico as a distinct Nation in 1917 when it extended U.S. citizenship to Puerto Rican nationals. This is a national issue which deals with the rights of the Puerto Rican nation to self-determination. The island existed as its own nation well before they were annexed in 1898 by the United States. The people of Puerto Rico who are the subject of this pending legislation already consider themselves a nation and are in fact a nation who are not willing to renounce their own culture, their own heritage and, most of all, their own language in order to join the Union. Our amendment to the ``findings'' section makes Congress aware that Puerto Rico is sociologically and culturally a Caribbean and Latin American nation. It is made up of people of European, African and native ethnicities with a distinct culture which, unlike several States, has Spanish as a common language. I would like to correct the gentleman from Puerto Rico who said that we embraced the English language in 1902. No, that was not so. Let us set the record straight. English was imposed upon the people of Puerto Rico in 1902 and still to this day, even with that imposition, the large majority of the people of Puerto Rico do not speak English. Mr. Chairman, Puerto Ricans are very proud of their cultural heritage and of their Puerto Rican national identity. This pride for the homeland transcends barriers and oceans. As Puerto Ricans leave the island, they take with them the intense pride they feel for their nation. Puerto Rico, the nation, shares common geographical spaces, a long history, its own economic life and its very distinct Caribbean, Latin American culture, but above all a common language, Spanish. Puerto Ricans have been speaking Spanish for 500 years, the first 100 under Spanish rule and the last century under American rule. Its closest neighbors in the Caribbean all speak Spanish. Language, history and culture are distinct characteristics that all point to Puerto Rico being a nation. This amendment will make Congress appreciate and adopt that reality. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a clarification. It is important for Puerto Ricans in the mainland to participate, because, in fact, Puerto Ricans in the United States, they go back and forth to Puerto Rico. But there are many Puerto Ricans here who have suffered political persecution in Puerto Rico, and they are in the United States because of the political environment in Puerto Rico. In fact, when I was a professor at the University of Puerto Rico, I was politically persecuted. I decided to leave the island. I should have the right. This is not any State election. This is a unique and special election on the future and the political destiny of Puerto Rico. Of course I should have the right to have a say in that determination.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a new finding to the bill. It recognizes the separate and distinct nature of Puerto Rican citizenship. The amendment provides that on November 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico decided that there exists Puerto Rican citizenship which is separate and distinct from the United States citizenship. The court further found that persons born in Puerto Rico who are Puerto Rican citizens may not be denied the right to vote in Puerto Rico if they are not United States citizens. Juan Mari Bras, the subject of this lawsuit, has challenged us to take a close look at the nature of Puerto Rico nationality and citizenship. The proponents of the bill insist that the Puerto Rican people have no rights other than what Congress has granted them. This reading of history is outright wrong and deceiving. This deliberate omission of fact from the findings is yet another example of the misleading hand behind the drafting of this bill. By omitting this finding, we are ignoring the fundamental protections of international human rights as well as the U.S. Constitution. Almost 50 years ago, several years after the creation of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a treaty signed and ratified by the United States Congress, provided under Article 15 that everyone has a right to nationality. Furthermore, Article 19 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, as well as article 20 of the American Convention of Human Rights, recognized this fundamental international right and protection. The existence of a separate and distinct Puerto Rican citizenship and that the Puerto Rican people form a Nation cannot be questioned. The Puerto Rican people have a distinct language and culture and a defined geographical territory, and it has been self-governing since the 1950s through the commonwealth relationship entered with mutual consent with the United States. Neither the Jones Act nor the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act took Puerto Ricans' inherent right to their own nationality and to be citizens of their nation. The Supreme Court, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court's recent ruling confirms this historical and legal interpretation. Mr. Chairman, we should not approve a bill with such a misinterpretation of Puerto Rico's nationality and citizenship rights. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for his leadership on this issue. This amendment, the Gutierrez amendment, builds on his excellent work. The Gutierrez amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) would allow all Puerto Ricans to participate in this historic plebiscite. The problem that the gentleman from Puerto Rico has, it seems like he does not understand, this is about self-determination. This is not about a State election. We know that the people from New York have to vote on any election in New York and that they cannot vote on any election that takes place in Pennsylvania. But this is not about any State election, this is about the political future of Puerto Rico. In fact, we Puerto Ricans, we are only 3 million Puerto Ricans in the United States. For the most part Puerto Ricans have not participated in the electoral process here in the United States. Because of the close ties that they still have with Puerto Rico, they follow more closely the political situation in Puerto Rico than they do in terms of what is going on in the United States. So it is important that Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico participate and the Puerto Ricans in the mainland and their children participate. Some of them are here because they left the island because of economic reasons. Some Puerto Ricans are here not because they wanted to be here, but because of political persecution. If that is the case, they are entitled to have a say in this self-determination process. It will be unfair to deny it, to the entire Puerto Rican community, to participate in this process. We are a nation. The United States recognizes that Puerto Rico is a nation, that what happens there affects us, and this is an important process for all the Puerto Ricans here and in Puerto Rico. I would say, I would urge my colleagues to allow this to be a fair process for all Puerto Rican Americans living in Puerto Rico and in the mainland. They should have a right to determine the political future of Puerto Rico. At least let us make this legislation better by allowing them to participate in the final outcome of Puerto Rico. This is a legislation that has been drafted so that we push one side of the political formulas in Puerto Rico. It is a legislation that supports statehood for Puerto Rico. Allow all Puerto Ricans to participate and to say ``no'' to statehood and ``yes'' to the democratic process.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, today has been an education for a lot of Americans watching this debate. Perhaps some people have learned about the passions surrounding this debate. Maybe some people have come to understand at least a little bit how proud the people of Puerto Rico are to be American citizens, how proud we are to live in a democracy in which the concept of free and open debate not only survives but thrives. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I am a product of that freedom. I am an American citizen born on the island of Puerto Rico, came to the mainland, was elected to Congress and stand before this body a full- fledged voting Member of this great legislative body. I have a great respect for this institution, but I am concerned that a process is about to be imposed on the people of Puerto Rico that is anything but democratic. I appreciate the intention of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to allow for the self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico. I have said this before and I will say it again. This bill is not about self-determination. It is about statehood. This bill is the product of a process that did not consult the very people it affects the most. In 1990 a commonwealth status definition was agreed to by the authors of H.R. 856 that was acceptable to the interested parties. The chairman of the Committee on Resources voted for the definition at the time. The current ranking member of the committee voted for the definition at that time. The definitions were acceptable to the parties that represented the statehood, commonwealth and independent options. But now it seems that the very definitions that were agreed to unanimously in the House of Representatives are not good enough. My colleagues seem intent now on forcing a vote on Puerto Rico that includes new definitions that many Puerto Ricans strongly disagree with. I will tell my colleagues that if they truly want self- determination for Puerto Rico, they will vote against this bill. I have heard my colleagues whom I have great respect for tell me that I should vote for independence. I have heard my colleagues tell me that I should vote for statehood. The fact is that I do not really have a choice, because if this plebiscite is held under this bill, we will see a 51st State, not because the people of Puerto Rico want to be a State. If they wanted that, they would have voted that way in the plebiscite of 1993. No, they will vote for statehood because under the definitions in this bill, commonwealth is not really an option. The authors of this bill have already said that their intention was to eliminate commonwealth status as a viable option and they were successful. In fact, the authors of this bill did not even offer commonwealth as an option in the plebiscite when they originally wrote this bill. Mr. Chairman, many people in this Chamber will tell us that they know what is best for the people of Puerto Rico. My response is why do we not let Puerto Rico decide what is best for Puerto Rico? Why do we not give our participants equal input in determining how a status bill should be written? Why do we not give all Puerto Ricans the right to vote on that question? I do not think that this House should be in the business of telling the people of Puerto Rico what is best for the people of Puerto Rico. They should make that decision. That is what self-determination is all about. That is why I ask my colleagues today to oppose this legislation.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for providing the only thing that is fair about this bill, that is, to provide a rule that will provide a free and open debate. That is what this bill needs. Mr. Speaker, this is not about self-determination. This is legislation that has been drafted by the statehood supporters. They were the ones who provided the definition for the commonwealth, indeed denying access to the democratic process by not allowing 48 percent of the people of Puerto Rico to participate in this debate. Forty-eight percent of the people of Puerto Rico supported commonwealth 5 years ago when the last plebiscite was held. But here we are presenting to the House floor legislation that will favor the statehood for Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. By voting on this legislation, we are imposing statehood to the people of Puerto Rico. It is a shame that today by providing in the commonwealth definition that citizenship is statutory, it is shameful, it is a lack of respect to the people of Puerto Rico, it is a lack of respect to the men and women who have died, who have fought defending this country, and it is to say to even the supporters of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, you cannot support the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico because we will take the citizenship away from you. This is not about self-determination. This is about making Puerto Rico the 51st State of the Nation.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to respond to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). The problem with this bill is due process. If we are talking here about self-determination, what we are saying is we are going to provide an open, democratic process for all the political parties and all the political sectors in Puerto Rico to participate. This legislation does not do that. Why, instead of writing the definition among the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo). In fact the president of the Popular Democratic Party knew about the new definition when he was approached by a reporter in Puerto Rico. The definition was rewritten when El Nuevo Dia, the largest newspaper in Puerto Rico, published a poll that said that 75 percent of the people of Puerto Rico favored a commonwealth option to be included in this bill.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strenuous opposition to H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Mr. Chairman, I think that we can all agree that the people of Puerto Rico must be given the right to self-determination. Unfortunately, H.R. 856 does not accomplish this. This bill is the product of a flawed legislative process that was designed to produce a very specific result. It was written without consulting all the parties that have a very real interest in its outcome. Proponents of H.R. 856 will try to say that this is a bill about self-determination. They are misleading their colleagues. Instead, H.R. 856 is a one-sided bill that is biased in favor of Puerto Rican statehood. It was written by the party that supports statehood in a way that promotes statehood without consulting all the participants in this very, very sensitive process. Under H.R. 856, Puerto Ricans will be given the choice between statehood, Commonwealth status or separate sovereignty, yet the Commonwealth option does not even guarantee citizenship. Why was citizenship not statutory back in 1990 when this House voted for this bill? I do not understand what happened since 1990. The authors of this legislation have said that our citizenship is statutory. Simply put, this means that our citizenship can be taken away. Tell that to the widows of men who fought and died in foreign wars so that citizenship of all Americans will be guaranteed. Mr. Chairman, tell that to my uncle, who fought valiantly in Korea for my colleagues and for me and for all Americans everywhere. Furthermore, if the people of Puerto Rico were to choose Commonwealth status, the bill will require further plebiscites until either statehood or separate sovereignty wins. This double standard applied to Commonwealth shows how the deck is stacked in favor of statehood. Under those conditions, not even the most forceful defender of Commonwealth status will vote for it. Many people forget that the original version of this bill did not even include a Commonwealth option. The party that supports Commonwealth status had no input in the drafting of H.R. 856 and has been repeatedly shut out of the process. Amazingly, the president of the Commonwealth party learned about the bill's definition of Commonwealth from a reporter. In fact, the statehood party had to rewrite the Commonwealth definition after a poll in a major Puerto Rican newspaper showed that 75 percent of Puerto Ricans supported the inclusion of a fair and balanced Commonwealth option, which this bill lacks. Today, and I repeat, today in Puerto Rico a new poll was released that shows that 65 percent of the people of Puerto Rico reject this bill. Mr. Chairman, it is an outrage to the democratic process that the definition for Commonwealth status was written by the very party that opposes it. It is like allowing Republicans to decide who could appear on a Democratic ballot. Five years ago, the people of Puerto Rico held a plebiscite on this issue and chose to maintain their current status. This is a situation that the losers in that contest do not seem willing to accept. Yet the outcome was an important one. It reaffirmed the permanent United States citizenship of the people of Puerto Rico that is guaranteed under the Constitution. It acknowledged the bilateral nature of the U.S.-Puerto Rico relationship. It confirmed the autonomous status of Puerto Rico, which can only be changed by mutual consent. The supporters of H.R. 856 are rejecting each and every one of these arguments when they say that citizenship can only be protected under statehood. Puerto Ricans are American citizens and we are proud to be American citizens. We do not need a plebiscite to prove that we are Americans any more than the people of Massachusetts or Virginia do. This bill is not the result of a democratic process. It does not define all the choices to the satisfaction of the very people who will participate in this plebiscite. By defeating this bill we will be sending a message that we truly honor the idea of self-definition for the people of Puerto Rico. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not be fooled by the arguments of the other side. A vote for H.R. 856 is a vote for statehood, not a vote for self-determination. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Solomon amendment. This amendment would outlaw elected officials from communicating with their constituents in Spanish. It will hamper the efforts of Federal agencies to collect taxes, inform citizens of their rights, and ensure due process, and it will endanger lives by making illegal anything but English to be used, even by police department and paramedics responding to life-threatening situations. This amendment is guaranteed to make government inefficient and ineffective and jeopardize the civil rights of some of society's most vulnerable members. I represent one of the highest non-English-speaking populations in the country. Under the Solomon amendment, I will be barred from communicating with the people of the Twelfth District of New York in a second language. This will keep me from doing what they elected me to do. This amendment is divisive and unnecessary. It does not belong on this legislation.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will make Spanish the official language of Puerto Rico. It will protect what already exists. If supporters of this bill are voting for self-determination for the Puerto Ricans, they will support allowing them to speak their own language. They will support allowing them to do business and operate their courts as they have for almost 500 years. Mr. Chairman, I have sat on this floor and listened to the arguments of my colleagues on the other side of this issue. I have heard many distinguished Members of this body argue, some passionately, some angrily, that by supporting this bill they are protecting the people of Puerto Rico. They say that we must allow self-determination for Puerto Rico because they respect our culture, our history and our right to control our destiny. I have argued that this bill does not provide self-determination, but I will accept that the supporters of this bill think they are promoting the wishes of the people of Puerto Rico. Well, if that is the case, they will have to make their argument in Spanish because the majority of the people of Puerto Rico do not speak English. And why should they? The fact is that our culture, our history, our essence is rooted in the Spanish language. More than that, it is the language of the legal system, the Commonwealth Government and all non-Federal official business. If the supporters of this bill really respect the people of Puerto Rico, they will support this amendment which makes Spanish the official language of Puerto Rico.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day for the people of Puerto Rico, but it is a more important day for the democratic process. This afternoon the House of Representatives will debate H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act. This bill sets up a plebiscite that will determine the future status of Puerto Rico. The American people should know that this bill was designed to guarantee statehood for Puerto Rico because it was written by the party that supports statehood. I will say this again. If H.R. 856 becomes law, Puerto Rico will be the 51st State, whether or not the people of Puerto Rico want it to be. H.R. 856 is not the result of a democratic process. By defeating this bill, we will be sending a message that we truly honor the idea of self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico. I urge my colleagues not to be fooled by the arguments of the other side. A vote for H.R. 856 is a vote for statehood, not a vote for self-determination.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the road to the ballot box for women and minorities has never been easy. Now, Republicans want to begin a new and tragic chapter in our country's voting rights history. Mr. Speaker, I was born in this country. As a Puerto Rican, I am just as American as anyone from Massachusetts or Virginia. Yet, the Horn bill could easily deny me the right to vote. The simple fact is that H.R. 1428 gives election officials too much power to rely on INS data to bar people from voting. As natural born citizens, millions of Puerto Ricans with no record at INS could unfairly be stopped at the ballot box. This is wrong, pure and simple. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues that the only purpose for this hostile legislation is to torment citizens. If we silent the voices of any Americans, we destroy our democracy. I urge my colleagues to defeat this voter suppression bill.

Mr. VELAZQUEZ

Mr. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the marvelous work of the Institute for Community Living, on the occasion of its 11th anniversary. For over a decade, the Institute for Community Living has helped people with mental and developmental disabilities to function successfully in different living, learning, working, and social environments. Through its operation of housing, rehabilitation and support services, it has helped improve the quality of life for countless mentally and developmentally disabled adults at various stages of the rehabilitation process. ICL is a participating agency of the United Way of Greater New York and a member agency of the Association for Community Living and the Coalition of Voluntary Mental Health providers. ICL has also been recognized nationally for its success--its recent accolades include the Hospital and Community Psychiatry Significant Achievement Award and the National Center for Disability Services Exemplary Program Award. The Institute for Community Living has succeeded in providing an array of secure, community-based residential programs in which mentally disabled people can pursue their own rehabilitation plan. By making it possible for these individuals to live a life of independence and dignity, ICL serves as a shining example of service to the mentally and developmentally disabled community. I urge my colleagues to join me in commending the Institute for Community Living and in extending our best wishes for its continued success.